you have 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. - anything say to her? miss matthews was one who dealt with that. if - 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, - 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 - 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 inquiry. i was there on the day of the interview but any pre—or post—work would have been by the person in charge of the inquiry. i5 person in charge of the inquiry. is a you had nothing to do with endorsing the content of the report? no. , ., endorsing the content of the report? no. , . , ., , no. diane matthews told the inquiry that she was — no. diane matthews told the inquiry that she was shocked _ no. diane matthews told the inquiry that she was shocked when - no. diane matthews told the inquiry that she was shocked when janet . that she was shocked when janet skinner was charged with theft. where you? this skinner was charged with theft. where you?— skinner was charged with theft. where ou? a , where you? as i say, miss matthews is the one who _ where you? as i say, miss matthews is the one who sourced _ where you? as i say, miss matthews is the one who sourced it. _ where you? as i say, miss matthews is the one who sourced it. i - where you? as i say, miss matthews is the one who sourced it. ijust - is the one who sourced it. ijust accept whatever. .. is the one who sourced it. i 'ust accept whatever. . .i is the one who sourced it. i 'ust accept whatever... you accept all the lawyers _ accept whatever... you accept all the lawyers do. _ accept whatever... you accept all the lawyers do, do _ accept whatever... you accept all the lawyers do, do you? - accept whatever... you accept all the lawyers do, do you? on - accept whatever... you accept all the lawyers do, do you? on that| the lawyers do, do you? on that articular the lawyers do, do you? on that particular case. _ the lawyers do, do you? on that particular case, miss _ the lawyers do, do you? on that particular case, miss matthews. particular case, miss matthews looked after that case. i had very little input, even afterwards. any charges would have only come if miss matthews had told us. juliet mcfarlane — matthews had told us. juliet mcfarlane has _ matthews had told us. juliet mcfarlane has been - matthews had told us. juliet mcfarlane has been described to this inquiry as a dental person, would you agree?— inquiry as a dental person, would you agree? yes. say where you are able to

you agree? yes say where you are able to persuade her you agree? 123 say where you are able to persuade her to do things? no. ., , ., , , able to persuade her to do things? no. .,, ., ,, , able to persuade her to do things? no. .,, ., ,, no. theft does not miss matthews out with that inquiry- _ no. theft does not miss matthews out with that inquiry. did _ no. theft does not miss matthews out with that inquiry. did you _ no. theft does not miss matthews out with that inquiry. did you press - with that inquiry. did you press juliet mcfarlane to charge theft? know because i had little impact in that inquiry. 50 know because i had little impact in that inquiry-— know because i had little impact in that inquiry. so this gentle person, charues that inquiry. so this gentle person, charges theft. _ that inquiry. so this gentle person, charges theft, contrary _ that inquiry. so this gentle person, charges theft, contrary to - that inquiry. so this gentle person, charges theft, contrary to the - that inquiry. so this gentle person, charges theft, contrary to the view| charges theft, contrary to the view of the investigating officer who has complete responsibility, according to you, for this investigation and that decision on theft has nothing to do with you, you say.— to do with you, you say. nothing whatsoever. _ to do with you, you say. nothing whatsoever. i— to do with you, you say. nothing whatsoever. iwill_ to do with you, you say. nothing whatsoever. i will suggest - to do with you, you say. nothing whatsoever. i will suggest that l to do with you, you say. nothing i whatsoever. i will suggest that you have a responsibility _ whatsoever. i will suggest that you have a responsibility it _ whatsoever. i will suggest that you have a responsibility it was, - whatsoever. i will suggest that you have a responsibility it was, theft l have a responsibility it was, theft was —— he weather's responsibility it was —— whoever�*s response but that it was... i

it was -- whoever's response but that it was. . .— that it was... i had nothing to do with the inquiry. _ that it was... i had nothing to do with the inquiry. you _ that it was... i had nothing to do with the inquiry. you need - that it was... i had nothing to do with the inquiry. you need from | that it was... i had nothing to do | with the inquiry. you need from a oint of with the inquiry. you need from a point of view _ with the inquiry. you need from a point of view of _ with the inquiry. you need from a point of view of your _ with the inquiry. you need from a point of view of your long - with the inquiry. you need from a point of view of your long service | point of view of your long service —— you knew and your reputation in the security department that that was a legitimate ploy, charge theft, a bankrupt charge of theft to squeeze a plate of false accounting. you are aware of that, weren't you? thank you very much. is it you are aware of that, weren't you? thank you very much.— thank you very much. is it going to be mr maloney _ thank you very much. is it going to be mr maloney or— thank you very much. is it going to be mr maloney or mr _ thank you very much. is it going to be mr maloney or mrjacobs? - thank you very much. is it going to be mr maloney or mrjacobs? sign | be mr maloney or mrjacobs? sign that i be mr maloney or mrjacobs? sign that i think _ be mr maloney or mrjacobs? fa gs that i think everyone be mr maloney or mrjacobs? s gs that i think everyone will want to hear you, that i think everyone will want to hearyou, mrjacobs. mr bradshaw, i represent 136 sub—postmaster is and

mistresses, one of home states to my left today. this morning, mr blake takes you to the statement of jaclyn mcdonald given in the mediation case. do you recall that? yes. essentially. — case. do you recall that? yes. essentially, the _ case. do you recall that? yes. essentially, the accusations i case. do you recall that? yes. i essentially, the accusations that miss mcdonald made against you, she said stephen george told me i was the only one in this position and that this has never happened before —— stephen bradshaw. she said that she returned with a lady called caroline richards and spoke to who was running the branch and made threats to do with wage reductions and jail time. threats to do with wage reductions and jailtime. is threats to do with wage reductions and jail time-— and “ail time. is incorrect because we and jail time. is incorrect because we were going — and jail time. is incorrect because we were going for _ and jail time. is incorrect because we were going for a _ and jail time. is incorrect because we were going for a statement. we were going for a statement because she worked in the branch, the people running the branch where

a firm who were responsible for paying the wages. i had no control to take any wages or deduct any money. and i couldn't threaten her with any jail. money. and i couldn't threaten her with any jail-— with any jail. how do you been followin: with any jail. how do you been following this _ with any jail. how do you been following this inquiry? - with any jail. how do you been following this inquiry? did - with any jail. how do you been following this inquiry? did you j following this inquiry? did you watch this oppose masters and mistresses and assistants give evidence in human impacts hearing between february and march? i haste between february and march? i have seen some of— between february and march? i have seen some of them. _ between february and march? i have seen some of them. we _ between february and march? i have seen some of them. we act - between february and march? i have seen some of them. we act for - between february and march? i have seen some of them. we act for 156 l seen some of them. we act for 156 sub- postmaster _ seen some of them. we act for 156 sub- postmaster is _ seen some of them. we act for 156 sub-postmaster is and _ seen some of them. we act for 156 sub-postmaster is and of- seen some of them. we act for 156 sub-postmaster is and of those, i seen some of them. we act for 156| sub-postmaster is and of those, 49 sub—postmaster is and of those, 49 of them have told us that they were told by the post office, by investigators like yourself and other officials, but they were the only one. 49. 61 of our clients have told us that they were threatened with prosecution. my question is you —— to you is what mrs mcdonnell says about you is pretty standard practice.

about you is pretty standard ractice. ., . about you is pretty standard ractice. . , ., , practice. that is what it sounds like but... _ practice. that is what it sounds like but. . . , just _ practice. that is what it sounds like but. . . , just go _ practice. that is what it sounds like but..., just go back, - practice. that is what it sounds like but..., just go back, i- practice. that is what it sounds| like but..., just go back, i have never threatened anyone with prosecution. at the end of the interview, the people being interviewed are informed of the next course of action or next steps and thatis course of action or next steps and that is that whoever is the lead investigator would do a report and they would be set off to the criminal law team and they would make any decisions on the next steps. i make any decisions on the next ste s. .., . make any decisions on the next ste s. .. , ., make any decisions on the next stes. , ., make any decisions on the next stes. , . . steps. i can see what you are sa int , steps. i can see what you are saying, that _ steps. i can see what you are saying, that the _ steps. i can see what you are saying, that the decision - steps. i can see what you are saying, that the decision to l saying, that the decision to prosecute wasn't necessarily made by investigators, it was made by the lawyers. do you accept that telling postmasters that they are the only one, and we have 49 clients who say thatis one, and we have 49 clients who say that is what they were called, and telling sub—postmasters that they could be prosecuted or go to prison, we have 61 clients who have said thatis we have 61 clients who have said that is how they were treated, that was pretty typical, wasn't it? if

people in the post office, investigators have said that, it is completely wrong. i have never said that the people, that they are the only one. ii i that the people, that they are the onl one. . ., that the people, that they are the onl one. _, ., ,~' that the people, that they are the onl one. _, ., ., that the people, that they are the onl one. ., ., ., only one. if i could ask to have a document _ only one. if i could ask to have a document put — only one. if i could ask to have a document put up _ only one. if i could ask to have a document put up on _ only one. if i could ask to have a document put up on screen. - only one. if i could ask to have a document put up on screen. it i only one. if i could ask to have a document put up on screen. it is only one. if i could ask to have a - document put up on screen. it is the statement that while we are waiting that come up on screen, miss siddique was the sub—postmistress of two branches in newcastle. she had to pay shortfalls which were not due to be paid but she did anyway. the post office demanded a further £20,000. she was then a victim of cyber fraud and the post office wanted to recover nearly £34,000 from her after an audit. the cyberfraud had also £34,000 from her after an audit. the cyber fraud had also affected 11 other branches but she wasn't told

about that at the time. do you recall that case? i about that at the time. do you recall that case?— about that at the time. do you recall that case? i am not sure about cyber — recall that case? i am not sure about cyber fraud. _ recall that case? i am not sure about cyber fraud. i _ recall that case? i am not sure about cyber fraud. i do - recall that case? i am not sure i about cyber fraud. i do remember recall that case? i am not sure - about cyber fraud. i do remember a about cyberfraud. i do remember a case of money gram fraud and that was when an engineer, probably the best way to describe it, was phoning the branches up saying they would come to test the equipment. many were saying, that hasn't worked, try 20,000, try 30,000. that was the case dealt with by money gram. lets to to miss case dealt with by money gram. lets go to miss siddique's statement. paragraph 72, she said after losing my post office, my children and i were abused in the street. i was nearly in my home when a group of men were shouting at me and threatening me and calling me a thief. they through, eggs, flour and stones at me and my children. she goes to say, on the evening of that

day, my children, we flared my home with just my children's teddy bears. if we can go to paragraph 82. she says, i have received threatening calls to my mobile phone and e—mails from stephen bradshaw and brian trotter. mr bradshaw was a post of a security officer and mr trotter was a place of his contracts manager. she goes on to say, i have received particularly intimidating telephone calls from stephen bradshaw he began calling me before i knew he worked for the post office. he didn't identify himself. what i want to put you is, he would introduce herself sometimes, you would say, where has the money gone? why won't you talk to me? why won't you meet me at the branch? i have got people you want to defund the branch. she would find aggressive and hang up on you, you

would call her back repeatedly and he called her over 60 times during this period. is that right to market you recall that? i this period. is that right to market you recall that?— this period. is that right to market you recall that? i wouldn't say that is completely _ you recall that? i wouldn't say that is completely accurate. _ you recall that? i wouldn't say that is completely accurate. the - you recall that? i wouldn't say that is completely accurate. the two i is completely accurate. the two audits, one took place on the 26th of october command a place between seventh october. i called her on the 4th of october, saying who i am, leaving my mobile number. i called her again on the eighth. on the 10th of november, she called me because i sent her an e—mail later on with the words, our telephone conversations, i explained who i was and i was arranging a time or place as per what my contract was, as a role to do an interview.— do an interview. that's not true. you hounded — do an interview. that's not true. you hounded her, _ do an interview. that's not true. you hounded her, didn't - do an interview. that's not true. you hounded her, didn't you? i do an interview. that's not true. - you hounded her, didn't you? knowl didn't. you hounded her, didn't you? knowl didn't- let's — you hounded her, didn't you? knowl didn't- let's go _ you hounded her, didn't you? knowl didn't. let's go to _ you hounded her, didn't you? knowl didn't. let's go to paragraph - you hounded her, didn't you? knowl didn't. let's go to paragraph 84. - didn't. let's go to paragraph 84. this is what _

didn't. let's go to paragraph 84. this is what happened, - didn't. let's go to paragraph 84. this is what happened, and - didn't. let's go to paragraph 84. this is what happened, and the l didn't. let's go to paragraph 84. - this is what happened, and the 29th of november 2016 at 1334, stephen bradshaw called me and i refuse to speak to him because i didn't know who he was. and a telephone call, he called me... who he was. and a telephone call, he called me- - -— called me... completely untrue, i don't kill anyone _ called me... completely untrue, i don't kill anyone that _ called me... completely untrue, i don't kill anyone that type - called me... completely untrue, i don't kill anyone that type of - called me... completely untrue, i. don't kill anyone that type of name. she did know who i was because she —— call anyone that type of name. you tell people and interviews to get up earlier, other people have described is very do you accept that it was part of the culture of the investigation team to intimidate and abuse sub—postmasters? ida. it and abuse sub-postmasters? no. it would be arrange _ and abuse sub-postmasters? no. it would be arrange very _ and abuse sub-postmasters? no. it

would be arrange very convenient i would be arrange very convenient time and date.— would be arrange very convenient time and date. another client was the sub-postmistress _ time and date. another client was the sub-postmistress of - time and date. another client was the sub-postmistress of the - time and date. another client was. the sub-postmistress of the branch the sub—postmistress of the branch in liverpool. let's go to another document. while we are waiting for that, i'm going to ask you if you recall her. you're interviews were at liverpool not delivery office on the 10th of march... you recall that? i the 10th of march... you recall that? ., the 10th of march... you recall that?- perhaps _ the 10th of march... you recall that?- perhaps we - the 10th of march... you recall that? i do. perhaps we don't need to to is that that? i fit perhaps we don't need to go is that documentjust that? i fit perhaps we don't need to go is that document just yet. if we go is that documentjust yet. if we could go to their witness statement i am going to ask about the circumstances of the interview. if we go to... page seven of 15, please. if we go to paragraph 46.

just waiting for it to come up now. she says in august 2010, i had to go for an interview under caution with stephen bradshaw. the interview took place at a pace of the sorting office in liverpool. she goes on to say, upon arrival, we asked for a chair i never received one. i ended up chair i never received one. i ended up having to sit down on the stairs. this is a disabled lady who uses a wheelchair. she goes on to say at paragraph 49, the interview room is upstairs. i tell them there was no way i can make it up the stairs. in order to make it to the room, i was placed in a tiny parcel left. do you recall that happening was yellow i recall that happening was yellow i recall her going in a left and that is untrue. it is a royal mail delivery office.— is untrue. it is a royal mail delivery office. the chance of ttettin a delivery office. the chance of getting a chair— delivery office. the chance of getting a chair would - delivery office. the chance of getting a chair would be - delivery office. the chance of getting a chair would be slim| getting a chair would be slim

because you have the office where members of the public faces that it might collect mail. during the interview, they would have been asked to make themselves known to royal mail, either royal mail would have brought them upstairs. we would have brought them upstairs. we would have come down to collect her but it wasn't a small parcel left, it is a natural left, designated wheelchair lift, it takes five people. she natural left, designated wheelchair lift, it takes five people.— lift, it takes five people. she is still shaken _ lift, it takes five people. she is still shaken by _ lift, it takes five people. she is still shaken by this _ lift, it takes five people. she is still shaken by this experience. lift, it takes five people. she is - still shaken by this experience. she is watching today, she suffers from crippling anxiety and depression, which arises in large part from the way he treated her. she was too traumatised to give evidence for this inquiry. and this was read out on the 23rd of february 2022. the

post office has not challenged this account. mr bradshaw, this happened, whether you want to admit it or not, this happened. i whether you want to admit it or not, this happened-— this happened. i can prove it to you that is not a — this happened. i can prove it to you that is not a small _ this happened. i can prove it to you that is not a small parcel _ this happened. i can prove it to you that is not a small parcel left. - that is not a small parcel left. with the post office put a disabled person in a small parcel left to attend an interview that had been arranged on a floor that they can access today, is that current practice?— access today, is that current ractice? ., ., practice? prior to the interview, i was not made — practice? prior to the interview, i was not made aware _ practice? prior to the interview, i was not made aware of _ practice? prior to the interview, i was not made aware of any - practice? prior to the interview, i l was not made aware of any special requirements. i can only keep repeating that it is not a small parcel lift. i can prove that you now, if you wish. i parcel lift. i can prove that you now, if you wish.— parcel lift. i can prove that you now, if you wish. i can say that you are not telling _ now, if you wish. i can say that you are not telling the _ now, if you wish. i can say that you are not telling the truth. _ now, if you wish. i can say that you are not telling the truth. i - now, if you wish. i can say that you are not telling the truth. i have - now, if you wish. i can say that you are not telling the truth. i have a i are not telling the truth. i have a photograph _ are not telling the truth. i have a photograph that _ are not telling the truth. i have a photograph that shows _ are not telling the truth. i have a photograph that shows the - are not telling the truth. i have a photograph that shows the lift. l are not telling the truth. i have a i photograph that shows the lift. sign that you have had a generous ten minutes. sign that i have to be

evenhanded amongst everyone. flan i evenhanded amongst everyone. can i ask ou to evenhanded amongst everyone. can i ask you to come _ evenhanded amongst everyone. can i ask you to come to _ evenhanded amongst everyone. can i ask you to come to a _ evenhanded amongst everyone. can i ask you to come to a close? - evenhanded amongst everyone. can i ask you to come to a close? i - evenhanded amongst everyone. can i ask you to come to a close? i have i ask you to come to a close? i have some very — ask you to come to a close? i have some very brief — ask you to come to a close? i have some very brief questions. - ask you to come to a close? i have some very brief questions. i - some very brief questions. i apologise for going on a little bit longer. i shall be very quick. flan i longer. i shall be very quick. can i 'ust sa , longer. i shall be very quick. can i just say. and _ longer. i shall be very quick. can i just say. and it — longer. i shall be very quick. can i just say, and it is _ longer. i shall be very quick. can i just say, and it is a _ longer. i shall be very quick. can i just say, and it is a matter- longer. i shall be very quick. can i just say, and it is a matter that i just say, and it is a matter that has been — just say, and it is a matter that has been made _ just say, and it is a matter that has been made clear— just say, and it is a matter that. has been made clear throughout just say, and it is a matter that - has been made clear throughout this inquiry— has been made clear throughout this inquiry that— has been made clear throughout this inquiry that evidence _ has been made clear throughout this inquiry that evidence given _ has been made clear throughout this inquiry that evidence given at - has been made clear throughout this inquiry that evidence given at the - inquiry that evidence given at the human— inquiry that evidence given at the human impact— inquiry that evidence given at the human impact hearings— inquiry that evidence given at the human impact hearings has- inquiry that evidence given at the human impact hearings has not. inquiry that evidence given at the - human impact hearings has not been challenged _ human impact hearings has not been challenged because _ human impact hearings has not been challenged because it _ human impact hearings has not been challenged because it doesn't - human impact hearings has not been challenged because it doesn't hold i challenged because it doesn't hold the same — challenged because it doesn't hold the same legal— challenged because it doesn't hold the same legal weight— challenged because it doesn't hold the same legal weight as - challenged because it doesn't hold the same legal weight as perhaps. the same legal weight as perhaps other— the same legal weight as perhaps other evidence. _ the same legal weight as perhaps other evidence. there _ the same legal weight as perhaps other evidence. there was - the same legal weight as perhaps other evidence. there was no - the same legal weight as perhaps. other evidence. there was no need for anyone — other evidence. there was no need for anyone to — other evidence. there was no need for anyone to challenge. _ other evidence. there was no need for anyone to challenge.— other evidence. there was no need for anyone to challenge. although it is cuttin: for anyone to challenge. although it is cutting into _ for anyone to challenge. although it is cutting into your _ for anyone to challenge. although it is cutting into your three _ for anyone to challenge. although it is cutting into your three minutes, l is cutting into your three minutes, mrjacobs. — is cutting into your three minutes, mrjacobs, it would have been impossible for challenges in the proper— impossible for challenges in the proper sense to be made as human impact _ proper sense to be made as human impact evidence. i think we all accept — impact evidence. i think we all accept that. this is not a good trial, — accept that. this is not a good trial, it — accept that. this is not a good trial, it is _ accept that. this is not a good trial, it is an inquiry and i have

to make — trial, it is an inquiry and i have to make up— trial, it is an inquiry and i have to make up my mind —— it is not a trial~ _ to make up my mind —— it is not a trial~ without— to make up my mind —— it is not a trial. without the benefit of adversarial cross—examination as to what _ adversarial cross—examination as to what i _ adversarial cross—examination as to what i need — adversarial cross—examination as to what i need to make findings about because _ what i need to make findings about because obviously, if i tried to make — because obviously, if i tried to make a — because obviously, if i tried to make a finding about what happened in every— make a finding about what happened in every individual case, we would be waiting — in every individual case, we would be waiting for a very long time. | be waiting for a very long time. i do be waiting for a very long time. do have be waiting for a very long time. i do have very firm instructions from my client. i do have very firm instructions from m client. , ., ., do have very firm instructions from m client. , . ., �* , my client. i understand and let's move on- _ my client. i understand and let's move on- if— my client. i understand and let's move on. if we _ my client. i understand and let's move on. if we can _ my client. i understand and let's move on. if we can move - my client. i understand and let's move on. if we can move onto i move on. if we can move onto investigation _ move on. if we can move onto investigation report. - move on. if we can move onto investigation report. page - move on. if we can move onto. investigation report. page eight move on. if we can move onto - investigation report. page eight of nine, please. if we could scroll down to the bottom of that. this is the investigation report in relation to

miss threlfall. you say in that section, page eight. we'll move on tojoan bailey, that is all right. can i ask you to go to... page four and eight. this is your investigation report in relation to joan bailey, he was a sub postmistress. do you recall her? yes. ., ., .,

yes. you say in that document that the... yes. you say in that document that the- -- can — yes. you say in that document that the- -- can we _ yes. you say in that document that the... can we scroll— yes. you say in that document that the... can we scroll down, - yes. you say in that document that the... can we scroll down, please? you say in the document that miss bailey claimed that she had problems with the system. if we go to page five of eight, you say the merits of the horizon system were discussed and it was explained at a number of court cases that the integrity of the item had been questioned but nothing had been proved in court by expert witnesses and any discrepancies were a result of failings in the horizon system. you go on to say at page seven of eight, you go on to say, miss bailey could

not produce evidence to satiate her claim in relation to the horizon system. so what you are doing is looking at are so that can sub postmistress who has alleged that the shortfall that she had what to do with the horizon system. your response to her why that there were a number of court cases where that was rejected. i am not here to investigate that and you can't prove that the system wasn't working. that was your approach, wasn't it? you required the sub postmistress to prove that the system... required the sub postmistress to prove that the system. . .- required the sub postmistress to prove that the system... that's the business response _ prove that the system... that's the business response we _ prove that the system... that's the business response we were - prove that the system... that's the business response we were told . prove that the system... that's the business response we were told to | business response we were told to say. also, to assist me to try and find what issues may be with the horizon system, i would require someone to say, for example, if you press this, that happens. to just

blatantly say it's the system, it's very difficult to see the starting point to see what has gone wrong. can we scroll down to the conclusion, please? i am aware of their time allocation. you give conclusions and you say, whilst the case for false accounting could be established against miss bailey, when all circumstances are considered and that information given by miss bailey, then consideration may be going to a caution in this incident. say what you are saying, effectively, you take into account all the circumstances to the fact she had alleged there were problems with the horizon system but she can improve it, and he didn't investigate whether there was a problem with horizon and he went to offer, she was offered a caution, simply because he thought she may offer to pay the money back?—

because he thought she may offer to pay the money back? know, that was ut in as pay the money back? know, that was put in as an — pay the money back? know, that was put in as an opinion _ pay the money back? know, that was put in as an opinion to _ pay the money back? know, that was put in as an opinion to the _ pay the money back? know, that was put in as an opinion to the lawyers. i put in as an opinion to the lawyers. she comes up a lot, that can't be denied. i she comes up a lot, that can't be denied. ., ., ,., denied. i have got the point in the document- — denied. i have got the point in the document. thank _ denied. i have got the point in the document. thank you, _ denied. i have got the point in the document. thank you, mr - denied. i have got the point in the document. thank you, mrjacobs. | denied. i have got the point in the i document. thank you, mrjacobs. mr maloney _ document. thank you, mrjacobs. mr maloney |_ document. thank you, mrjacobs. mr malone . . . ., 1 document. thank you, mrjacobs. mr malone . , , . ~ ,': document. thank you, mrjacobs. mr malone. ,, ,~,, maloney. i speak the 73 suppose masters. maloney. i speak the 73 suppose masters- i _ maloney. i speak the 73 suppose masters. i would _ maloney. i speak the 73 suppose masters. i would ask— maloney. i speak the 73 suppose masters. i would ask you - maloney. i speak the 73 suppose masters. i would ask you about i maloney. i speak the 73 suppose i masters. i would ask you about three people. —— suppose masters. —— sub—postmaster. this morning, mr blake asked you about the issue of whether suppose masters who came after mr ishaq, after he was suspended, express problem with the horizon system. mr blake take you to a number of documents, i remind you

of the substance of the questions. essentially, ultimately, a notice of additional evidence was served on the 15 february 2013 and that was referred to in a letter from mr smith to the defence saying, we enclose typical copies of a notice of evidence, the statement of stephen bradshaw. mr patel was a sub—postmaster who came after mr ishaq. sub-postmaster who came after mr ishat. . sub-postmaster who came after mr ishaq-- you _ sub—postmaster who came after mr ishaq. yes. you said that statement had been ishaq. 123 you said that statement had been taken from both suppose masters and the other statement could have been earlierfrom masters and the other statement could have been earlier from a masters and the other statement could have been earlierfrom a man called leah cot. i do could have been earlier from a man called leah cot.— called leah cot. i do recall that name. called leah cot. i do recall that name- the _ called leah cot. i do recall that name. the opening _ called leah cot. i do recall that name. the opening night i called leah cot. i do recall that name. the opening night for i called leah cot. i do recall that. name. the opening night for the called leah cot. i do recall that- name. the opening night for the case only referred — name. the opening night for the case only referred to _ name. the opening night for the case only referred to mr _ name. the opening night for the case only referred to mr patel. _ name. the opening night for the case only referred to mr patel. i _ name. the opening night for the case only referred to mr patel. i am i only referred to mr patel. i am going to try to assist in memory as to who took over after mr ishaq.

there was a leah cot who featured in the case and he did make a statement but he was mr ishaq's assistant in the post office.— but he was mr ishaq's assistant in the post office._ it| the post office. that is correct. it wasn't a subsequent _ the post office. that is correct. it i wasn't a subsequent sub-postmaster. wasn't a subsequent sub—postmaster. the postmaster was mr patel. i think he put mr leah cot as the officer in charge. he put mr leah cot as the officer in charte. he put mr leah cot as the officer in chart e. ., he put mr leah cot as the officer in charte. ., ., , charge. there are two suppose masters. _ charge. there are two suppose masters, went _ charge. there are two suppose masters, went there? - charge. there are two suppose masters, went there? i- charge. there are two suppose masters, went there? i don't l charge. there are two suppose i masters, went there? i don't want to take time on this but in an e—mail at mr blake shady from mr smith to you and counsel mr kane, ed said steve is in the process of taking statements from the two subsequent suppose masters who had not experienced any problems with the horizon system. you thought that he was a subsequent postmaster. i am just going to set your memory as the subsequent suppose masters. the

first, there was someone for very short time called mary, whose surname i don't have, then mr patel and then the second is a postmaster was a mr mohammed sarwar. did you speak to him? was a mr mohammed sarwar. did you speakto him?— speak to him? shortly after that. in 2014. speak to him? shortly after that. in 2014- between _ speak to him? shortly after that. in 2014. between mr— speak to him? shortly after that. in 2014. between mr ishaq's - speak to him? shortly after that. in i 2014. between mr ishaq's suspension and the trial- — 2014. between mr ishaq's suspension and the trial. did _ 2014. between mr ishaq's suspension and the trial. did you _ 2014. between mr ishaq's suspension and the trial. did you speak— 2014. between mr ishaq's suspension and the trial. did you speak to - 2014. between mr ishaq's suspension and the trial. did you speak to a i 2014. between mr ishaq's suspension and the trial. did you speak to a mr. and the trial. did you speak to a mr mohammed sarwar between his suspension and the trial? i don't recall. suspension and the trial? i don't recall- my _ suspension and the trial? i don't recall- my only _ suspension and the trial? i don't recall. my only recollection i suspension and the trial? i don't recall. my only recollection is i suspension and the trial? i don't i recall. my only recollection is that mr patel was there sub—postmaster. that he took over. mr patel was still in charge, as far as i'm aware, when i went off long—term sick. aware, when i went off long-term sick. �* aware, when i went off long-term sick. : ., , , .,

sick. ok. and i would suggest to you that all of the _ sick. ok. and i would suggest to you that all of the e-mail _ sick. ok. and i would suggest to you that all of the e-mail suggest - sick. ok. and i would suggest to you that all of the e-mail suggest that i that all of the e—mail suggest that there were two interim sub—postmaster is, mr patel first and then mr sarwar but he did not speak to mr sarwar. i do and then mr sarwar but he did not speak to mr sarwar.— and then mr sarwar but he did not speak to mr sarwar. i do not recall s-teakin speak to mr sarwar. i do not recall speaking to _ speak to mr sarwar. i do not recall speaking to a _ speak to mr sarwar. i do not recall speaking to a mr _ speak to mr sarwar. i do not recall speaking to a mr sarwar. - speak to mr sarwar. i do not recall speaking to a mr sarwar. you i speak to mr sarwar. i do not recall speaking to a mr sarwar. you are. speak to mr sarwar. i do not recall. speaking to a mr sarwar. you are to robinson, speaking to a mr sarwar. you are to robinson. she _ speaking to a mr sarwar. you are to robinson, she is _ speaking to a mr sarwar. you are to robinson, she is next _ speaking to a mr sarwar. you are to robinson, she is next to _ speaking to a mr sarwar. you are to robinson, she is next to me - speaking to a mr sarwar. you are to robinson, she is next to me now. i| robinson, she is next to me now. i remember mrs robinson. i did interview mrs robinson. i'm sure the person i interviewed with was michael standby. they were back to mr robinson —— mrs robinson's of the dress. —— old address. ido mr robinson -- mrs robinson's of the dress. -- old address.— dress. -- old address. do you recall mr ryan? — dress. -- old address. do you recall mr ryan? it — dress. -- old address. do you recall mr ryan? it is _ dress. -- old address. do you recall mr ryan? it is kevin _

dress. -- old address. do you recall mr ryan? it is kevin ryan, - dress. -- old address. do you recall mr ryan? it is kevin ryan, the i mr ryan? it is kevin ryan, the security--- _ mr ryan? it is kevin ryan, the security... he _ mr ryan? it is kevin ryan, the security... he went _ mr ryan? it is kevin ryan, the security. .. he went back- mr ryan? it is kevin ryan, the security... he went back with l mr ryan? it is kevin ryan, the i security... he went back with mr wise to conduct a search at the old address. it wise to conduct a search at the old address. ., . ., ., wise to conduct a search at the old address. . , ., ., ., a, address. it was at a royal mail offers at salford _ address. it was at a royal mail offers at salford where - address. it was at a royal mail offers at salford where you i offers at salford where you interviewed mrs robinson? it offers at salford where you interviewed mrs robinson? it was a ost office interviewed mrs robinson? it was a post office in _ interviewed mrs robinson? it was a post office in salford _ interviewed mrs robinson? it was a post office in salford quays. - interviewed mrs robinson? it was a post office in salford quays. when i post office in salford quays. when ou post office in salford quays. when you interviewed _ post office in salford quays. when you interviewed her, _ post office in salford quays. when you interviewed her, mrs - post office in salford quays. when you interviewed her, mrs robinson said that the losses has started about two years before. she stated that her and her partner initially made up the losses from their own funds but this became unsustainable. around august or september 2010, she instead declared the amount from the car son of the accounts. she said that any errors or deficiencies or as a result of her difficulties in using horizon. ijust want to as a result of her difficulties in using horizon. i just want to ask you one thing about events after the interview. after the interview, you spoke to miss robinson and her partner michael within that building. in a canteen, where there

is no one else around. but you are synthetic to ms robinson and he said to her and her partner, off the record, we know you haven't taken the money but worse case scenario is that you would prosecuted. i wouldn't say anything like that because it is not my decision. mrs jact ueline because it is not my decision. mrs jacqueline macdonald. i would like to take you to the self appraisal form. that is... it is document that mr blake take you to this morning. mr blake take you to page five and ask about the interest of the building. iwant ask about the interest of the building. i want to ask about page nine. and it's where we see, i

support, develop and challenge. thank you very much. and at number two, it reads as follows... on the 5th ofjuly 2010 at the court case, and the references given, i challenge their reasoning for accepting only guilty plea for false accounting and not one for theft. this refers back to the same case that mr blake was asking about this morning. i'd expend the reasons for continuing the trial that theft. the defendant denied theft and the money was missing due to the horizon system. if this was accepted, then this argument would give credence to the current campaign by former suppose masters. you are very explicit there about your motives in seeking to ensure that no credence was given to the postmasters campaign, where due? ido.

was given to the postmasters campaign, where due?- was given to the postmasters campaign, where due? no, i explained earlier... campaign, where due? no, i explained earlier- -- a _ campaign, where due? no, i explained earlier... a flamboyant _ campaign, where due? no, i explained earlier... a flamboyant way _ campaign, where due? no, i explained earlier... a flamboyant way of - earlier... a flamboyant way of explaining? — earlier... a flamboyant way of explaining? yes. _ earlier... a flamboyant way of explaining? yes. it _ earlier... a flamboyant way of explaining? yes. it can't i earlier... a flamboyant way of explaining? yes. it can't be, l earlier... a flamboyant way of i explaining? yes. it can't be, can it? because _ explaining? yes. it can't be, can it? because that _ explaining? yes. it can't be, can it? because that is _ explaining? yes. it can't be, can it? because that is a _ explaining? 123 it can't be, can it? because that is a motivation, it is not a fact. it is clear from the document that ensuring that no credence was given to the former suppose masters campaign, is something you're proud of, isn't it? i wasn't. it was a way of pitting one to one type notes. jacqueline macdonald was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment aged 47 after having no option but to plead guilty to theft after her offer to plead guilty to false accounting was

refused on, essentially, the decision