months and i had a suspended three months and i had a suspended sentence for 12 months. i three months and i had a suspended sentence for 12 months.— sentence for12 months. i have carried the _ sentence for12 months. i have carried the show— sentence for12 months. i have carried the show in _ sentence for12 months. i have carried the show in another- sentence for 12 months. i have - carried the show in another sense, i refuse to carry out any longer. —— i have carried this shame. i refuse to carry out any longer. -- i have carried this shame.— refuse to carry out any longer. -- i have carried this shame. i am janet skinner, i worked _ have carried this shame. i am janet skinner, i worked for— have carried this shame. i am janet skinner, i worked for the _ have carried this shame. i am janet skinner, i worked for the post - skinner, i worked for the post office — skinner, i worked for the post office from 1994 until i was suspended in 2006 for a shortfall of £59,000 _ suspended in 2006 for a shortfall of £59,000 i— suspended in 2006 for a shortfall of £59,000. i was given a nine month custodial_ £59,000. i was given a nine month custodial sentence, served three months — custodial sentence, served three months in — custodial sentence, served three months in prison and the rest on home _ months in prison and the rest on home curfew. it has affected everything in my life going forward for the _ everything in my life going forward for the past 16 years. | everything in my life going forward for the past 16 years. i am everything in my life going forward for the past 16 years.— for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- | for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here _ for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here on _ for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here on behalf— for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here on behalf of- for the past 16 years. i am behalf -- i am here on behalf of my - for the past 16 years. i am behalf. -- i am here on behalf of my father —— i am here on behalf of my father who was_ —— i am here on behalf of my father who was wrongly _ —— i am here on behalf of my father who was wrongly prosecuted - —— i am here on behalf of my father who was wrongly prosecuted by- —— i am here on behalf of my fatherl who was wrongly prosecuted by post office _ who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited — who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited in _ who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited in 2011 _ who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited in 2011 and _ who was wrongly prosecuted by post office limited in 2011 and his- office limited in 2011 and his heatth— office limited in 2011 and his health is— office limited in 2011 and his health is completely - office limited in 2011 and his. health is completely shattered, office limited in 2011 and his- health is completely shattered, it will only— health is completely shattered, it will only get — health is completely shattered, it will only get worse _ health is completely shattered, it will only get worse and _ health is completely shattered, it will only get worse and he - health is completely shattered, it will only get worse and he is - health is completely shattered, it will only get worse and he is not. will only get worse and he is not here _ will only get worse and he is not here to — will only get worse and he is not here to receive _ will only get worse and he is not here to receive compensation. l

will only get worse and he is not. here to receive compensation. let’s here to receive compensation. let's take ou here to receive compensation. let's take you live _ here to receive compensation. let's take you live to _ here to receive compensation. let's take you live to the _ here to receive compensation. lilith; take you live to the committee asking questions of those... first of all, i believe, from sub—postmasters. i of all, i believe, from sub-postmasters. i am james arbuthnot. — sub-postmasters. i am james arbuthnot, i— sub-postmasters. i am james arbuthnot, i was _ sub-postmasters. i am james arbuthnot, i was the - sub-postmasters. i am james arbuthnot, i was the mp - sub-postmasters. i am james arbuthnot, i was the mp for l sub-postmasters. i am james| arbuthnot, i was the mp forjo arbuthnot, i was the mp forjo hamilton when i was the mp for north east hampshire, and i am a member of the horizon compensation advisory board. mi; the horizon compensation advisory board. y . the horizon compensation advisory board. g ., , ., ., �* ., board. my name is neil ho'o, i'm a solicitor representing _ board. my name is neil ho'o, i'm a solicitor representing 77 h board. my name is neil hojo, i'm a solicitor representing 77 convicted l solicitor representing 77 convicted sub—postmasters, 150 affected by the horizon _ sub—postmasters, 150 affected by the horizon shortfall scheme, another potentially 200, so about 400 people affected _ potentially 200, so about 400 people affected directly by the post office scandal _ affected directly by the post office scandal. ., ~ , ., affected directly by the post office scandal. ., �* , ., scandal. lord arbuthnot, ifi may start with you. — scandal. lord arbuthnot, ifi may start with you, we _ scandal. lord arbuthnot, ifi may start with you, we have - scandal. lord arbuthnot, ifi may start with you, we have had - scandal. lord arbuthnot, ifi may start with you, we have had a - scandal. lord arbuthnot, if i mayl start with you, we have had a very high profile drama and the promise of emergency legislation, what do

you think that emergency legislation needs to include if we are to go to real justice for the sub—postmasters? realjustice for the sub-postmasters? realjustice for the sub- ostmasters? ., ., sub-postmasters? the horizon compensation _ sub-postmasters? the horizon compensation advisory - sub-postmasters? the horizon compensation advisory board i compensation advisory board recognise that one of the major blocking is of getting people compensation was the fact that of the 900 plus convictions of sub—postmasters over the years, over 95 of those convictions had been overturned. all the rest were not able to claim any compensation. so the first thing that needs to be done, this is a maths problem that the british legal system has never had to deal with before and it needs a mass solution. the terms of that mass solution and the extent to

which it involves, for example, churches, in overturning these convictions, is a matter yet to be fully hammered out —— involves, for example, judges. the minister has committed, and i entirely trust its commitment, that the government will be working with the horizon compensation advisory board to advise the best terms for something which is frankly uncomfortable for the british constitution, namely to have the legislature taken apart in overturning judicial decisions. that is the third thing, overturning mass numbers of convictions. you held your hand up in order to stop me? a fight after years of delay, dithering and dislocation, what is a reasonable timeframe in your view to finally make sure that everybody is recompensed for what they are owed?

this has gone on for more than 20 years. if we can sort it out by the end of the year, that would be a welcome change. let's hope we can get it sorted out before august, but there is the bill currently with its second reading in the house of lords this afternoon, to extend the time under which compensation can be paid. if i may resume my rant, the first item was overturning convictions, which will not be easy because people are not coming forward. the second item has to be to speed up the payment of compensation or redress, as alan bates would like it to be known, with justice. bates would like it to be known,

withjustice. that bates would like it to be known, with justice. that needs to be done, i think some of the measures the minister announced in parliament last week, we hope that will free up civil servants to allow them to concentrate on getting the money out of the door. it is essential to these people who are living hand to mouth, some of them still bankrupt, that this be paid as soon as possible. i hope it is weeks rather than months, in some cases it will be months, but it must not be the number of years. it should not spill into next year. number of years. it should not spill into next year-— into next year. neil, how many --eole into next year. neil, how many peeple in _ into next year. neil, how many people in your _ into next year. neil, how many people in your understanding l into next year. neil, how many i people in your understanding have received anything? as we have tried to put the picture together from public records, frankly it is impossible to tell how many have had what they are due?— what they are due? there is a lot of movin: what they are due? there is a lot of moving parts _ what they are due? there is a lot of moving parts and — what they are due? there is a lot of moving parts and obviously - what they are due? there is a lot of| moving parts and obviously different schemes _ moving parts and obviously different schemes produce different outcomes. it is

schemes produce different outcomes. it is my— schemes produce different outcomes. it is my understanding and rough numbers— it is my understanding and rough numbers from the historical shortfall— numbers from the historical shortfall scheme that the majority of the _ shortfall scheme that the majority of the original applicants have been paid out _ of the original applicants have been paid out. there is a significant issue — paid out. there is a significant issue in— paid out. there is a significant issue in that most of those were paid out— issue in that most of those were paid out without the benefit of legal _ paid out without the benefit of legal advice, paid out without the benefit of legaladvice, it paid out without the benefit of legal advice, it is something that exercises — legal advice, it is something that exercises us greatly but it is one of those — exercises us greatly but it is one of those things where there is so much _ of those things where there is so much to— of those things where there is so much to go— of those things where there is so much to go on, what do you privatise? _ much to go on, what do you privatise? within the convicted cohorts — privatise? within the convicted cohorts of clients, over the 73, three _ cohorts of clients, over the 73, three have _ cohorts of clients, over the 73, three have been fully paid out. three?! — three have been fully paid out. three?! , ., , ., , , three?! yes, and it is a slightly movin: three?! yes, and it is a slightly moving number— three?! yes, and it is a slightly moving number that _ three?! yes, and it is a slightly moving number that between i three?! yes, and it is a slightly| moving number that between 28 three?! yes, and it is a slightly - moving number that between 28 and 30 have accepted the fixed £600,000 per person _ have accepted the fixed £600,000 per person. most of the others have had some _ person. most of the others have had some form _ person. most of the others have had some form of interim compensation but not _ some form of interim compensation but not a _ some form of interim compensation but not a final conclusion. let some form of interim compensation but not a final conclusion.— but not a final conclusion. let me check this, _ but not a final conclusion. let me check this, years _ but not a final conclusion. let me check this, years after _ but not a final conclusion. let me check this, years after the - but not a final conclusion. let me check this, years after the key . check this, years after the key landmark cases, only three of those convicted have had a full and final

settlement?— settlement? right. i have some insiaht settlement? right. i have some insi . ht as settlement? right. i have some insight as to _ settlement? right. i have some insight as to why _ settlement? right. i have some insight as to why i _ settlement? right. i have some insight as to why i think - settlement? right. i have some insight as to why i think that - settlement? right. i have some insight as to why i think that is i insight as to why i think that is the case — insight as to why i think that is the case. in my mind there are key three _ the case. in my mind there are key three factors — the case. in my mind there are key three factors at play. it sounds perverse — three factors at play. it sounds perverse to say this but i'm not sure _ perverse to say this but i'm not sure that — perverse to say this but i'm not sure that enough resources have been thrown _ sure that enough resources have been thrown at _ sure that enough resources have been thrown at it— sure that enough resources have been thrown at it in terms of the right resourcing — thrown at it in terms of the right resourcing to the right areas. for example. — resourcing to the right areas. for example, routinely with the overturned conviction cases it is taking _ overturned conviction cases it is taking three to four months to get a response _ taking three to four months to get a response to routine correspondence. three _ response to routine correspondence. three to _ response to routine correspondence. three to four months? yes, response to routine correspondence. three to four months?— three to four months? yes, and in the hss it— three to four months? yes, and in the hss it is— three to four months? yes, and in the hss it is taking _ three to four months? yes, and in the hss it is taking six _ three to four months? yes, and in the hss it is taking six months - three to four months? yes, and in the hss it is taking six months to l the hss it is taking six months to -et the hss it is taking six months to get a _ the hss it is taking six months to get a panel decision on small numbers— get a panel decision on small numbers of cases, which is indicative _ numbers of cases, which is indicative to me of not enough people — indicative to me of not enough people sitting on those panels. i edually— people sitting on those panels. i equally think a real big issue, and i equally think a real big issue, and i cannot— equally think a real big issue, and i cannot lift — equally think a real big issue, and i cannot lift the bullet, i can only draw— i cannot lift the bullet, i can only draw conclusions from what i see, but there — draw conclusions from what i see, but there are too many layers of bureaucracy. we have had examples of

situations— bureaucracy. we have had examples of situations where decisions have had to go— situations where decisions have had to go through four layers of decision—making to get an outcome, so we _ decision—making to get an outcome, so we can— decision—making to get an outcome, so we can agree something in principle _ so we can agree something in principle with the post office or lawyers, — principle with the post office or lawyers, it goes through various iterations — lawyers, it goes through various iterations and either comes back morphed — iterations and either comes back morphed in a different form or does not come _ morphed in a different form or does not come back at all. sol morphed in a different form or does not come back at all. so i think building — not come back at all. so i think building on— not come back at all. so i think building on what lord arbuthnot says. _ building on what lord arbuthnot says, given there was a need to streamline _ says, given there was a need to streamline things and produce a quicker— streamline things and produce a quicker process, because i agree, there _ quicker process, because i agree, there is— quicker process, because i agree, there is a — quicker process, because i agree, there is a capability to resolve these — there is a capability to resolve these matters in the course of this year but _ these matters in the course of this year but there is another factor which _ year but there is another factor which comes into play, we need to -ive which comes into play, we need to give the _ which comes into play, we need to give the sub—postmasters the benefit of the _ give the sub—postmasters the benefit of the doubt on key matters. as it stands, _ of the doubt on key matters. as it stands, we — of the doubt on key matters. as it stands, we are faced with requests for information, finite detail in relation — for information, finite detail in relation to things with no

supporting documentation. because of the passage of time or because the sub—postmaster was locked out of the post office _ sub—postmaster was locked out of the post office 15 or 20 years ago and all of— post office 15 or 20 years ago and all of the — post office 15 or 20 years ago and all of the documents are in there, so post _ all of the documents are in there, so post office have held the documents and now people are being held to _ documents and now people are being held to account and things they have no support— held to account and things they have no support for. i think i would say too there — no support for. i think i would say too there are some extreme examples of document requests or information requests _ of document requests or information requests i_ of document requests or information requests. i looked at the post office — requests. i looked at the post office and the spend of £100 billion defending the indefensible, yet i'm being _ defending the indefensible, yet i'm being asked to provide evidence of a client— being asked to provide evidence of a client that _ being asked to provide evidence of a client that has been to probation and spent — client that has been to probation and spent money on 900 p worth of travelling _ and spent money on 900 p worth of travelling expenses over 15 years ago. _ travelling expenses over 15 years ago. the — travelling expenses over 15 years ago, the proportionality is not and there _ ago, the proportionality is not and there is— ago, the proportionality is not and there is no— ago, the proportionality is not and there is no a good opportunity to change _ there is no a good opportunity to change that dynamic. that is on the back of— change that dynamic. that is on the back of the — change that dynamic. that is on the back of the mass acquittal process, so we _

back of the mass acquittal process, so we now— back of the mass acquittal process, so we now seem to have a situation where _ so we now seem to have a situation where depending on the the detail, someone _ where depending on the the detail, someone cut almost self certify they are not— someone cut almost self certify they are not a _ someone cut almost self certify they are not a criminal and open the door to £600,000 in compensation. if that is good _ to £600,000 in compensation. if that is good enough in that forum, it is certainly— is good enough in that forum, it is certainly good enough for innocent people _ certainly good enough for innocent people that have been badly wronged to self— people that have been badly wronged to self certify that it has cost us this, _ to self certify that it has cost us this, this — to self certify that it has cost us this, this and bass and the forensic troll should — this, this and bass and the forensic troll should be relaxed and the benefits — troll should be relaxed and the benefits of the judge given to these poor people. do benefits of the “udge given to these poor people.— poor people. do you think the bureaucracy — poor people. do you think the bureaucracy is _ poor people. do you think the bureaucracy is dragging - poor people. do you think the bureaucracy is dragging its . poor people. do you think the l bureaucracy is dragging its feet poor people. do you think the - bureaucracy is dragging its feet and providing redress? that bureaucracy is dragging its feet and providing redress?— providing redress? that is the only looical providing redress? that is the only logical conclusion _ providing redress? that is the only logical conclusion i _ providing redress? that is the only logical conclusion i can _ providing redress? that is the only logical conclusion i can come - providing redress? that is the only logical conclusion i can come to. l providing redress? that is the only logical conclusion i can come to. i | logical conclusion i can come to. i am not _ logical conclusion i can come to. i am not here — logical conclusion i can come to. i am not here to pillory people, we have _ am not here to pillory people, we have very— am not here to pillory people, we have very good relations at face value _ have very good relations at face value with — have very good relations at face value with the people we deal with at both— value with the people we deal with at both the business department at the post _ at both the business department at the post office but it seems to go into this _ the post office but it seems to go into this machine, this abyss, and did more — into this machine, this abyss, and did more to — into this machine, this abyss, and did more to spark out months later

in a different form. we did more to spark out months later in a different form.— in a different form. we have the bi est in a different form. we have the biggest miscarriage _ in a different form. we have the biggest miscarriage of— in a different form. we have the biggest miscarriage ofjustice i in a different form. we have the biggest miscarriage ofjustice in | biggest miscarriage ofjustice in british legal history, we are years on from the landmark case and we still have red tape preventing redress for the victims? thank you very much. — redress for the victims? thank you very much, thank— redress for the victims? thank you very much, thank you _ redress for the victims? thank you very much, thank you for - redress for the victims? thank you very much, thank you forjoining i redress for the victims? thank you | very much, thank you forjoining us this morning. lord above not, i noticed that you were previously chaired the defence select committee and i am sure during that time you had seen a whole range of procurement contracts that have gone awry. where does this sit in terms of the seriousness of the impact it has had in the confidence of the government's own procurement process? government's own procurement rocess? .. .

government's own procurement rocess? ,, , , ., , process? this sits quite separately that nioht process? this sits quite separately that night there _ process? this sits quite separately that night there was _ process? this sits quite separately that night there was something - process? this sits quite separately| that night there was something the defence _ that night there was something the defence select committee described as a fiasco _ defence select committee described as a fiasco which was the threat of the future — as a fiasco which was the threat of the future something affects service which _ the future something affects service which costs many billions, but this one has— which costs many billions, but this one has such human implications that spread _ one has such human implications that spread throughout the country for people _ spread throughout the country for people who have been the leaders of their communities to be humiliated in front— their communities to be humiliated in front of— their communities to be humiliated in front of those communities, that this is— in front of those communities, that this is of— in front of those communities, that this is of a — in front of those communities, that this is of a totally different order~ _ this is of a totally different order~ in_ this is of a totally different order. . this is of a totally different order. , ., , ., order. in terms of the £7 billion worth of contracts _ order. in terms of the £7 billion worth of contracts at _ order. in terms of the £7 billion worth of contracts at fujitsu - order. in terms of the £7 billion i worth of contracts at fujitsu have received since 2012 from the government, what might expectations be on the part of the sub—postmasters in terms of future contracts being awarded, is there another horizon in your view, some other government departments were the same supplier has been implicated?—

the same supplier has been implicated? the same supplier has been imlicated? ~ i. ., implicated? will you forgive me ifi tell ou i implicated? will you forgive me ifi tell you i have _ implicated? will you forgive me ifi tell you i have concentrated - implicated? will you forgive me if ij tell you i have concentrated mostly on this— tell you i have concentrated mostly on this one? it isjust me, i do not have _ on this one? it isjust me, i do not have a _ on this one? it isjust me, i do not have a secretary or anything, i have concentrated just on this but i hope fujitsu _ concentrated just on this but i hope fujitsu would accept they have played — fujitsu would accept they have played a — fujitsu would accept they have played a part in the devastation that has— played a part in the devastation that has been visited upon the sub—postmasters. they might also like to— sub—postmasters. they might also like to accept they should play a part in— like to accept they should play a part in the redress the sub—postmasters need now. we part in the redress the sub-postmasters need now. we have heard a lot about _ sub-postmasters need now. we have heard a lot about compensation - sub-postmasters need now. we have heard a lot about compensation and i heard a lot about compensation and what is coming forward from the government or others, where do you think fujitsu sets in terms of their obligation to provide compensation for the people who have just had their lives destroyed and have

really undermined the procurement process for future suppliers? i process for future suppliers? i think it is fair to say that fujitsu have _ think it is fair to say that fujitsu have a — think it is fair to say that fujitsu have a role _ think it is fair to say that fujitsu have a role to play. this is not about — have a role to play. this is not about a — have a role to play. this is not about a flawed it system, it is decisions _ about a flawed it system, it is decisions made on the back of that flawed _ decisions made on the back of that flawed it— decisions made on the back of that flawed it system, who made those decisions _ flawed it system, who made those decisions and she was responsible? fujitsu _ decisions and she was responsible? fujitsu are — decisions and she was responsible? fujitsu are part and parcel convert button _ fujitsu are part and parcel convert button links back in a sense to why we need _ button links back in a sense to why we need closure this year, because part of— we need closure this year, because part of that — we need closure this year, because part of that for the good people here is— part of that for the good people here is accountability. the post office _ here is accountability. the post office has— here is accountability. the post office has seen this, we have an excess _ office has seen this, we have an excess of— office has seen this, we have an excess of 100 psychiatric reports for people diagnosed with all sorts of depressive illnesses, post—traumatic stress disorder, paranoia. — post—traumatic stress disorder, paranoia, everything you could possibly— paranoia, everything you could possibly think of. two things come out of— possibly think of. two things come out of those reports, the post

office — out of those reports, the post office is— out of those reports, the post office is aware of them, or one of them _ office is aware of them, or one of them is. — office is aware of them, or one of them is. to— office is aware of them, or one of them is, to bring about an improvement in mental health, is accountability. fujitsu is part of that _ accountability. fujitsu is part of that the — accountability. fujitsu is part of that. the other thing is closure to this litigation, this compensation, so there _ this litigation, this compensation, so there is— this litigation, this compensation, so there is clear medical evidence drawing _ so there is clear medical evidence drawing a — so there is clear medical evidence drawing a link between the mental health— drawing a link between the mental health of— drawing a link between the mental health of the sub—postmasters and this ongoing trauma around the whole horizon _ this ongoing trauma around the whole horizon scandal.— horizon scandal. perhaps i should sa , horizon scandal. perhaps i should say. chair. _ horizon scandal. perhaps i should say, chair, that _ horizon scandal. perhaps i should say, chair, that mr _ horizon scandal. perhaps i should say, chair, that mr hodge - horizon scandal. perhaps i should say, chair, that mr hodge and - horizon scandal. perhaps i should say, chair, that mr hodge and i i horizon scandal. perhaps i should i say, chair, that mr hodge and i know each other professionally because he has given evidence to thejustice committee in relation to other completely separate matters, so it is good to see you again, doctor. at the relevant time there was a code for prosecutors in place, but code

requires private prosecutors just as much as a public prosecutor like the crown prosecution service, and am i right in thinking that code sets out an obligation on the prosecutor to be fair and evenhanded in their approach at all times? is it also right that a private prosecutor, just like a public prosecutor, is bound by the attorney general�*s guidelines? and disclosure obligations include revealing to a defendant to any material which may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence, and therefore the post office acting as prosecutor would have been bound by both of those obligations? and is it also true that much obligation to review cases as evidence unfolds and to review your disclosure obligations carries on from the start of the investigation until the conclusion

of the trial?— investigation until the conclusion | of the trial?_ indeed, of the trial? and beyond. indeed, and potentially _ of the trial? and beyond. indeed, and potentially for _ of the trial? and beyond. indeed, and potentially for appeals - of the trial? and beyond. indeed, i and potentially for appeals issues? correct. i and potentially for appeals issues? correct. . . . and potentially for appeals issues? correct. ., , , ., correct. i get a sense of the wholesale — correct. i get a sense of the wholesale disregard. - correct. i get a sense of the wholesale disregard. based| correct. i get a sense of the i wholesale disregard. based on correct. i get a sense of the - wholesale disregard. based on the files, i wholesale disregard. based on the files. i have _ wholesale disregard. based on the files, i have heard _ wholesale disregard. based on the files, i have heard some _ wholesale disregard. based on the files, i have heard some of- wholesale disregard. based on the files, i have heard some of the - files, i have heard some of the evidence. _ files, i have heard some of the evidence. i_ files, i have heard some of the evidence, i would like to tread carefully. _ evidence, i would like to tread carefully, the statutory inquiry is ongoing — carefully, the statutory inquiry is ongoing and considering some of these _ ongoing and considering some of theseissues ongoing and considering some of these issues in the current phase i think— these issues in the current phase i think anyone who has seen some of the recent— think anyone who has seen some of the recent evidence at the inquiry will draw— the recent evidence at the inquiry will draw their own obvious conclusions from that. ~ , .. . conclusions from that. when you gave evidence to the _ conclusions from that. when you gave evidence to the committee _ conclusions from that. when you gave evidence to the committee back- conclusions from that. when you gave evidence to the committee back in - evidence to the committee back in december 2021, you refer to a number of false confessions, and i think you mentioned that it is a scene that has now been picked upon in the television series. you have come across these cases before. what is

search, you think, that because innocent people to make forced confessions which were not true? you and i might have a reason as lawyers as to why, but for the record? i as to why, but for the record? i think there is a raft of reasons, the main — think there is a raft of reasons, the main one is probably quality of arms _ the main one is probably quality of arms you — the main one is probably quality of arms. you are facing this big beast in the _ arms. you are facing this big beast in the post — arms. you are facing this big beast in the post office with all the machinery that sits behind it, you had some — machinery that sits behind it, you had some poor person being accused of doing _ had some poor person being accused of doing something hideous that does not have _ of doing something hideous that does not have that, so you then obviously io not have that, so you then obviously go on _ not have that, so you then obviously go on to— not have that, so you then obviously go on to a _ not have that, so you then obviously go on to a situation where there is a court _ go on to a situation where there is a court process under a plea bargain that again _ a court process under a plea bargain that again is — a court process under a plea bargain that again is based entirely on the quality— that again is based entirely on the quality of— that again is based entirely on the quality of arms, who will fight to axe thousands of pounds to obtain computer— axe thousands of pounds to obtain computer evidence at a time when they are _ computer evidence at a time when they are not in employment, and so it is all— they are not in employment, and so it is all power to the elbow of removing _ it is all power to the elbow of removing from an institution like

the post — removing from an institution like the post office the right to prosecute, to be victim, judge, jury. _ prosecute, to be victim, judge, jury, executionerand prosecute, to be victim, judge, jury, executioner and beneficiary. the horizon compensation advisory board _ the horizon compensation advisory board put— the horizon compensation advisory board put out— the horizon compensation advisory board put out a _ the horizon compensation advisory board put out a paper _ the horizon compensation advisory board put out a paper with - the horizon compensation advisory board put out a paper with the - board put out a paper with the minutes— board put out a paper with the minutes of— board put out a paper with the minutes of a _ board put out a paper with the minutes of a meeting - board put out a paper with the minutes of a meeting that - board put out a paper with the minutes of a meeting that wel board put out a paper with the - minutes of a meeting that we held on the 10th _ minutes of a meeting that we held on the 10th of— minutes of a meeting that we held on the 10th ofjanuary_ minutes of a meeting that we held on the 10th ofjanuary talking _ minutes of a meeting that we held on the 10th ofjanuary talking about - the 10th ofjanuary talking about the 10th ofjanuary talking about the implications— the 10th ofjanuary talking about the implications of— the 10th ofjanuary talking about the implications of the _ the implications of the psychological - the implications of the psychological effects l the implications of the i psychological effects on sub— postmasters - psychological effects on sub—postmasters and i psychological effects on - sub—postmasters and mistresses psychological effects on _ sub—postmasters and mistresses of the behaviour— sub—postmasters and mistresses of the behaviour of— sub—postmasters and mistresses of the behaviour of authorities, - sub—postmasters and mistresses of the behaviour of authorities, and i the behaviour of authorities, and there _ the behaviour of authorities, and there was— the behaviour of authorities, and there was a — the behaviour of authorities, and there was a paragraph _ the behaviour of authorities, and there was a paragraph there, i the behaviour of authorities, andj there was a paragraph there, the exploitation— there was a paragraph there, the exploitation of— there was a paragraph there, the exploitation of fear— there was a paragraph there, the exploitation of fear through i exploitation of fear through irresponsible _ exploitation of fear through irresponsible conduct - exploitation of fear through irresponsible conduct which exploitation of fear through i irresponsible conduct which is exploitation of fear through - irresponsible conduct which is worth reading _ irresponsible conduct which is worth readino. ~ ., ., ., , reading. were all or most of these postmasters _ reading. were all or most of these postmasters are _ reading. were all or most of these postmasters are mistresses i reading. were all or most of these | postmasters are mistresses legally represented at the time they were interview? they would have been by trial, but when they were first interviewed?— trial, but when they were first interviewed? ., . , ., interviewed? not necessarily would there be legal—

interviewed? not necessarily would there be legal representation. i interviewed? not necessarily would there be legal representation. my. there be legal representation. my impression is very few. we i there be legal representation. my impression is very few. we talked about the duty — impression is very few. we talked about the duty to _ impression is very few. we talked about the duty to be _ impression is very few. we talked about the duty to be fair- impression is very few. we talked about the duty to be fair and i impression is very few. we talked j about the duty to be fair and even hided, but applies to investigators too —— and evenhanded. we know there was a financial incentive to post office investigators in these cases. that seems perhaps to sit ill with the obligation to be fair and evenhanded as an investigator, a prosecutor? i evenhanded as an investigator, a prosecutor?— evenhanded as an investigator, a prosecutor? i have thought about this ouite prosecutor? i have thought about this quite a _ prosecutor? i have thought about this quite a bit, _ prosecutor? i have thought about this quite a bit, there _ prosecutor? i have thought about this quite a bit, there is - prosecutor? i have thought about this quite a bit, there is a - prosecutor? i have thought about this quite a bit, there is a certain| this quite a bit, there is a certain cultural— this quite a bit, there is a certain cultural dutch market is very culturally ingrained that there was a new— culturally ingrained that there was a new it— culturally ingrained that there was a new it system brought in, if you are going — a new it system brought in, if you are going to— a new it system brought in, if you are going to catch out a nation of dishonest — are going to catch out a nation of dishonest people i think the narrative was to collect evidence to support _ narrative was to collect evidence to support that and ignore anything to the country. | support that and ignore anything to the count . .. support that and ignore anything to the country-— the country. i think that was one factor. which _ the country. i think that was one factor. which would _ the country. i think that was one factor. which would be - the country. i think that was one factor. which would be a - the country. i think that was one i factor. which would be a departure from the disclosure obligations? correct. ,.,

correct. the interim report referred to the primary _ correct. the interim report referred to the primary motivation _ correct. the interim report referred to the primary motivation of - correct. the interim report referred to the primary motivation of the i to the primary motivation of the investigation _ to the primary motivation of the investigation is _ to the primary motivation of the investigation is being _ to the primary motivation of the investigation is being asset i investigation is being asset recovery— investigation is being asset recovery rather— investigation is being asset recovery rather than- investigation is being asset recovery rather than the i recovery rather than the investigation _ recovery rather than the investigation of- recovery rather than the investigation of what i recovery rather than the i investigation of what might recovery rather than the - investigation of what might have gone _ investigation of what might have gone wrong _ investigation of what might have gone wrong and _ investigation of what might have gone wrong-— gone wrong. and therefore the a- roach gone wrong. and therefore the approach should _ gone wrong. and therefore the approach should not _ gone wrong. and therefore the approach should not have i gone wrong. and therefore the j approach should not have been applied to a criminal investigation. you mentioned the question of computer evidence. there was a time, as i recall, in the early 90s, when the obligation was on the prosecution to prove in effect computer evidence. now, basically, apart from a basic statement that the computer was working and so on, it is quite difficult to challenge computer evidence. those that need to be looked at? are there particular challenges around computer evidence?- particular challenges around computer evidence? particular challenges around comuter evidence? , ., computer evidence? there is a wider ruestion of computer evidence? there is a wider question of challenging _ computer evidence? there is a wider question of challenging everything, i question of challenging everything, we have _ question of challenging everything, we have made certain assumptions about— we have made certain assumptions about this — we have made certain assumptions about this entity, the post office, and if— about this entity, the post office, and if there is one big lesson it is to assume — and if there is one big lesson it is to assume nothing. i had some issues

at the _ to assume nothing. i had some issues at the moment with specific cases were _ at the moment with specific cases were it _ at the moment with specific cases were it may have been three or four years— were it may have been three or four years ago. — were it may have been three or four years ago. i— were it may have been three or four years ago, i would assume these things— years ago, i would assume these things could have happened, the forgery— things could have happened, the forgery of documentation and the creation — forgery of documentation and the creation of fictitious accounts to dismiss — creation of fictitious accounts to dismiss people, this is more likely to have _ dismiss people, this is more likely to have happened than not. i don't to have happened than not. idon't think— to have happened than not. i don't think we _ to have happened than not. i don't think we will assume anything now when _ think we will assume anything now when it— think we will assume anything now when it comes to the behaviour that has gone _ when it comes to the behaviour that has gone on — when it comes to the behaviour that has gone on over the last 20 years, because _ has gone on over the last 20 years, because i_ has gone on over the last 20 years, because i think every week there is a new— because i think every week there is a new revelation and one good thing that has— a new revelation and one good thing that has come... one of many things that has come... one of many things that has— that has come... one of many things that has come... one of many things that has come from the dramatisation is an increasing number of whistle—blowers prepared to come out and start _ whistle—blowers prepared to come out and start to _ whistle—blowers prepared to come out and start to spill the beans where they did _ and start to spill the beans where they did not necessarily before havem — they did not necessarily before have... not the bravery as such but the ability— have... not the bravery as such but the ability to — have... not the bravery as such but the ability to do that. may have. .. not the bravery as such but the ability to do that.— the ability to do that. may i come in on the issue _ the ability to do that. may i come in on the issue of— the ability to do that. may i come in on the issue of the _ the ability to do that. may i come in on the issue of the reliability i in on the issue of the reliability of computer— in on the issue of the reliability of computer evidence? - in on the issue of the reliability of computer evidence? there l in on the issue of the reliability| of computer evidence? there is in on the issue of the reliability. of computer evidence? there is a presumption _ of computer evidence? there is a presumption brought— of computer evidence? there is a presumption brought in— of computer evidence? there is a presumption brought in by- of computer evidence? there is a presumption brought in by the i presumption brought in by the recommendation _ presumption brought in by the

recommendation of— presumption brought in by the recommendation of the - presumption brought in by the recommendation of the law i presumption brought in by the - recommendation of the law commission that evidence _ recommendation of the law commission that evidence produced _ recommendation of the law commission that evidence produced by— recommendation of the law commission that evidence produced by a _ that evidence produced by a computerm _ that evidence produced by a computer... there - that evidence produced by a computer... there is - that evidence produced by a computer... there is a i that evidence produced by a - computer... there is a presumption of its _ computer... there is a presumption of its reliability. _ computer... there is a presumption of its reliability. i— computer... there is a presumption of its reliability. i hope _ computer... there is a presumption of its reliability. i hope that - computer... there is a presumption of its reliability. i hope that if- of its reliability. i hope that if this case _ of its reliability. i hope that if this case produces _ of its reliability. i hope that if this case produces nothing i of its reliability. i hope that if. this case produces nothing else, that presumption— this case produces nothing else, that presumption will— this case produces nothing else, that presumption will quickly- this case produces nothing else, that presumption will quickly be| that presumption will quickly be changed — that presumption will quickly be changed. quite _ that presumption will quickly be changed. quite what _ that presumption will quickly be changed. quite what to - that presumption will quickly be changed. quite what to is - that presumption will quickly be changed. quite what to is up. that presumption will quickly bej changed. quite what to is up for discussion. _ changed. quite what to is up for discussion, but— changed. quite what to is up for discussion, but it _ changed. quite what to is up for discussion, but it needs- changed. quite what to is up for discussion, but it needs to i changed. quite what to is up for discussion, but it needs to be i discussion, but it needs to be changed — discussion, but it needs to be changed because _ discussion, but it needs to be changed because it— discussion, but it needs to be changed because it is- discussion, but it needs to be changed because it is clear. discussion, but it needs to be i changed because it is clear that very. _ changed because it is clear that very. very— changed because it is clear that very. very few— changed because it is clear that very. very few if— changed because it is clear that very, very few if any— changed because it is clear that very, very few if any computeri very, very few if any computer programmes— very, very few if any computer programmes are _ very, very few if any computer programmes are entirely- very, very few if any computer- programmes are entirely reliable. you set _ programmes are entirely reliable. you set many— programmes are entirely reliable. you set many of— programmes are entirely reliable. you set many of the _ programmes are entirely reliable. you set many of the claims - programmes are entirely reliable. you set many of the claims under| programmes are entirely reliable. i you set many of the claims under the horizon showed full scheme and the historical shortfall scheme were submitted without any kind of legal advice, the itv drama has created a much bigger profile of the issue. do you think there are many, many more people who suffered and who will now come forward with legitimate claims for redress? lip

come forward with legitimate claims for redress? . ., come forward with legitimate claims for redress? , ., , come forward with legitimate claims for redress?— for redress? up to this morning we have had in — for redress? up to this morning we have had in excess _ for redress? up to this morning we have had in excess of— for redress? up to this morning we have had in excess of 200 - for redress? up to this morning wej have had in excess of 200 inquiries related _ have had in excess of 200 inquiries related to — have had in excess of 200 inquiries related to horizon shortfall, new inquiries — related to horizon shortfall, new inquiries. we have equally had in excess _ inquiries. we have equally had in excess of— inquiries. we have equally had in excess of 20 inquiries that have us us to— excess of 20 inquiries that have us us to look— excess of 20 inquiries that have us us to look at— excess of 20 inquiries that have us us to look at settled hss cases. my -ut us to look at settled hss cases. my gut feeling on this as there is a significance of under settled matters. i take some of that intelligence from a small core of cases— intelligence from a small core of cases where we have secured substantial increase to offers but still unsatisfactory. in one case and offer— still unsatisfactory. in one case and offer one from £120,000 from £220,000. -- two £220,000. in other £220,000. —— two £220,000. in other cases. _ £220,000. —— two £220,000. in other cases, at— £220,000. —— two £220,000. in other cases, at least_ £220,000. -- two £220,000. in other cases, at least a 25% increase. there — cases, at least a 25% increase. there is— cases, at least a 25% increase. there is a _ cases, at least a 25% increase. there is a real, strong concern that there _ there is a real, strong concern that there are _ there is a real, strong concern that there are a — there is a real, strong concern that there are a number of under settled

matters _ there are a number of under settled matters because many of those cases were settled without legal advice and, were settled without legal advice and. in _ were settled without legal advice and, in fact, settled at a time when interim _ and, in fact, settled at a time when interim payments were not routinely offered. _ interim payments were not routinely offered, and that changed, as did the application requests for further information. it is a bit of a misconception to say that in smaller cases— misconception to say that in smaller cases it _ misconception to say that in smaller cases it will — misconception to say that in smaller cases it will be settled, you might have a _ cases it will be settled, you might have a shortfall of eight few thousand pounds but if that gives rise to _ thousand pounds but if that gives rise to a — thousand pounds but if that gives rise to a suspension termination and loss of— rise to a suspension termination and loss of business, the consequential losses— loss of business, the consequential losses are — loss of business, the consequential losses are significantly more than the original losses claims. the post office is making _ the original losses claims. the post office is making some _ the original losses claims. the post office is making some player i the original losses claims. the post office is making some player of i the original losses claims. the post office is making some player of the fact that 85% of people who have claims on the horizon shortfall scheme have had money paid out, you are telling us there are potentially hundreds more victims still out of the and that many of the victims have been short—changed on

settlements they have received. both are correct. it may be for the commission to ask how many have settled with legal advice, that would be a fair question to ask. tote would be a fair question to ask. we talked would be a fair question to ask. - talked about legislation to overturn this, but where does that leave the position of people who appealed their convictions successfully through the court process, it has been suggested by some commentators that we run the risk of devaluing the overturning of their appeals through that process by this route. is that a fair observation? how do we deal with that and a proportionate manner? we deal with that and a --roortionate manner? , ., proportionate manner? this solution is not comfortable _ proportionate manner? this solution is not comfortable in _ proportionate manner? this solution is not comfortable in many _ proportionate manner? this solution is not comfortable in many different| is not comfortable in many different ways _ is not comfortable in many different ways as _ is not comfortable in many different ways as the — is not comfortable in many different ways. as the minister— is not comfortable in many different ways. as the minister has— is not comfortable in many different ways. as the minister has put- is not comfortable in many different ways. as the minister has put it, i is not comfortable in many different ways. as the minister has put it, it. ways. as the minister has put it, it is the _ ways. as the minister has put it, it is the lesser — ways. as the minister has put it, it is the lesser of _ ways. as the minister has put it, it is the lesser of two _ ways. as the minister has put it, it is the lesser of two evils. -

ways. as the minister has put it, it is the lesser of two evils. we - ways. as the minister has put it, it is the lesser of two evils. we needj is the lesser of two evils. we need to get— is the lesser of two evils. we need to get these — is the lesser of two evils. we need to get these convictions _ is the lesser of two evils. we needl to get these convictions overturned as a matter— to get these convictions overturned as a matter of— to get these convictions overturned as a matter of speech. _ to get these convictions overturned as a matter of speech. i _ to get these convictions overturned as a matter of speech. i myself i to get these convictions overturned as a matter of speech. i myself dol as a matter of speech. i myself do not think— as a matter of speech. i myself do not think that _ as a matter of speech. i myself do not think that was _ as a matter of speech. i myself do not think that was overturned i not think that was overturned appeals — not think that was overturned appeals which _ not think that was overturned appeals which were _ not think that was overturned i appeals which were overturned in front— appeals which were overturned in front of— appeals which were overturned in front of the — appeals which were overturned in front of the court _ appeals which were overturned in front of the court would - appeals which were overturned in front of the court would be - appeals which were overturned in i front of the court would be devalued in any— front of the court would be devalued in any way. — front of the court would be devalued in any way. that— front of the court would be devalued in any way. that is— front of the court would be devalued in any way, that is my _ front of the court would be devalued in any way, that is my view, - front of the court would be devalued in any way, that is my view, but i front of the court would be devalued in any way, that is my view, but we i in any way, that is my view, but we have _ in any way, that is my view, but we have to _ in any way, that is my view, but we have to deal— in any way, that is my view, but we have to deal with _ in any way, that is my view, but we have to deal with this, _ in any way, that is my view, but we have to deal with this, and - in any way, that is my view, but we have to deal with this, and quickly. | have to deal with this, and quickly. i have to deal with this, and quickly. i would _ have to deal with this, and quickly. i would probably— have to deal with this, and quickly. i would probably have _ have to deal with this, and quickly. i would probably have two - have to deal with this, and quickly. i would probably have two slightly| i would probably have two slightly disagree — i would probably have two slightly disagree with lord arbuthnot on the basis of— disagree with lord arbuthnot on the basis of what i am told by some of my clients — basis of what i am told by some of my clients i— basis of what i am told by some of my clients. i think they are believed _ my clients. i think they are believed to and welcomed the news that there _ believed to and welcomed the news that there will be a fast track of those _ that there will be a fast track of those that are genuinely innocent. i think— those that are genuinely innocent. i think we _ those that are genuinely innocent. i think we pick up on the commentary around _ think we pick up on the commentary around the — think we pick up on the commentary around the collateral damage of some genuinely— around the collateral damage of some genuinely guilty people, being able to access _ genuinely guilty people, being able to access acquittal and compensation and some _ to access acquittal and compensation and some feel a cheapening of an exoneration as a result of that. they— exoneration as a result of that. they have _ exoneration as a result of that. they have been through processes

taking _ they have been through processes taking three years and therefore that is— taking three years and therefore that is a — taking three years and therefore that is a feeling they hold, all some — that is a feeling they hold, all some of— that is a feeling they hold, all some of them hold. 50 whilst there is a general— some of them hold. 50 whilst there is a general ground swell of support for the _ is a general ground swell of support for the exoneration of the poor people — for the exoneration of the poor people that dare not come forward because _ people that dare not come forward because of the process involved, there _ because of the process involved, there are — because of the process involved, there are obvious complications that come _ there are obvious complications that come from _ there are obvious complications that come from that. we there are obvious complications that come from that.— there are obvious complications that come from that. we know finally that third of the cases _ come from that. we know finally that third of the cases referred _ come from that. we know finally that third of the cases referred to - come from that. we know finally that third of the cases referred to by i third of the cases referred to by the criminal cases review commission were rejected. we also know the court of appeal, having heard the case in full, dismissed the appeals. how should the legislation handle those classes of individuals, and perhaps to learn as to the way we test the criminal cases and how they should be reviewed? can

test the criminal cases and how they should be reviewed? cami test the criminal cases and how they should be reviewed? can i commend? i think the criminal _ should be reviewed? can i commend? i think the criminal cases _ should be reviewed? can i commend? i think the criminal cases review - think the criminal cases review commission_ think the criminal cases review commission referred _ think the criminal cases review commission referred cases- think the criminal cases review commission referred cases to l think the criminal cases review. commission referred cases to the court _ commission referred cases to the court of— commission referred cases to the court of appeal _ commission referred cases to the court of appeal on _ commission referred cases to the court of appeal on two _ commission referred cases to the court of appeal on two grounds. i court of appeal on two grounds. first _ court of appeal on two grounds. first was — court of appeal on two grounds. first was the _ court of appeal on two grounds. first was the reliability - court of appeal on two grounds. first was the reliability of - court of appeal on two grounds. i first was the reliability of horizon data was— first was the reliability of horizon data was essential— first was the reliability of horizon data was essential to _ first was the reliability of horizon data was essential to the - data was essential to the prosecution _ data was essential to the prosecution and - data was essential to the i prosecution and conviction data was essential to the - prosecution and conviction of the post _ prosecution and conviction of the post office — prosecution and conviction of the post office applicant _ prosecution and conviction of the post office applicant and - prosecution and conviction of the post office applicant and it - prosecution and conviction of the post office applicant and it was i prosecution and conviction of the . post office applicant and it was not possible _ post office applicant and it was not possible for— post office applicant and it was not possible for the _ post office applicant and it was not possible for the process _ post office applicant and it was not possible for the process to - post office applicant and it was not possible for the process to be - post office applicant and it was not possible for the process to be fair, | possible for the process to be fair, the second — possible for the process to be fair, the second was _ possible for the process to be fair, the second was the _ possible for the process to be fair, the second was the reliability- possible for the process to be fair, the second was the reliability of. the second was the reliability of horizon — the second was the reliability of horizon was _ the second was the reliability of horizon was essential— the second was the reliability of horizon was essential to - the second was the reliability of horizon was essential to the - horizon was essential to the prosecution _ horizon was essential to the prosecution and _ horizon was essential to the prosecution and an - horizon was essential to the prosecution and an affront l horizon was essential to the i prosecution and an affront to horizon was essential to the - prosecution and an affront to the public— prosecution and an affront to the public conscience. _ prosecution and an affront to the public conscience. since - prosecution and an affront to the public conscience. since those i prosecution and an affront to the . public conscience. since those cases were referred — public conscience. since those cases were referred to _ public conscience. since those cases were referred to the _ public conscience. since those cases were referred to the court _ public conscience. since those cases were referred to the court of- were referred to the court of appeal, _ were referred to the court of appeal. things— were referred to the court of appeal, things have - were referred to the court of appeal, things have come i were referred to the court of. appeal, things have come out were referred to the court of- appeal, things have come out within the public— appeal, things have come out within the public inquiry— appeal, things have come out within the public inquiry about _ appeal, things have come out within the public inquiry about the - the public inquiry about the investigators' _ the public inquiry about the investigators' behaviour- the public inquiry about the| investigators' behaviour and the public inquiry about the - investigators' behaviour and the post _ investigators' behaviour and the post office's _ investigators' behaviour and the post office's entire _ investigators' behaviour and the post office's entire approach . investigators' behaviour and the post office's entire approach to| investigators' behaviour and the . post office's entire approach to the ethics _ post office's entire approach to the ethics of— post office's entire approach to the ethics of prosecution, _ post office's entire approach to the ethics of prosecution, which - post office's entire approach to the ethics of prosecution, which i - ethics of prosecution, which i believe — ethics of prosecution, which i believe take _ ethics of prosecution, which i believe take is _ ethics of prosecution, which i believe take is way— ethics of prosecution, which i believe take is way beyond i ethics of prosecution, which i. believe take is way beyond the application _ believe take is way beyond the application of _ believe take is way beyond the application of horizon - believe take is way beyond the

application of horizon data. i believe take is way beyond the. application of horizon data. and therefore — application of horizon data. and therefore i_ application of horizon data. and therefore i think— application of horizon data. and therefore i think this _ application of horizon data. and therefore i think this needs- application of horizon data. and therefore i think this needs to l application of horizon data. andl therefore i think this needs to be considered — therefore i think this needs to be considered with— therefore i think this needs to be considered with great _ therefore i think this needs to be considered with great care, - therefore i think this needs to be i considered with great care, possibly those _ considered with great care, possibly those whose — considered with great care, possibly those whose cases _ considered with great care, possibly those whose cases were _ considered with great care, possiblyl those whose cases were overturned, they may _ those whose cases were overturned, they nray need — those whose cases were overturned, they may need to _ those whose cases were overturned, they may need to be _ those whose cases were overturned, they may need to be told _ those whose cases were overturned, they may need to be told you - those whose cases were overturned, they may need to be told you how. those whose cases were overturned, they may need to be told you how to come _ they may need to be told you how to come back— they may need to be told you how to come back to — they may need to be told you how to come back to the _ they may need to be told you how to come back to the court _ they may need to be told you how to come back to the court of _ they may need to be told you how to come back to the court of appeal, . come back to the court of appeal, but you _ come back to the court of appeal, but you will— come back to the court of appeal, but you will do _ come back to the court of appeal, but you will do so _ come back to the court of appeal, but you will do so with _ come back to the court of appeal, l but you will do so with government assistance — but you will do so with government assistance and _ but you will do so with government assistance and legal— but you will do so with government assistance and legal aid _ but you will do so with government assistance and legal aid so - but you will do so with government assistance and legal aid so these . assistance and legal aid so these things— assistance and legal aid so these things can — assistance and legal aid so these things can be _ assistance and legal aid so these things can be attended _ assistance and legal aid so these things can be attended by- assistance and legal aid so these things can be attended by the . assistance and legal aid so these . things can be attended by the court of appeal. — things can be attended by the court oprpeal. but— things can be attended by the court of appeal. but i _ things can be attended by the court of appeal, but i think— things can be attended by the court of appeal, but i think that - things can be attended by the court of appeal, but i think that is - things can be attended by the court of appeal, but i think that is still. of appeal, but i think that is still up of appeal, but i think that is still up for— of appeal, but i think that is still up for bottoming _ of appeal, but i think that is still up for bottoming out, _ of appeal, but i think that is still up for bottoming out, and - of appeal, but i think that is still up for bottoming out, and we . of appeal, but i think that is still. up for bottoming out, and we have not come — up for bottoming out, and we have not come to— up for bottoming out, and we have not come to a _ up for bottoming out, and we have not come to a firm _ up for bottoming out, and we have not come to a firm conclusion. - not come to a firm conclusion. anthony. _ not come to a firm conclusion. anthony. then— not come to a firm conclusion. anthony, thenjonathan. - cani can ijust can i just ask you how you feel about it? , ., ., can i just ask you how you feel about it?— can ijust ask you how you feel about it? , , , , can ijust ask you how you feel aboutit? , , , , , about it? very good, because this is about it? very good, because this is a mass problem _ about it? very good, because this is a mass problem which _ about it? very good, because this is a mass problem which required - about it? very good, because this is a mass problem which required a i about it? very good, because this is i a mass problem which required a mass solution _ a mass problem which required a mass solution and _ a mass problem which required a mass solution and i— a mass problem which required a mass solution and i think— a mass problem which required a mass solution and i think the _ solution and i think the announcement - solution and i think the announcement on - solution and i think the - announcement on overturning solution and i think the _ announcement on overturning the convictions, — announcement on overturning the convictions, precisely— announcement on overturning the convictions, precisely how- announcement on overturning the convictions, precisely how that i announcement on overturning the convictions, precisely how that isl convictions, precisely how that is actually—

convictions, precisely how that is actually done _ convictions, precisely how that is actually done we _ convictions, precisely how that is actually done we have _ convictions, precisely how that is actually done we have yet - convictions, precisely how that is actually done we have yet to - convictions, precisely how that is i actually done we have yet to bottom out but _ actually done we have yet to bottom out but that —