cash to improve the analysis and clean—up of data. this was a major piece of expenditure. this was about upgrading the financial, it was initiated before ijoin, but it was about equipping chesterfield correctly to do the finances, and how that flowed through into branches of all types. that would have not been the motive. did anyone, when ever you are in discussion about the impact programme, question how it would affect sub—postmasters? i

programme, question how it would affect sub-postmasters?_ affect sub-postmasters? i don't recall a conversation _ affect sub-postmasters? i don't recall a conversation like - affect sub-postmasters? i don't recall a conversation like that. l recall a conversation like that. interestingly, the way i am talking, interestingly, the way i am talking, i had this impression it was more about chesterfield, but not without consequence in branches, because thatis consequence in branches, because that is where the money was coming from. but it wasn't the objective, if you see what i mean. if i mayjust take a moment to come verse on a matter. —— two conversions. i understand that there will be questions, five minutes each. let questions, five minutes each. let them ask their questions.

i represent a large number of sub—postmasters, i am instructed by a firm of solicitors. did you watch the evidence of mr hodgkinson, yesterday? yes. you use the term prosecuting authority which i presume you took from the evidence of sir michael yesterday? yes. you are aware that later on, in your term as managing director, that your term as managing director, that you were the prosecution authority for the post office? figs you were the prosecution authority for the post office? $5 i you were the prosecution authority for the post office?— for the post office? as i have already explained, _ for the post office? as i have already explained, my - for the post office? as i have already explained, my view | for the post office? as i have | already explained, my view of for the post office? as i have - already explained, my view of that change during my time. let already explained, my view of that change during my time.— already explained, my view of that change during my time. let us have a cuick look change during my time. let us have a quick look at — change during my time. let us have a quick look at that. _ change during my time. let us have a quick look at that. can _ change during my time. let us have a quick look at that. can we _ change during my time. let us have a quick look at that. can we go - change during my time. let us have a quick look at that. can we go to - change during my time. let us have a quick look at that. can we go to the i quick look at that. can we go to the documents, first page?

if we look at the top of that document we see it says, post office limited investigation team, monthly report. we get from that that you got these monthly. it says, confidential. it then goes on to say to who it is written. let us move on, director security corporate, head of investigations corporate, head of investigations corporate, head of investigations corporate, head of criminal law, head of security, post office limited. let usjust security, post office limited. let us just go through that. at that time the head of criminal law, rob wilson, solicitor, do you remember him? no. what did you think the criminal law team did within the post office? it looks like it is at royal it says corporate head.— it looks like it is at royal it says corporate head. what do you the criminal law _ corporate head. what do you the criminal law team _ corporate head. what do you the criminal law team did _ corporate head. what do you the criminal law team did royal- corporate head. what do you the

criminal law team did royal mail| corporate head. what do you the i criminal law team did royal mail or post office?— post office? involved with these prosecutions. — post office? involved with these prosecutions, i— post office? involved with these prosecutions, i guess. - prosecutions, i guess. involved with the prosecutions? this document in 2006 in reference to you, because you were part of looking at this sort of material, head of criminal law, rob wilson, still does not ring a bell? it head of criminal law, rob wilson, still does not ring a bell?- still does not ring a bell? it does not, i still does not ring a bell? it does not. i am — still does not ring a bell? it does not, i am afraid. _ not, i am afraid. the investigation team, that this is in relation to, this monthly report, shall we have a look at what is going on with that? middle of the page you see in the documents we have got on the screen, investigation team report, december 2006, the principal aims of the investigation team are to stop criminal offences taking place, apprehend and prosecute those who commit offences against us, in order to maximise our recovery and reduce loss, through identification of errors and weakness throughout the business operationally and within our offerings. it does appear on the

face of this document that you have got information that there is a criminal law team operating within the business, and an investigation team, with aims of stopping criminal offences taking place, apprehending and prosecuting people. yes. offences taking place, apprehending and prosecuting people.— and prosecuting people. yes, but look at item _ and prosecuting people. yes, but look at item one, _ and prosecuting people. yes, but look at item one, it _ and prosecuting people. yes, but look at item one, it is _ and prosecuting people. yes, but look at item one, it is about - and prosecuting people. yes, but. look at item one, it is about postal order, cash back, fraud losses, nothing to do with sub—postmasters. it is customer fraud. we call them scans today. this is what it was there for. there is always going to be lots of criminal activity around an organisation that creates a lot of money. that doesn't mean it is the sub—postmasters fault. you had reports in relation to sub—postmasters that were being prosecuted, and there was involvement of an investigation team? yes. you had oversight of an investigation team investigating sub—postmasters, is that correct?

yes. there was a criminal law team involved as well? yes it is than sub—postmasters. let yes it is than sub-postmasters. let us labour yes it is than sub—postmasters. let us labour sub—postmasters. you may have noticed this and quite it's about sub—postmasters. all right? i have noticed that. let us move move on and look at what was happening to sub—postmasters being investigated by the investigation team operating under your managing directorial responsibilities. did you consider the numbers of cases that were being prosecuted? i did not have the total number that was being pursued. bottom of page two. same document. 2.0. investigation operations, this months recovery figure is £63,000, period nine case figures for

deficiencies at audit alone were £114,000. raise figures, what do you think that meant was to mac you are right. we think that meant was to mac you are riuht. ~ . , , right. we did have the numbers in that report- _ that report. it goes on see in total new investigation cases raised in the period, current loss of £245,000. that is not the same as prosecutions but they were cases that were being looked at. at present the team is dealing with 248 ongoing investigations, with a loss value of in excess of £9 million. of these 80 are currently going through the courts. yes. you are getting these monthly reports, discussions and information regarding cases being prosecuted, you had all the information possible to have to have governance over this area, didn't you? i had the relevant information they

are. i have already said. let us go over the page. also provided as a summary of major inquiry is ongoing. top of page three. same document. we can see across there, it looks like excel documents being referred to, ignore the first one. over 100 k live cases, which appears to be no doubt a list of cases worth over £100,000. underneath that, you have got references to 4.0 financial investigations, as regards to post office branches. the information you were getting was pretty comprehensive regarding the ongoing investigation, and conduct of prosecutions, as they were going own words, underyourtime

prosecutions, as they were going own words, under your time at the post office, wasn't it, mr cook? it words, under your time at the post office, wasn't it, mr cook?- office, wasn't it, mr cook? it was. i don't office, wasn't it, mr cook? it was. i don't wish _ office, wasn't it, mr cook? it was. i don't wish to _ office, wasn't it, mr cook? it was. i don't wish to let _ office, wasn't it, mr cook? it was. i don't wish to let the _ office, wasn't it, mr cook? it was. i don't wish to let the impression l i don't wish to let the impression be created that this was there to chase up sub—postmasters. this was there to chase fraud in general. fik. there to chase fraud in general. 0k. let us 'ust there to chase fraud in general. 0k. let usjust say. _ there to chase fraud in general. 0k. let usjust say, we _ there to chase fraud in general. ok. let us just say, we will stick with sub—postmasters. but i need to make sure that context is understood. paragraph 59 of your statement... i said, thank you for acknowledging my comment. paragraph 59 you said, to the best of my knowledge the compliance committee was not given any information or reporting, nor did i have any oversight of the prosecution of sub—postmasters. as a result i did not take any steps as a member of the risk and compliance ready to ensure that pol was acting in compliance with legal obligations in compliance with legal obligations in relation to those prosecutions and civil proceedings against sub—postmasters. i was not aware they were taking place. it is a straight out lie? the point i was trying to make was

about the initiation of prosecutions. i have repeatedly acknowledged that there were cases under investigation. i was all we are cases under investigation. ishilmt are cases under investigation. what ou are are cases under investigation. what you are seeing _ are cases under investigation. what you are seeing in — are cases under investigation. what you are seeing in your— are cases under investigation. what you are seeing in your statement is this. you did not take any steps as a member of the risk and compliance committee to ensure that pol was acting in compliance with its legal obligations. in relation to those prosecutions and civil proceedings against the postmasters. i was not aware they were taking place. first of all, you do agree you were aware they were taking place. secondly, in your statement, you are pretending that you were not aware, to avoid the implication, which are needed oversight of the things? no. that is not true. not my intention. why did you write that in your statement? i believe that at the time, certainly.

who is next? hello, mr cook. 17 years ago on who is next? — hello, mr cook. 17 years ago on 12th of april 2007 you were the managing director of the post office? i of april 2007 you were the managing director of the post office?— director of the post office? i was. you properly _ director of the post office? i was. you properly have _ director of the post office? i was. you properly have no _ director of the post office? i was. you properly have no idea - director of the post office? i was. you properly have no idea what i director of the post office? i was. l you properly have no idea what you were doing on that day. but mrs janet skinner, who sits to my right, whom you can see here, knows exactly what was happening to her that day, because on 12th of april 2007 she was being released from prison, having served a nine—month sentence for false accounting. she having served a nine—month sentence forfalse accounting. she had been jailed on the lyre, mr cook, that horizon was infallible. you see that you had no idea that these prosecutions were being instituted a new name, is that right? ida. i prosecutions were being instituted a

new name, is that right?— new name, is that right? no. i knew the were new name, is that right? no. i knew they were prosecutions. _ they were prosecutions. she pleaded guilty to false accounting only because she has been told that the she did not, the post office would prosecute and pursue herfor office would prosecute and pursue her for theft. office would prosecute and pursue herfor theft. she had not stolen a penny, mr cook. all of this was being done in your name. and yet you claim you did not know. ijust claim you did not know. i just cannot be claim you did not know. ijust cannot be more apologetic. mrs skinner was the mother of two young children, wrongly accused of theft she was told that if she pleaded to false accounting as an alternative to that baseless theatre charge, she would not go to prison. this was common practice by the post office. charged faith and accept a plea to false accounting to stop were you aware of that stratagem, mr cook? . ~ ., were you aware of that stratagem, mr cook? ., . ., , ., ., cook? no. worse than that, when i heard reports _ cook? no. worse than that, when i heard reports about _ cook? no. worse than that, when i heard reports about them, - cook? no. worse than that, when i heard reports about them, and - cook? no. worse than that, when i heard reports about them, and the | heard reports about them, and the individual had pleaded guilty, then

i thought we must have been in the right. i did not appreciate what was going on. this stratagem was reinforcing your ignorance and for general prejudice that these sub—postmasters had their hand in the till, is that right? in the particular cases for the individual pleaded guilty i had assumed that they believed they were guilty. i did not occur to me at the time that that was a recommendation from their lawyers. it was their most profound structural injustice. i agree. and meritorious charge of theft was being used as a jamie or sledgehammer to force the plea, or to crash sub—postmasters into submission stop i don't know what that was a deliberate strategy by the post office but that is how it manifested itself. it is not acceptable. it was a strategy and you ought to have been

aware of that strategy, do you accept that now, not with hindsight, but what you ought to have known at the time? idid the time? i did not know that at the time. that you ought to have known it at the time. i do accept i ought to have known it. it is nothing i would ever willingly want to do. she was sent to custody all the same. nine months imprisonment. had made 116 calls to national business support centre helpline, complaining about balancing faults in the 18 months before she was dismissed. wrongly dismissed, mr cook. because your auditors thought she had had her hand in the till. are you proud of presiding over that

culture? definitely not. do you accept that the ultimate responsibility from her torment lay with you as managing director of the post office? i was the managing — director of the post office? i was the managing director, - director of the post office? i was the managing director, so - director of the post office? i was the managing director, so i- director of the post office? i was the managing director, so i was| the managing director, so i was ultimately accountable. whether i was aware of is another matter, if i was aware of is another matter, if i was not aware, i should have been aware. but as you have cleaned, you maintain that you had no idea that these prosecutions were actually being instituted in your name? ida. being instituted in your name? no. well... being instituted in your name? no. well- -- nearly _ being instituted in your name? ila well... nearly correct. what i was saying was that i had no idea that app saying was that i had no idea that app until computer weekly article that the post office could initiate those without having to seek approval from any other party or body, so there was no moderating influence. . , ., ., , ., influence. that is what i was not aware of- _ aware of. those prosecutions, the court of appeal criminal division stated should never have been brought,

because they were an affront to the conscience of the court. what do you have to say for yourself about that, sir? all i can do is repeat what i said at the beginning. ijust all i can do is repeat what i said at the beginning. i just apologise unreservedly. i am at the beginning. i just apologise unreservedly. iam not at the beginning. i just apologise unreservedly. i am not the sort of guy that is malicious or would want to do harm to anyone, and i was not aware. that is not an excuse. it is an explanation. there is no excuse for the fact that this happened and it was on my watch. this is what this inquiry is about, is to establish how that could have happened, and i have tried my own spaced to portray exactly what i recall happening many years ago. but it is not acceptable. it is recall happening many years ago. but it is not acceptable.— it is not acceptable. it is not acceptable- _ acceptable. finally, do you have anything by way of a personal direct apology that you would like to see to mrs

skinner? i you would like to see to mrs skinner? ., you would like to see to mrs skinner?— you would like to see to mrs skinner? ., ., ., ., skinner? iwould. iwould love to talk to her— skinner? iwould. iwould love to talk to her afterwards, _ skinner? iwould. iwould love to talk to her afterwards, but - skinner? iwould. iwould love to talk to her afterwards, but you i skinner? i would. i would love to i talk to her afterwards, but you may not want to. i can only apologise on behalf of the whole organisation for the way that you retreated. it was disgraceful. can only apologise personally that whilst i had not heard of your case, i am nevertheless, i have an accountability, that i should have been on top of it, and i wasn't. there is nothing more i could see. this will be with you for the rest of your life. it will be with me for the rest of my life. thank you. i— thank you. i have just got a few thank you. — i have just got a few questions, mr cook. i would like to go back to the instruction you issued to mr maclean, to carry out an

investigation, just any neutral sense. paragraph 79, page 27 of your witness statements, put that on the screen, please. if you would just like to refresh your memory byjust scanning that for the moment. your memory by 'ust scanning that for the moment.— for the moment. yes, i have. these are _ for the moment. yes, i have. these are my _ for the moment. yes, i have. these are my questions. - these are my questions. you have told me that in early may 2009 this possibility that there

were a number of cases involving a challenge to horizon came as a bolt out of the blue for you? yes. yourfirst out of the blue for you? yes. your first reaction was to instruct mr maclean to investigate as you did so because you thought highly of him? but then, reading the rest of that paragraph, it seems to me at least, and this is what i want your help with, that this inquiryjust petered out. because what you say is, i was issued at that time that horizon system was functioning normally, but i do not recall the detailed outcome of mr mclean's investigation, nor have i been provided with any documents relating to the investigation by the inquiry. breaking that down, it's a may be that you are saying that either mr

maclean or someone on his behalf said to you orderly, everything is fine, but apart from that, there doesn't appear to be any documents or reports or anything else that you had seen which actually gives as the result of mr maclean's investigation. i5 result of mr maclean's investigation.- result of mr maclean's investigation. result of mr maclean's investihation. , . investigation. is that as you understand _ investigation. is that as you understand it. _ understand it. i agree, yes. understand it. iagree, yes. i understand it. i agree, yes. i wouldn't have settles for, everything is fine. but i have not been able to, i have not been given, any history or documentation that shows what you produce. i cannot remember what the response was. but i wouldn't have been able to carry on without an investigation. and i think we saw during the course of my evidence that there was still quite a lot of activity going on sometime later. i believe that was the moment that the

organisation started examining itself, but as we have come to learn, there were many people that wanted to just prove that it was ok. yes. that's my understanding is that you didn't actually leave post office until early the following year. office until early the following ear. �* ,., office until early the following ear. ~ ,., ., office until early the following ear. ., ., , office until early the following ear. �* ., . , . year. about the end of january, that is rihht. is right. approximately seven or eight months after you had instigated an investigation by mr maclean. forgive me if this sounds critical, and perhaps it is critical, that there doesn't appear to be any urgency on your part to get an answer from him if you are allowed eight months to go by? we have seen evidence of activity still going on in october, november, that ijust cannot recollect seeing

a final report. i would love to be able to see that, but i am only going to see what i can clearly remember. throughout this process, as documents have emerged, it fills in the picture for me. it helps me remember. i rememberthe in the picture for me. it helps me remember. i remember the story. in the picture for me. it helps me remember. i rememberthe story. i have difficulty remembering the order and the dates. i remember moments. computer weekly letter was a moment. that had a big impact on me. but i cannot, without evidence being produced, i cannot point to what happens next. which is why i wrote to the witness statements i did, because i cannot claim something... can i take it that you have no memory of mr maclean producing a written report before you left your

position as managing director? ifind that difficult position as managing director? i find that difficult to believe that there wasn't one, but i can't remember it, and i haven't seen anything. all right. sorry to prolong it, but there is one further short series of questions about the case that was referred to in the computer weekly report, article, and that is the case of mr castleton. you say that you had no idea of mr castleton's case, certainly the name castleton, until you read that article. ijust want castleton, until you read that article. i just want to ask you about the process for making decisions when the post office was involved in quite high profile, high

court litigation. post office instigated proceedings against mr castleton for approximately, the figure doesn't matter, approximately £25,000. said to be a shortfall, as evidenced by data from horizon. mr castleton defended it on the basis that there was no shortfall, and this was all the fault of the computer. it gradually grew from being what might be called a fairly conventional action for the recovery of a debt, into a potential large scale argument about whether or not horizon was reliable. and this was all unfolding in the first eight, nine, ten months of you being managing director. but none of this got to you?

nope. the learnings from this are they are. let me carry on. when the very experienced barrister who was acting for the post office told the experienced solicitor who had instructed him, who in turn told the legal department of the post office, that the costs involved in this case were grossly out of proportion to what you were trying to get from mr castleton, and they ought to think seriously about whether it was worth spending all that money. all rights? but in the end all that money was spent so that the total amount of the debt and the costs came to well over £300,000. what i want to ask you about is,

what was the process back in 2006 for authorising the expenditure of those sums of money in the post office? , ., , those sums of money in the post office? , . , ., those sums of money in the post office? , . , . . , office? yes. that is what i was about to prematurely - office? yes. that is what i was about to prematurely talk - office? yes. that is what i was l about to prematurely talk about. there is an irony, if somebody in the organisation wanted to buy a piece of equipment they would have to get an teen form signed in order to get an teen form signed in order to be able to spend the money, yet, somehow or other, this spain decision was being made in that prosecution, —— this spain decision was being made. this should have been a set of authorities that said you are authorised to spend up to this amount of money. one of the issuesis this amount of money. one of the issues is a key starts off modest and becomes big. not only should they require a sign off from expenditure perspective, there should be a cap on how far it can go without coming back and asking for more. clearly that was not in place.

they certainly did not come to me for approval. we had delegated the authority is in place that would allow people below me, and this would have probably been with paula vennells to sign out off. there would have been a person within the post office organisation who would have had authority to sign off spending the money without taking it either to you or to the board? ., . board? correct. the most - board? correct. the most likely| board? correct. - the most likely person board? correct. _ the most likely person was paula vennells? yes, i think so. the legalfunction would yes, i think so. the legal function would have sought approval from the business, the legal function would have sought approvalfrom the business, and the legal function would have sought approval from the business, and the business in this case would have been the person that ran the branches. thank you. thank you, mr cook, for

providing your witness statements, and for coming to give evidence to the inquiry this morning. i am grateful to you. thank you, sir. how are we proceeding next? they preference i think is to switch witnesses — they preference i think is to switch witnesses immediately, if we can, and make — witnesses immediately, if we can, and make a — witnesses immediately, if we can, and make a start. by— and make a start. by all— and make a start. by all means. i will set you quietly until you do it. i think we may need a short break. yes, _ i think we may need a short break. yes. the _ i think we may need a short break. yes, the transcriber needs a short break _ break. all right. ten minutes? yes, that is fine. thank— ten minutes? yes, that is fine. thank you. _ ten minutes? yes, that is fine. thank you, sir. studio: post office inquiry taking a short break, we have been hearing from alan cook, former managing director of post office, he was in the post between 2006 and 2010. a lot of reference they are to computer weekly. this is a publication which

started investigating the horizon system and was exposing faults in the horizon system. alan cook was talking about the fact that that came to his notice. nonetheless it appears the organisation persisted with the idea that there were no faults with horizon system, as a result several hundred postmasters and post—mistresses were prosecuted. a lot of discussion as to the role of the post office, notably alan cook at the very beginning said that he was not aware that there post office was taking initiative. he thought that this was external, it was crown prosecution service. in fact, two thirds of the cases were initiated by the post office and pursued by the post office. that must have been some legal team within the post office, in order to achieve that. he emphasised that the legal team was not purely devoted towards doing that, and he made that point several times in his defence. he did however apologise. he was

presented with two former workers who had been prosecuted, both ladies in fact, who had spent time in prison, wrongly accused and wrongly convicted, and he apologised to both of them. to go he has been appearing in the horizon scandal inquiry. some of the main point is to come out of the evidence is that he didn't know the post office itself brought prosecutions. he said he was aware there were court cases but assumed there were court cases but assumed the police or public prosecutions were involved, it wasn't until more than three years into his job that he realised the post office could prosecute someone without any review or approval from another body and he admitted too much assumed knowledge and said there would have been a higher bar if a third party had brought prosecutions.