i want to play for you now fight but i want to play for you now fight forjustice. let's listen. seema misra there and we are expecting her to be at the inquiry there. there is a fire alarm just taken place we can't go back for just a moment let's now from mister miller mr miller told the inquiry he had not read a damaging expert mister miller damaging expert report about the horizon system. that led a lawyer representing former sub—postmasters to question mr miller's honesty during his testimony. mr. marsh comes to you with a report that he's knocking, that you're hearing something going on in the background

about from the post office, knocking this report and you decide not to read it. is that what you're saying, mr. miller? i didn't read it. i've made that very clear to this inquiry, but i didn't read it, and it's a matter of some regret to me. mr. miller one of two things arise out of that you're either lying through your teeth or you're a complete incompetent, which i'm not lying through my teeth. right. so incompetence, if you wish to say that. yes. or do you agree it's incompetence not to read a report? in these circumstances. i am not happy that i didn't read that report. in the afternoon, a former chief executive of the post office was questioned. david mills told the inquiry he hadn't been made aware of problems with the horizon it system during his time as chief executive,

between 2002 and 2005. we would wear internally that it was necessary to develop a process to develop challenges to respond to horizon. it develop challenges to respond to horizon. ., ., ., ., horizon. it would have meant that we would have problems _ horizon. it would have meant that we would have problems that _ horizon. it would have meant that we would have problems that arise - horizon. it would have meant that we would have problems that arise in - would have problems that arise in that we _ would have problems that arise in that we were not aware of. can you exlain that we were not aware of. can you explain why — that we were not aware of. can you explain why you — that we were not aware of. can you explain why you want _ that we were not aware of. can you explain why you want aware - that we were not aware of. can you explain why you want aware of - that we were not aware of. can you | explain why you want aware of that. you might guess i think i can. despite efforts to understand and realise . . , despite efforts to understand and realise ., ., , ., despite efforts to understand and realise ., ., ., realise what was going on with horizon out — realise what was going on with horizon out in _ realise what was going on with horizon out in the _ realise what was going on with horizon out in the field - realise what was going on with horizon out in the field issuesl realise what was going on with l horizon out in the field issues of the natures that you are discussing never_ the natures that you are discussing never came — the natures that you are discussing never came to the board and in order to come _ never came to the board and in order to come to _ never came to the board and in order to come to the board it would have had to _ to come to the board it would have had to have — to come to the board it would have had to have gone to the directors or the executives and none of those ever raised — the executives and none of those ever raised the issue with me at all. �* , ., ., , ., all. as we wait for the inquiry to start any minute _ all. as we wait for the inquiry to start any minute now, _ all. as we wait for the inquiry to start any minute now, just - all. as we wait for the inquiry to start any minute now, just a - start any minute now, just a reminder that when we come to

seamer, hers is one of many issues that came to the fore. yes seamer, hers is one of many issues that came to the fore.— that came to the fore. yes that's ri . ht that came to the fore. yes that's right when _ that came to the fore. yes that's right when we — that came to the fore. yes that's right when we came _ that came to the fore. yes that's right when we came to _ that came to the fore. yes that's right when we came to -- - that came to the fore. yes that's i right when we came to -- when we right when we came to —— when we spoke to a lot of victims not all of them have had their convictions overturned. the government has introduced new legislation that is aiming to overturn all these convictions byjuly but in the meantime, even for those who have had their convictions overturned, they are waiting for our financial redress and i say should financial redress and i say should financial redress because some of the victims here have said that they don't believe that compensation cuts it. they cannot be compensated for years they have lost and the pain and hits to their reputation that has been taken over the years and for the absolute mental health problems and also health problems that they had as a result of this experience. part

of what you heard there from seema is echoed from everyone else. apologies just won't cut it. it is echoed from everyone else. apologies just won't cut it. apologies 'ust won't cut it. it begs the apologiesjust won't cut it. it begs the question _ apologiesjust won't cut it. it begs the question whether _ apologiesjust won't cut it. it begs the question whether there - apologiesjust won't cut it. it begs the question whether there could l apologiesjust won't cut it. it begs l the question whether there could be prosecutions of other people involved in this who wrongfully prosecuted in the future. absolutely. that is one of the big questions that victims that they keep putting to officials, in fact the post office minister has said that he believes that once evidence has been established, that then afterwards those who were responsible, in the post office or more broadly, should be prosecuted for this and that some should eventually go to jail. of course, victims here feel enough evidence has come through, but of course that is the reminder that that is not the role of this inquiry. this inquiry

is trying to get answers, get evidence and understand how all of this could have happened. i believe the inquiry is just starting now so we can take a listen. i the inquiry isjust starting now so we can take a listen.— the inquiry isjust starting now so we can take a listen. i am going to take ou we can take a listen. i am going to take you through _ we can take a listen. i am going to take you through the _ we can take a listen. i am going to take you through the oath today. | we can take a listen. i am going to i take you through the oath today. can you hear me ok? yes i can please can you hear me ok? yes i can please can you hold up the bible and repeat after me? i swear by almighty god. i swear by almighty god. after me? i swear by almighty god. i swear by almighty god. that - after me? i swear by almighty god. i swear by almighty god. that the - swear by almighty god. that the evidence i shall— swear by almighty god. that the evidence i shall give. _ swear by almighty god. that the evidence i shall give. that - swear by almighty god. that the evidence i shall give. that the i evidence i shall give. that the evidence i shall give. that the evidence that _ evidence i shall give. that the evidence that i _ evidence i shall give. that the evidence that i shall - evidence i shall give. that the evidence that i shall give - evidence i shall give. that the | evidence that i shall give shall evidence i shall give. that the . evidence that i shall give shall be the whole truth _ evidence that i shall give shall be the whole truth and _ evidence that i shall give shall be the whole truth and nothing - evidence that i shall give shall be the whole truth and nothing but l evidence that i shall give shall be i the whole truth and nothing but the truth , . , the whole truth and nothing but the truth , ., , ., ., truth shall be the whole truth and nothin: truth shall be the whole truth and nothing but _ truth shall be the whole truth and nothing but the _ truth shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. _ truth shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. can - truth shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. can you - truth shall be the whole truth and l nothing but the truth. can you give our full nothing but the truth. can you give your full name _ nothing but the truth. can you give your full name please. _ nothing but the truth. can you give your full name please. yes - nothing but the truth. can you give your full name please. yes it's - your full name please. yes it's geoffrey longman. _

your full name please. yes it's geoffrey longman. you - your full name please. yes it's| geoffrey longman. you should your full name please. yes it's - geoffrey longman. you should have a reference , ., ., , ., reference number in front of you. could i reference number in front of you. could i ask _ reference number in front of you. could i ask you _ reference number in front of you. could i ask you please _ reference number in front of you. could i ask you please to - reference number in front of you. could i ask you please to turn - could i ask you please to turn to the final page, page a7. could i ask you please to turn to the final page, page 47.- could i ask you please to turn to the final page, page a7. yes. can the final page, page 47. yes. can ou the final page, page 47. yes. can you confirm _ the final page, page 47. yes. can you confirm that _ the final page, page 47. yes. can you confirm that as _ the final page, page 47. yes can you confirm that as your signature and true to the best of your knowledge and belief. it and true to the best of your knowledge and belief.- and true to the best of your knowledge and belief. it is. i knowledge and belief. it is. i believe there _ knowledge and belief. it is. i believe there are _ knowledge and belief. it is. i believe there are a _ knowledge and belief. it 3 i believe there are a couple of corrections you would like to make. first amendment i would like to make is regarding paragraph 5354. {guild first amendment i would like to make is regarding paragraph 5354.— is regarding paragraph 5354. could i ask for that to _ is regarding paragraph 5354. could i ask for that to be _ is regarding paragraph 5354. could i ask for that to be brought up - is regarding paragraph 5354. could i ask for that to be brought up on - is regarding paragraph 5354. could i ask for that to be brought up on the j ask for that to be brought up on the screen.

paragraph 53 and 54. if we could scroll slightly up. thank you very much. what is the amendment?— thank you very much. what is the amendment? having reviewed the document e-37 _ amendment? having reviewed the document e-37 and _ amendment? having reviewed the document e-37 and e-38 - amendment? having reviewed the document e-37 and e-38 in - amendment? having reviewed the document e-37 and e-38 in the i document e—37 and e—38 in the additional documents bundle i can see that there was a matter in which i acted as a lead investigator and the sub—postmaster had attributed losses to the horizon system during the initial investigation stages and until receiving the documents i couldn't recall that. i would like to mention that it was mrs odell.

paragraph 54 you say i have never experienced a situation where a sub—postmaster attributed shortfall to horizon and now you can see where you were at least involved in this case where you did. this you were at least involved in this case where you did.— case where you did. as lead investigator. _ case where you did. as lead investigator. what - case where you did. as lead investigator. what are - case where you did. as lead investigator. what are the l case where you did. as lead - investigator. what are the other chan . es? investigator. what are the other changes? date _ investigator. what are the other changes? date corrections. - investigator. what are the other changes? date corrections. in . changes? date corrections. in paragraphs— changes? date corrections. in paragraphs 58 _ changes? date corrections. in paragraphs 58 and _ changes? date corrections. in paragraphs 58 and 64. - changes? date corrections. in paragraphs 58 and 64. this i changes? date corrections. in paragraphs 58 and 64. this is | changes? date corrections. in - paragraphs 58 and 64. this is the date i visited west byfleet. it is the 14th of august 2008 and it should be the 14th of january 2008. the further amendment? paragraph 76.

that is -ae~ the further amendment? paragraph 76. that is page 39- — paragraph 76 regarding instructions to mrjenkins. if you scroll down to the date. it's over the page i think. ., , ., , ., ., think. can you see after the e-mail chain... think. can you see after the e-mail chain- -- it — think. can you see after the e-mail chain... it shows _ think. can you see after the e-mail chain... it shows warwick - think. can you see after the e-mail| chain... it shows warwick e-mailing chain... it shows warwick e—mailing mrjenkins and that should be the 7th of october 2010.— mrjenkins and that should be the 7th of october 2010. thank you. are those the only _ 7th of october 2010. thank you. are those the only changes? _

7th of october 2010. thank you. are those the only changes? yes. - 7th of october 2010. thank you. are those the only changes? yes. that l those the only changes? yes. that statement will _ those the only changes? 19:3 that statement will go those the only changes? i9; that statement will go into evidence and will be published on the inquiry�*s website. i would like to ask about your background. you work for the post office for approximately 36 years? post office for approximately 36 ears? . post office for approximately 36 years?- you _ post office for approximately 36 years? yes. you started as a counter clerk in a crown _ years? i9; you started as a counter clerk in a crown office. years? yes. you started as a counter clerk in a crown office. yes. - years? yes. you started as a counter clerk in a crown office. yes. you - clerk in a crown office. yes. you move to a _ clerk in a crown office. yes. you move to a head _ clerk in a crown office. yes. you move to a head office _ clerk in a crown office. i9; you move to a head office in watford and joined the security team in 2000 as an investigator?— joined the security team in 2000 as an investigator? yes. you worked as an investigator? yes. you worked as an investigator— an investigator? i9; you worked as an investigator until late 2012, early 2013 with mac it an investigator until late 2012, early 2013 with ma- an investigator until late 2012, early 2013 with mac it was late 2011 or early 2012- _ early 2013 with mac it was late 2011 or early 2012. thank _ early 2013 with mac it was late 2011 or early 2012. thank you. _ early 2013 with mac it was late 2011 or early 2012. thank you. i - early 2013 with mac it was late 2011 or early 2012. thank you. i can't . or early 2012. thank you. i can't remember _ or early 2012. thank you. i can't remember the _ or early 2012. thank you. i can't remember the exact _ or early 2012. thank you. i can't remember the exact date. - or early 2012. thank you. i can't remember the exact date. the | or early 2012. thank you. i can't i remember the exact date. the job or early 2012. thank you. i can't - remember the exact date. the job you remember the exact date. the 'ob you transferred to — remember the exact date. the 'ob you transferred to was i remember the exact date. the 'ob you transferred to was the t remember the exact date. the 'ob you transferred to was the network_ transferred to was the network transformation team and you worked there until you left in 2016? yes.

there untilyou left in 2016? yes. can ou there untilyou left in 2016? yes. can you help _ there untilyou left in 2016? yes. can you help us— there untilyou left in 2016? yes. can you help us with _ there untilyou left in 2016? yes. can you help us with why - there until you left in 2016? i9; can you help us with why you left the post office? or, can you help us with why you left the post office?— the post office? a number of reasons- _ the post office? a number of reasons. the _ the post office? a number of reasons. the job _ the post office? a number of reasons. the job as - the post office? a number of reasons. the job as a - the post office? a number of| reasons. the job as a network transformation officer, they were looking for people to take redundancy and personal circumstances also prompted me to decide that was the time to leave. they are the reasons.— decide that was the time to leave. they are the reasons. thank you. we have our they are the reasons. thank you. we have your statement _ they are the reasons. thank you. we have your statement on _ they are the reasons. thank you. we have your statement on screen. - they are the reasons. thank you. we have your statement on screen. can l have your statement on screen. can we look at a few paragraphs in your statement. can we start on page 18 please? . iwant statement. can we start on page 18 please? . i want to clarify a few matters in your statement. am i right to say that you didn't know what test was applied to those making prosecution and charging

decisions, in paragraphs 38? i think it is your evidence that you didn't know what test was applied by those making those decisions. the know what test was applied by those making those decisions.— making those decisions. the general comments there _ making those decisions. the general comments there must _ making those decisions. the general comments there must be _ making those decisions. the general comments there must be sufficient l comments there must be sufficient evidence, i put in my statement further down that it should be in the public interest, they were the only two things... 50 the public interest, they were the only two things. . ._ only two things... so they had a varue only two things... so they had a vague idea _ only two things... so they had a vague idea that _ only two things... so they had a vague idea that they _ only two things... so they had a vague idea that they consider i only two things... so they had a l vague idea that they consider two things but didn't know precisely. whether they were correct or not i'm not saying it from a position of authority. sufficient evidence and in the public interest were two things that come to mind. could we scroll down — things that come to mind. could we scroll down please _ things that come to mind. could we scroll down please to _ things that come to mind. could we scroll down please to the _ things that come to mind. could we scroll down please to the bottom i things that come to mind. could we scroll down please to the bottom of page 26?

we see there the very final paragraph, it is also your evidence. that you won't aware of any specific rules covering independent expert advice and can't recall if you were given advice or assisted in that regard? is that correct?- given advice or assisted in that regard? is that correct? yes. moving to raer 37 regard? is that correct? i9; moving to page 37 plays, paragraph 71. we will look at this in more detail in due course but if we scroll to the bottom of that page, in the middle of that paragraph it says that you would like to point out the inquiry that you didn't realise at the time, in relation to seema misra case that you had the title of disclosure officer? i you had the title of disclosure officer? :. officer? i dealt with the disclosure but i officer? i dealt with the disclosure but i didn't — officer? i dealt with the disclosure but i didn't know _ officer? i dealt with the disclosure but i didn't know i _ officer? i dealt with the disclosure but i didn't know i had _ officer? i dealt with the disclosure but i didn't know i had that - but i didn't know i had that official title of disclosure

officer. :. official title of disclosure officer. :, :, :, :: officer. can we move to page 40, lease. officer. can we move to page 40, please. paragraph _ officer. can we move to page 40, please. paragraph one _ officer. can we move to page 40, please. paragraph one 37 -- - officer. can we move to page 40, please. paragraph one 37 -- 47 i please. paragraph one 37 —— 47 halfway through the paragraph you say that you are unaware of what the difference would be between an expert and a lay witness. fist difference would be between an expert and a lay witness. at the time, expert and a lay witness. at the time. yes- _ expert and a lay witness. at the time. yes- its — expert and a lay witness. at the time, yes. as the _ expert and a lay witness. at the time, yes. as the inquiry - expert and a lay witness. at the time, yes. as the inquiry has i expert and a lay witness. at the i time, yes. as the inquiry has been running i am picking up some indication of what an expert witness is now. if indication of what an expert witness is now. :, :, :, ~ is now. if we move on to page 46 lease. is now. if we move on to page 46 please. paragraph _ is now. if we move on to page 46 please. paragraph 97. _ you say in paragraph 97 that at the time you didn't believe that a challenge to the horizon system in

one case be relevant to other cases? that's correct. one case be relevant to other cases? that's correct-— that's correct. that affects cross to closure _ that's correct. that affects cross to closure between _ that's correct. that affects cross to closure between cases, - that's correct. that affects cross to closure between cases, do . that's correct. that affects cross | to closure between cases, do you understand that? —— cross disclosure. at the time you didn't think a challenge to horizon in one case was relevant to another case? if a bug had been discovered, then obviously, it would be relevant. i think in the west byfleet case a bug at another office had been identified, but it was an isolated bug and didn't have any bearing on the case. :, _ ., i.

the case. you say here that you didn't believe _ the case. you say here that you didn't believe that _ the case. you say here that you didn't believe that you - the case. you say here that you didn't believe that you consider| the case. you say here that you | didn't believe that you consider a challenge to the horizon system in one case to be relevant to another case. are you saying that irrespective of the number of challenges to horizon that you didn't consider they would be relevant to a case that you are conducting? subject to that one can clarification. flat conducting? sub'ect to that one can clarification.— clarification. not unless a bug had been found- _ clarification. not unless a bug had been found. if— clarification. not unless a bug had been found. if it _ clarification. not unless a bug had been found. if it was _ clarification. not unless a bug had been found. if it wasjust - clarification. not unless a bug had been found. if it wasjust a - been found. if it was just a challenge but a bug hadn't been discovered i wouldn't have thought it would be relevant to another case. . it would be relevant to another case, ., :, :, " it would be relevant to another case. :, ., it would be relevant to another case, ., ., :, case. can we look at page 42 of your statement. — case. can we look at page 42 of your statement, paragraph _ case. can we look at page 42 of your statement, paragraph 86? _ you say there, i have reviewed the judgment of the court of appeal and upon reflection on this case i do not think i would have done anything

differently. do you think that you had properly reflected on your actions in respect of the cases that you were going to be looking at? i don't think i would have done anything differently i meant that the initial investigation, the offender report and the charging. when it got to court, obviously, there are things i wish had been done differently. d0 there are things i wish had been done differently.— there are things i wish had been done differently. do you think you would have _ done differently. do you think you would have familiar _ done differently. do you think you would have familiar realised - would have familiar realised yourself a bit better with relevant tests and responsibilities you had at the time? this tests and responsibilities you had at the time?— at the time? this is referring to the west byfleet _ at the time? this is referring to the west byfleet case? - at the time? this is referring to the west byfleet case? i - at the time? this is referring to the west byfleet case? i think. at the time? this is referring to i the west byfleet case? i think this is a general _ the west byfleet case? i think this is a general statement _ the west byfleet case? i think this is a general statement that - the west byfleet case? i think this is a general statement that you i is a general statement that you don't think you would have done anything differently. are you saying thatis anything differently. are you saying that is simply in relation to the

seema mr case?— that is simply in relation to the seema mr case? a, ., ., :, ., seema mr case? more data would have been attained — seema mr case? more data would have been attained and _ seema mr case? more data would have been attained and things _ seema mr case? more data would have been attained and things would - seema mr case? more data would have been attained and things would have i been attained and things would have been attained and things would have been done differently. do been attained and things would have been done differently.— been done differently. do you think ou would been done differently. do you think you would have _ been done differently. do you think you would have thought _ been done differently. do you think you would have thought harder i been done differently. do you think. you would have thought harder about how much disclosure you give to defendants?— how much disclosure you give to defendants? , :, ., :, defendants? yes, again, ithought the disclosure _ defendants? yes, again, ithought the disclosure i _ defendants? yes, again, ithought the disclosure i had _ defendants? yes, again, ithought the disclosure i had given - defendants? yes, again, ithought the disclosure i had given in - defendants? yes, again, ithought the disclosure i had given in the i the disclosure i had given in the seema misra case was correct at the time. if there was a review of that case and i was told i hadn't done things then obviously i would try to correct that going forward. you read the case of — correct that going forward. you read the case of hamilton _ correct that going forward. you read the case of hamilton and _ correct that going forward. you read the case of hamilton and the - correct that going forward. you read the case of hamilton and the court i the case of hamilton and the court of appealjudgment and on reflection, you didn't think you would have done anything differently? what do you mean? i

would have been more forceful in making sure that disclosure requests were all actioned if i had that authority. and obviously, there were disclosure requests that didn't get action for one reason or another. irate action for one reason or another. we have spoken about the difference between an expert witness in a lay witness, do you think you would have brushed up a little more on the difference between the two? yes. difference between the two? yes, once it was _ difference between the two? yes, once it was brought _ difference between the two? yes, once it was brought to _ difference between the two? yes, once it was brought to my - difference between the two? i9: once it was brought to my attention, if i was aware that we hadn't treated a witness as an expert witness and only as a lay witness then that would... i would have learnt from that. their next case where we needed an expert witness it was done in the correct manner. [30

was done in the correct manner. do ou was done in the correct manner. do you still stand by that sentence or do you think we can scrub it out? the initial investigation was done properly, but after it went to trial, there were things that i would have done differently. i’m would have done differently. i'm rroin to would have done differently. i'm going to move on to the training that you were provided with. the statement can come down. i am that you were provided with. the statement can come down. i am sorry to be pedantic. — statement can come down. i am sorry to be pedantic, but _ statement can come down. i am sorry to be pedantic, but i'm _ statement can come down. i am sorry to be pedantic, but i'm not— statement can come down. i am sorry to be pedantic, but i'm not entirely i to be pedantic, but i'm not entirely certain. _ to be pedantic, but i'm not entirely certain. so— to be pedantic, but i'm not entirely certain, so let me ask a direct question. _ certain, so let me ask a direct question, is your paragraph 86 that we have _ question, is your paragraph 86 that we have just looked at confined to your view — we have just looked at confined to your view of the seema misra case, or is it _ your view of the seema misra case, or is it a _ your view of the seema misra case, or is it a general statement about your general approach to all the cases— your general approach to all the cases you — your general approach to all the cases you were involved in? | your general approach to all the cases you were involved in? i think that was reflecting _ cases you were involved in? i think that was reflecting on _ cases you were involved in? i think that was reflecting on the - cases you were involved in? i think that was reflecting on the seema l that was reflecting on the seema misra case. that was reflecting on the seema misra case-— that was reflecting on the seema

misra case. ~ :, , misra case. fine. i know it is under the heading _ misra case. fine. i know it is under the heading seema _ misra case. fine. i know it is under the heading seema misra. - misra case. fine. i know it is under the heading seema misra. what i the heading seema misra. what confused — the heading seema misra. what confused me is it is in paragraph 86, it— confused me is it is in paragraph 86, it introduced with the words i have _ 86, it introduced with the words i have reviewed the judgment of the court _ have reviewed the judgment of the court of— have reviewed the judgment of the court of appeal on hamilton and others — court of appeal on hamilton and others do— court of appeal on hamilton and others. do you mean the whole of the judgment _ others. do you mean the whole of the judgment or— others. do you mean the whole of the judgment orjust that part which relates— judgment orjust that part which relates to — judgment orjust that part which relates to seema misra? just the art which relates to seema misra? just the part which relates _ relates to seema misra? just the part which relates to _ relates to seema misra? just the part which relates to seema i relates to seema misra? just the l part which relates to seema misra. all right. part which relates to seema misra. all rirht. :, _ part which relates to seema misra. allrirht. :, ., .,, part which relates to seema misra. allrirht. :, ., i: all right. you say in paragraph 40 1-42 that you _ all right. you say in paragraph 40 1-42 that you undertook - all right. you say in paragraph 40 1-42 that you undertook a - all right. you say in paragraph 40 1-42 that you undertook a five i all right. you say in paragraph 40 i 1-42 that you undertook a five week 1—42 that you undertook a five week training course. was that training while you were working or separate to your work and just focusing five days a week on training? that to your work and just focusing five days a week on training? that was a course that — days a week on training? that was a course that all— days a week on training? that was a

course that all new _ days a week on training? that was a course that all new investigators i course that all new investigators were sent on. a residential course in in milton keynes. having applied for the role i spent some time in an office before the course became available and then i was sent on this residential course along with other investigators. do this residential course along with other investigators.— this residential course along with other investigators. do you recall if it was residential _ other investigators. do you recall if it was residential for _ other investigators. do you recall if it was residential for five - if it was residential for five weeks or was there a period of learning prior to the residential part of the course? :, :, :, :, , course? prior to going on the course i was in course? prior to going on the course i was in an — course? prior to going on the course i was in an investigation _ course? prior to going on the course i was in an investigation departmentj i was in an investigation department and i was given a lot of work manuals, different modules to read and work through, just continually go through. they cover different areas of investigations and the law. this was while i was waiting for the course to become available. mas course to become available. was there any focus _ course to become available. was there any focus during that training on the horizon system? he. you

on the horizon system? no. you worked for— on the horizon system? firm you worked for 12 or 13 years in the security team, where there any refresher courses provided to you during that period? i refresher courses provided to you during that period?— during that period? i think there were half day — during that period? i think there were half day courses _ during that period? i think there were half day courses or- during that period? i think there| were half day courses or daylong courses, but i can't be more specific. i remember going to one of the counter training schools for half a day, but i can't remember any other training. half a day, but i can't remember any othertraining. in half a day, but i can't remember any other training-— other training. in the 12 or 13 year eriod other training. in the 12 or 13 year period there _ other training. in the 12 or 13 year period there was _ other training. in the 12 or 13 year period there was some _ other training. in the 12 or 13 year period there was some training, i other training. in the 12 or 13 year. period there was some training, but nothing so significant that you can recall it? :, :, nothing so significant that you can recall it? :, ., , .., nothing so significant that you can recall it? :, ., , , :, recall it? not a significant period of training- _ recall it? not a significant period of training. was _ recall it? not a significant period of training. was part _ recall it? not a significant period of training. was part of - recall it? not a significant period of training. was part of your i of training. was part of your traininr of training. was part of your training about _ of training. was part of your training about the _ of training. was part of your training about the role i of training. was part of your training about the role of i of training. was part of your training about the role of a l training about the role of a disclosure of the? and what that

might involve. i’m disclosure of the? and what that might involve.— might involve. i'm sure it was covered on — might involve. i'm sure it was covered on the _ might involve. i'm sure it was covered on the residential i might involve. i'm sure it was i covered on the residential course, as to how much detail it went into i can't recall. as to how much detail it went into i can't recall-— can't recall. paragraph 71 of your statement. _ can't recall. paragraph 71 of your statement, in _ can't recall. paragraph 71 of your statement, in relation _ can't recall. paragraph 71 of your statement, in relation to - can't recall. paragraph 71 of your statement, in relation to the i can't recall. paragraph 71 of your i statement, in relation to the seema misra case, you say, i wouldn't have had any involvement in providing disclosure to the defence team. where you aware at that time that the disclosure officer had a separate and distinct role to the investigating officer? flu. were you investigating officer? no. were you aware investigating officer? firm were you aware that it was part of the disclosure officer's duty to disclose duty to —— disclose evidence to an accused. i disclose duty to -- disclose

evidence to an accused. i would send the disclosure _ evidence to an accused. i would send the disclosure schedules _ evidence to an accused. i would send the disclosure schedules to _ evidence to an accused. i would send the disclosure schedules to our- the disclosure schedules to our legal services team who would then send them to the defence solicitor if requested. what i mean by that, i wouldn't send stuff directly to the defence. irate wouldn't send stuff directly to the defence. ~ . :, :, wouldn't send stuff directly to the defence. ~ _, :, ,. :,, defence. we will come to disclosure in due course. _ defence. we will come to disclosure in due course, were _ defence. we will come to disclosure in due course, were you _ defence. we will come to disclosure in due course, were you involved i defence. we will come to disclosure in due course, were you involved in | in due course, were you involved in the decision—making process in terms of disclosure, or did you see your job principally as complete that schedule? :, , ,. schedule? completing their schedule, listinr schedule? completing their schedule, listing everything _ schedule? completing their schedule, listing everything that _ schedule? completing their schedule, listing everything that was _ schedule? completing their schedule, listing everything that was un-used i listing everything that was un—used or if there was anything sensitive. i'm going to move on to the topic of bugs, errors and defects in the horizon system. i'm going to focus particularly on the seema misra case. can we start looking at the

28th of january 2010. if we scroll over the page, please. we have an e—mailfrom over the page, please. we have an e—mail from yourself to penny thomas. do you remember her? yes e-mail from yourself to penny thomas. do you remember her? yes she was the doorway — thomas. do you remember her? yes she was the doorway into _ thomas. do you remember her? yes she was the doorway into fujitsu, _ thomas. do you remember her? yes she was the doorway into fujitsu, she - was the doorway into fujitsu, she would deal with any requests and provided ar r0 data. did would deal with any requests and provided ar rq data.— would deal with any requests and provided ar rq data. did you see her role as administrative? _ provided ar rq data. did you see her role as administrative? yes. - provided ar rq data. did you see her role as administrative? yes. you i provided ar rq data. did you see her role as administrative? yes. you say| role as administrative? yes. you say my barrister — role as administrative? i9; you say my barrister telephoned me and requested ifind out any my barrister telephoned me and requested i find out any information that fujitsu may hold about an office in falkirk. apparently, anne chambers was cross examined and it is said that she had full knowledge of an error in the horizon system at this post office. the subject there

is west byfleet, this seems to be an e—mail in the context of the seema misra case? e-mail in the context of the seema misra case?— e—mail in the context of the seema misra case? yes. were you aware that the calendar— misra case? i9; were you aware that the calendar square bug was a bug that could cause discrepancies in her? i that could cause discrepancies in her? . .., that could cause discrepancies in her? , ., ., that could cause discrepancies in her? ., ., :, her? i became aware of it. i became aware of it — her? i became aware of it. i became aware of it as _ her? i became aware of it. i became aware of it as the _ her? i became aware of it. i became aware of it as the case _ her? i became aware of it. i became aware of it as the case progressed. l aware of it as the case progressed. it was responded to in a statement from mrjenkins, but i had no knowledge about calendar square until it was mentioned in this particular case of west byfleet. where you aware that it dated back to the year 2000? i where you aware that it dated back to the year 2000?— to the year 2000? i thought it was around 2005-2006. _

to the year 2000? i thought it was around 2005-2006. no _ to the year 2000? i thought it was around 2005-2006. no | - to the year 2000? i thought it was around 2005-2006. no i didn't - to the year 2000? i thought it was i around 2005-2006. no i didn't know around 2005—2006. no i didn't know it related back to the year 2000. fir it related back to the year 2000. or did you discuss calendar square with? ~ :, :, did you discuss calendar square with? a, :, ..,, with? moving on with the case, i think gareth _ with? moving on with the case, i think gareth jenkins _ with? moving on with the case, i think gareth jenkins dealt - with? moving on with the case, i think gareth jenkins dealt with i think garethjenkins dealt with this. the conversations were with penny thomas and it was responded to about this bug by a statement from garethjenkins. irate about this bug by a statement from gareth jenkins.— gareth jenkins. we see a reference to anne chambers. _ gareth jenkins. we see a reference to anne chambers. she _ gareth jenkins. we see a reference to anne chambers. she gave - gareth jenkins. we see a reference i to anne chambers. she gave evidence in a case in 2006. had you heard of this case byjanuary in a case in 2006. had you heard of this case by january 2010? i in a case in 2006. had you heard of this case by january 2010?— this case by january 2010? i don't know. i this case by january 2010? i don't know- i don't _ this case by january 2010? i don't know. i don't think _ this case by january 2010? i don't know. i don't think so _ this case by january 2010? i don't know. i don't think so but - this case by january 2010? i don't know. i don't think so but i - this case by january 2010? i don't know. i don't think so but i don'tl know. i don't think so but i don't know. i don't think so but i don't know. that is my answer.- know. i don't think so but i don't know. that is my answer. where you aware of any — know. that is my answer. where you aware of any cases _ know. that is my answer. where you aware of any cases challenging i know. that is my answer. where you aware of any cases challenging the i

aware of any cases challenging the integrity of the horizon system by january 2010? my integrity of the horizon system by january 2010?— integrity of the horizon system by january 2010? integrity of the horizon system by janua 2010? g _, ., :, january 2010? my colleague, from the additional documentation, _ january 2010? my colleague, from the additional documentation, had - january 2010? my colleague, from the additional documentation, had a i january 2010? my colleague, from the additional documentation, had a case | additional documentation, had a case that was going on and that was potentially a challenge. i think there were... there were rumours about other cases where there may be challenges to horizon, but as far as i was aware no bugs had been identified. as far as i was aware falkirk was the first one i was informed there was a bug. if falkirk was the first one i was informed there was a bug. if we go onto raer informed there was a bug. if we go onto page one _ informed there was a bug. if we go onto page one of— informed there was a bug. if we go onto page one of this _ informed there was a bug. if we go onto page one of this document, i informed there was a bug. if we go l onto page one of this document, we can see a reference to this case. it

is an e—mailfrom penny can see a reference to this case. it is an e—mail from penny thomas to her colleagues, including gareth jenkins. it says, tom, gareth, we have two cases running at the moment where expert witnesses required. then she read fares at the bottom to the case you were just talking about. did you have involvement in particular case?— particular case? again from the additional documents _ particular case? again from the additional documents i - particular case? again from the additional documents i was i particular case? again from the i additional documents i was assisting at the first interview, back in 2006 i think come around that time. sol sat in on an interview to assist the lead investigator. find sat in on an interview to assist the lead investigator.— lead investigator. and that lead investigator— lead investigator. and that lead investigator was _ lead investigator. and that lead investigator was lisa _ lead investigator. and that lead investigator was lisa alan? i lead investigator. and that lead| investigator was lisa alan? yes. lead investigator. and that lead i investigator was lisa alan? yes. did ou seak investigator was lisa alan? yes. did you speak to — investigator was lisa alan? yes. did you speak to her— investigator was lisa alan? as did you speak to her about similar issues in your two cases, allegations about the horizon system?