made, the confidence that was made, the confidence that horizon — was made, the confidence that horizon wasn't at fault? no. other than that was _ horizon wasn't at fault? no. other than that was the _ horizon wasn't at fault? no. other than that was the understanding . than that was the understanding within the business. you than that was the understanding within the business.— than that was the understanding within the business. you refer in our within the business. you refer in your statement _ within the business. you refer in your statement to _ within the business. you refer in your statement to that, - within the business. you refer in your statement to that, that - within the business. you refer in your statement to that, that a l your statement to that, that a messaging coming from the business, the messaging from the post office, which _ the messaging from the post office, which a _ the messaging from the post office, which a person, which individual person— which a person, which individual person was_ which a person, which individual person was giving you that messaging is gold _ person was giving you that messaging is gold there wasn't an individual person — is gold there wasn't an individual person i — is gold there wasn't an individual erson. , ., ., .,, person. i remember when horizon was installed and — person. i remember when horizon was installed and rolled _ person. i remember when horizon was installed and rolled out _ person. i remember when horizon was installed and rolled out that _ person. i remember when horizon was installed and rolled out that the - installed and rolled out that the message was this is the most secure and largest system in europe and i don't know who said that but i always remembered that and that in itself give confidence in that system, but i can't say that i ever remember a particular person. but

that was the general messaging and certainly the feeling, what was believed, what was in the organisation.— believed, what was in the oruanisation. ,, ., �* , believed, what was in the oruanisation. ,, . �* , ., organisation. sea can't identify an individual? _ organisation. sea can't identify an individual? know— organisation. sea can't identify an individual? know and _ organisation. sea can't identify an individual? know and it _ organisation. sea can't identify an individual? know and it would - organisation. sea can't identify an| individual? know and it would have been over a — individual? know and it would have been over a number— individual? know and it would have been over a number of— individual? know and it would have been over a number of years. - individual? know and it would have been over a number of years. it. been over a number of years. it wouldn't have been just one person. that was the understanding within the organisation at the time. there are parts of the organisation i wasn't aware of that i've since seen quite damaging documents on, but i wasn't aware of that. what quite damaging documents on, but i wasn't aware of that.— wasn't aware of that. what are you referrin: wasn't aware of that. what are you referring to? _ wasn't aware of that. what are you referring to? just _ wasn't aware of that. what are you referring to? just the _ wasn't aware of that. what are you referring to? just the comments i wasn't aware of that. what are you referring to? just the comments in j referring to? just the comments in the receipts _ referring to? just the comments in the receipts and _ referring to? just the comments in the receipts and mismatch, - referring to? just the comments in the receipts and mismatch, those | the receipts and mismatch, those types of... we need to keep this quiet, we don't want the horizon integrity to become known. those are the things i referring to. itruilren integrity to become known. those are the things i referring to.— the things i referring to. when we asked questions _ the things i referring to. when we asked questions of— the things i referring to. when we asked questions of those - the things i referring to. when we asked questions of those people i the things i referring to. when we | asked questions of those people at those _ asked questions of those people at those levels, they say it was the people _ those levels, they say it was the people above us telling us that

horizon — people above us telling us that horizon is the largest system out site defence in europe, very secure, processes, _ site defence in europe, very secure, processes, millions of transactions a day, _ processes, millions of transactions a day, billions of transactions a year. _ a day, billions of transactions a year. there _ a day, billions of transactions a year, there is no faults with horizon. _ year, there is no faults with horizon, it has been independently assessed, — horizon, it has been independently assessed, auditors have given it a clean _ assessed, auditors have given it a clean bill— assessed, auditors have given it a clean bill of— assessed, auditors have given it a clean bill of health, it was the people — clean bill of health, it was the people above us, ie you, that were passing _ people above us, ie you, that were passing that message down us as gold well, it— passing that message down us as gold well, it wasn't me at my level then because _ well, it wasn't me at my level then because i_ well, it wasn't me at my level then because i wasn't at that level. if you because i wasn't at that level. you look at because i wasn't at that level. if you look at the distribution list on here, i was one of the morejunior people on this list. as i said, i'd just started coming to this and therefore i wouldn't have challenged and i would have taken everything on face value at this time because i was new to this space. i face value at this time because i was new to this space.— face value at this time because i was new to this space. i think you were responsible _ was new to this space. i think you were responsible for _ was new to this space. i think you i were responsible for communicating the post _ were responsible for communicating the post office 's messaging to ministers, members of parliaments.

no. , , ., ministers, members of parliaments. no. , ., ., , no. did you not attend meetings with mp5? i no. did you not attend meetings with mps? i would — no. did you not attend meetings with mps? i would have _ no. did you not attend meetings with mps? i would have but— no. did you not attend meetings with mps? i would have but not— no. did you not attend meetings with mps? i would have but not at- no. did you not attend meetings with mps? i would have but not at this - mps? i would have but not at this time. in terms _ mps? i would have but not at this time. in terms of _ mps? i would have but not at this time. in terms of the _ mps? i would have but not at this time. in terms of the meetings i l time. in terms of the meetings i attended with mp5, it was 2012, as we were getting into that second site investigations and obviously we have documents that refer to those. prior to this, i would have been working in a regionalised role, i might have had some local meetings with mp5 but it would have been other normal business that i can't remember exactly but it was in 2012 i really started getting involved in this. ., ~ , . this. you met with mps twice, i think, on _ this. you met with mps twice, i think, on the — this. you met with mps twice, i think, on the 10th _ this. you met with mps twice, i think, on the 10th of— this. you met with mps twice, i think, on the 10th of may - this. you met with mps twice, i think, on the 10th of may 2012 | this. you met with mps twice, i i think, on the 10th of may 2012 and the 18th _ think, on the 10th of may 2012 and the 18th of— think, on the 10th of may 2012 and the 18th ofjune 2012. that think, on the 10th of may 2012 and the 18th of june 2012.— the 18th ofjune 2012. that is correct. and _ the 18th ofjune 2012. that is correct. and that _ the 18th ofjune 2012. that is correct. and that is - the 18th ofjune 2012. that is correct. and that is prior - the 18th ofjune 2012. that is correct. and that is prior to l the 18th of june 2012. that is | correct. and that is prior to the second site _ correct. and that is prior to the second site interim _ correct. and that is prior to the second site interim report, - second site interim report, obviously one year before then. it obviously one year before then. [it

was obviously one year before then. was before obviously one year before then. it was before second site had been engaged, actually. find was before second site had been engaged, actually.— was before second site had been engaged, actually. and can we look at the second _ engaged, actually. and can we look at the second of _ engaged, actually. and can we look at the second of those _ engaged, actually. and can we look at the second of those meetings i at the second of those meetings which _ at the second of those meetings which you — at the second of those meetings which you attended with six mps, i think. _ which you attended with six mps, i think. by— which you attended with six mps, i think, by looking at the next document. can you see the attendee list? yes. we can see — can you see the attendee list? yes. we can see that _ can you see the attendee list? yes. we can see that it _ can you see the attendee list? res we can see that it includes you and this is— we can see that it includes you and this is the — we can see that it includes you and this is the minutes of the meeting of the _ this is the minutes of the meeting of the 18th ofjune. can we look please — of the 18th ofjune. can we look please at — of the 18th ofjune. can we look please at the foot of page one?

alice _ please at the foot of page one? alice perkins, then the chairman of the company, gave background information and the post office's perspective. it is a completely separate — perspective. it is a completely separate entity, she became aware of the issue _ separate entity, she became aware of the issue when she joined in august 201i _ the issue when she joined in august 201i it— the issue when she joined in august 201i it was— the issue when she joined in august 2011. it was very serious. the post office _ 2011. it was very serious. the post office recognised full well the matter — office recognised full well the matter was very serious for sub—postmasters and sup mistress. over the _ sub—postmasters and sup mistress. over the page. sub—postmasters and sup mistress. overthe page. —— sub mistresses sub—postmasters and sup mistress. over the page. —— sub mistresses —— sub—postmistress. treading a tightrope regarding questions of money — tightrope regarding questions of money. the post office are stewards of large _ money. the post office are stewards of large quantities of cash, the cash _ of large quantities of cash, the cash doesn't belong to the post office, — cash doesn't belong to the post office, it — cash doesn't belong to the post office, it is in transit as it comes through— office, it is in transit as it comes through the _ office, it is in transit as it comes through the post office. there is the issue — through the post office. there is the issue of trying to not put temptation in people's way. then paula _

temptation in people's way. then paula vennells begins by saying temptation is an issue but that trust _ temptation is an issue but that trust in — temptation is an issue but that trust in the post office is a brand is absolutely paramount. were you involved _ is absolutely paramount. were you involved in — is absolutely paramount. were you involved in briefing paula vennells or alice _ involved in briefing paula vennells or alice perkins for this meeting? not in _ or alice perkins for this meeting? not in relation to the narrative you are seeing here. what i had been asked to do for the may meeting was there was two cases that they wanted me to be able to pull the information together on to be able to talk through at the first meeting and the two cases where thejo hamilton tracey merit case, they were the constituents for both of those mps. that is what i was asked to do. then that float, thejune meeting was a follow—up —— then that float. with an extended audience. my involvement wasn't in pulling together the briefing information

other than my specific slot on the agenda, as it were.— other than my specific slot on the agenda, as it were. where you party to any discussion _ agenda, as it were. where you party to any discussion with _ agenda, as it were. where you party to any discussion with either- agenda, as it were. where you party to any discussion with either or - to any discussion with either or both— to any discussion with either or both of— to any discussion with either or both of miss perkins or miss vennells _ both of miss perkins or miss vennells beforehand in which it was decided _ vennells beforehand in which it was decided that the thing that should be mentioned is the temptation that faces sub—postmasters? no. we should faces sub-postmasters? no. we should t faces sub—postmasters? no we should try and faces sub—postmasters? we should try and drop a faces sub—postmasters? tip. we should try and drop a little poison in the mps is? — try and drop a little poison in the mps is? ., . . try and drop a little poison in the mps is? ., ., ., .,, �* try and drop a little poison in the mpsis? ., ., ., , ., mps is? not at all, wasn't party to that conversation. _ mps is? not at all, wasn't party to that conversation. was _ mps is? not at all, wasn't party to that conversation. was there - mps is? not at all, wasn't party to that conversation. was there a - that conversation. was there a deliberate _ that conversation. was there a deliberate strategy _ that conversation. was there a deliberate strategy to - that conversation. was there a deliberate strategy to put - that conversation. was there a deliberate strategy to put that | that conversation. was there a - deliberate strategy to put that idea in the _ deliberate strategy to put that idea in the mps mind right in the beginning of the meeting, focusing on the _ beginning of the meeting, focusing on the temptation faced by sub—postmasters? | on the temptation faced by sub-postmasters?- on the temptation faced by sub-postmasters? on the temptation faced by sub- ostmasters? ., �* ~' sub-postmasters? i don't think there was but i can't _ sub-postmasters? i don't think there was but i can't comment. _ sub-postmasters? i don't think there was but i can't comment. if— sub-postmasters? i don't think there was but i can't comment. if i - sub-postmasters? i don't think there was but i can't comment. if i go - was but i can't comment. if i go back to the may meeting, i wasn't in all of the meeting with the mp5 so the formats of the running order was that it was alice and paula, i'm not

sure if alwyn actually met with the mp5. the agenda had a number of people on there, i was one of them and i had a slot so basically we were waiting outside the meeting room in the cafe area of the building, i think. room in the cafe area of the building, ithink. we room in the cafe area of the building, i think. we were called in to do our slots. i wasn't party to the preamble for that meeting. miss vennells continues... _ the preamble for that meeting. miss vennells continues... of the 11,800 employed, — vennells continues... of the 11,800 employed, only a tiny number are present— employed, only a tiny number are present in— employed, only a tiny number are present in cases where there is an issue _ present in cases where there is an issue of— present in cases where there is an issue of alleged fraud. the problem issue of alleged fraud. the problem is therefore relatively small. the horizon — is therefore relatively small. the horizon system is very secure, every keystroke _ horizon system is very secure, every keystroke used by someone using the system _ keystroke used by someone using the system is _ keystroke used by someone using the system is recorded and auditable. did you _

system is recorded and auditable. did you know that that was the case? not first—hand, no. did did you know that that was the case? not first-hand, no.— not first-hand, no. did you believe what she said _ not first-hand, no. did you believe what she said that _ not first-hand, no. did you believe what she said that every _ not first-hand, no. did you believe what she said that every keystroke | what she said that every keystroke used by— what she said that every keystroke used by anyone using the system is recorded _ used by anyone using the system is recorded and auditable? | used by anyone using the system is recorded and auditable? i believed, that was my — recorded and auditable? i believed, that was my ceo, _ recorded and auditable? i believed, that was my ceo, i _ recorded and auditable? i believed, that was my ceo, i had _ recorded and auditable? i believed, that was my ceo, i had no - recorded and auditable? i believed, that was my ceo, i had no reason l recorded and auditable? i believed, l that was my ceo, i had no reason not to believe her. d0 that was my ceo, i had no reason not to believe her-— to believe her. do you know who briefed her? _ to believe her. do you know who briefed her? i _ to believe her. do you know who briefed her? i don't. _ to believe her. do you know who briefed her? i don't. what- to believe her. do you know who briefed her? i don't. what would normally happen _ briefed her? i don't. what would normally happen is _ briefed her? i don't. what would normally happen is the - briefed her? i don't. what would normally happen is the briefing i normally happen is the briefing would come from the relevant departments, i would would come from the relevant departments, iwould have would come from the relevant departments, i would have expected it to come from our it function and that would have been, leslie was the chief information officer at the time. ~ ., , . ., time. would you expect therefore that to come _ time. would you expect therefore that to come from _ time. would you expect therefore that to come from leslie - time. would you expect therefore that to come from leslie saul, i time. would you expect therefore | that to come from leslie saul, the chief— that to come from leslie saul, the chief information officer? that would be my _ chief information officer? trust would be my expectation but i don't know if that happened. flan would be my expectation but i don't know if that happened.— would be my expectation but i don't know if that happened. can we move on in the meeting _ know if that happened. can we move on in the meeting please, _ know if that happened. can we move on in the meeting please, to - know if that happened. can we move on in the meeting please, to page i on in the meeting please, to page three? _ on in the meeting please, to page three? one of the mps, andrew

brixton — three? one of the mps, andrew brixton at — three? one of the mps, andrew brixton at the top of the page, asked — brixton at the top of the page, asked where there had been any case where _ asked where there had been any case where the _ asked where there had been any case where the discrepancy had been... three _ where the discrepancy had been... three passages up from the foot that is been _ three passages up from the foot that is been displayed there, paula vennells — is been displayed there, paula vennells said that going back to andrew— vennells said that going back to andrew bridging's question that there _ andrew bridging's question that there hadn't been a case without horizon — there hadn't been a case without horizon system had been found to be at fault _ horizon system had been found to be at fault did — horizon system had been found to be at fault. did you know whether that was true _ at fault. did you know whether that was true or— at fault. did you know whether that was true or false? i at fault. did you know whether that was true or false?— was true or false? i didn't know either wav- _ was true or false? i didn't know either wav- l— was true or false? i didn't know either way. i believed _ was true or false? i didn't know either way. i believed it - was true or false? i didn't know either way. i believed it to - was true or false? i didn't know either way. i believed it to be i was true or false? i didn't know i either way. i believed it to be true because that is what she said but i didn't know either way. ? do because that is what she said but i didn't know either way. ?- didn't know either way. ? do you know who _ didn't know either way. ? do you know who briefed _ didn't know either way. ? do you know who briefed her _ didn't know either way. ? do you know who briefed her to - didn't know either way. ? do you know who briefed her to say - didn't know either way. ? do you | know who briefed her to say that? didn't know either way. ? do you i know who briefed her to say that? i don't know who briefed her to say that? don't know. know who briefed her to say that? i don't know. it depends what she is referring to is a case. if she is talking about a criminal case, then i would expect that briefing to come from someone in the legal department. but it isn't specific and i really don't know, i would be speculating. flan

and i really don't know, i would be speculating-— and i really don't know, i would be s-ueculatin. . ., ., speculating. can we go back to page two in that connection, _ speculating. can we go back to page two in that connection, please? - speculating. can we go back to page two in that connection, please? at l two in that connection, please? at the foot— two in that connection, please? at the foot of— two in that connection, please? at the foot of what miss vennells said there. _ the foot of what miss vennells said there, every case are taken to prosecution that involves the horizon — prosecution that involves the horizon system thus far is found in favour— horizon system thus far is found in favour of— horizon system thus far is found in favour of the post office. did you know _ favour of the post office. did you know whether that was true or false? i know whether that was true or false? i didn't— know whether that was true or false? ldidn't know— know whether that was true or false? i didn't know either way.— i didn't know either way. would you believe it because _ i didn't know either way. would you believe it because your— i didn't know either way. would you believe it because your ceo - i didn't know either way. would you believe it because your ceo was - believe it because your ceo was saying _ believe it because your ceo was saying it? — believe it because your ceo was sa in: it? , believe it because your ceo was saying it?- do _ believe it because your ceo was saying it? yes. do you know who briefed her. _ saying it? yes. do you know who briefed her, if— saying it? res do you know who briefed her, if anyone, to say that? . again. _ briefed her, if anyone, to say that? . again. i_ briefed her, if anyone, to say that? , again, i don't know but i would have expected that to come from the legal team given it talked about prosecution specifically. i legal team given it talked about prosecution specifically.- legal team given it talked about prosecution specifically. i think it follows that _ prosecution specifically. i think it follows that you _ prosecution specifically. i think it follows that you wouldn't - prosecution specifically. i think it follows that you wouldn't have i prosecution specifically. i think it i follows that you wouldn't have been aware _ follows that you wouldn't have been aware at _ follows that you wouldn't have been aware at this time in june 2012 that at least _ aware at this time in june 2012 that at least three sub—postmasters had been in _ at least three sub—postmasters had been in fact acquitted? | at least three sub-postmasters had been in fact acquitted?— been in fact acquitted? i wouldn't have known- _ been in fact acquitted? i wouldn't have known. did _ been in fact acquitted? i wouldn't have known. did you _ been in fact acquitted? i wouldn't have known. did you know- been in fact acquitted? i wouldn't have known. did you know about| been in fact acquitted? i wouldn't i have known. did you know about the case accused — have known. did you know about the case accused of _ have known. did you know about the case accused of stealing _ have known. did you know about the case accused of stealing £32,000 i have known. did you know about the l case accused of stealing £32,000 and unanimously acquitted by a jury at bristol— unanimously acquitted by a jury at bristol crown court? that unanimously acquitted by a “my at bristol crown court?* bristol crown court? that is not someone i'm — bristol crown court? that is not someone i'm familiar _ bristol crown court? that is not

someone i'm familiar with. - bristol crown court? that is not i someone i'm familiar with. having said that the _ someone i'm familiar with. having said that the system _ someone i'm familiar with. having said that the system was - someone i'm familiar with. having said that the system was at - someone i'm familiar with. having said that the system was at fault l said that the system was at fault for the _ said that the system was at fault for the shortfall and that she had repeatedly reported the matter to the helpline but had got absolutely nowhere _ the helpline but had got absolutely nowhere with them? i the helpline but had got absolutely nowhere with them?— the helpline but had got absolutely nowhere with them? i wasn't aware of that case. nowhere with them? i wasn't aware of that case- when _ nowhere with them? i wasn't aware of that case. when you're _ nowhere with them? i wasn't aware of that case. when you're aware - nowhere with them? i wasn't aware of that case. when you're aware of- nowhere with them? i wasn't aware of that case. when you're aware of the i that case. when you're aware of the case of susan _ that case. when you're aware of the case of susan palmer _ that case. when you're aware of the case of susan palmer who _ that case. when you're aware of the case of susan palmer who had - that case. when you're aware of the case of susan palmer who had been j case of susan palmer who had been acquitted _ case of susan palmer who had been acquitted by a jury in southend crown— acquitted by a jury in southend crown court in january 2007 and had said in— crown court in january 2007 and had said in her— crown court in january 2007 and had said in her defence that the horizon svstem _ said in her defence that the horizon system was responsible for the loss and simultaneously prevented her from challenging any horizon figures with which— from challenging any horizon figures with which she had not agreed? no. alain, not with which she had not agreed? no. again. not a — with which she had not agreed? iirm again, not a name i'm familiar with which she had not agreed? iiru again, not a name i'm familiarwith. again, not a name i'm familiar with. where you will wear in 2006 in northern— where you will wear in 2006 in northern ireland, a lady was acquitted by a jury? northern ireland, a lady was acquitted byajury? no. and in the acquitted by a “my? no. and in the course acquitted by a jury? and in the course of her acquitted by a jury? ila. and in the course of her trial, it acquitted by a jury? tip. and in the course of her trial, it had come to light— course of her trial, it had come to light that — course of her trial, it had come to light that an— course of her trial, it had come to light that an area manager, hurst, had experienced problems with balancing horizon at her terminal when _ balancing horizon at her terminal when she — balancing horizon at her terminal when she had come in to examine the system? _ when she had come in to examine the system? |_ when she had come in to examine the s stem? . . �* when she had come in to examine the s stem? ., �* ., ., ., when she had come in to examine the s stem? �* ., ., ., ., ., system? i wasn't aware of that at all. who would _ system? i wasn't aware of that at

all. who would be _ system? i wasn't aware of that at all. who would be responsible i system? i wasn't aware of that atj all. who would be responsible for ”uttin it all. who would be responsible for putting it neutrally, _ all. who would be responsible for putting it neutrally, fact - all. who would be responsible for putting it neutrally, fact checking | putting it neutrally, fact checking the type — putting it neutrally, fact checking the type of information that miss vennells — the type of information that miss vennells is telling a collection of mps here? every case involving horizon — mps here? every case involving horizon that has been taken to prosecution has found in favour of the post _ prosecution has found in favour of the post office, when that isjust false, _ the post office, when that isjust false, he — the post office, when that isjust false, he would be responsible for putting _ false, he would be responsible for putting together information that would _ putting together information that would allow a ceo to say something like this? _ would allow a ceo to say something like this? i�*m would allow a ceo to say something like this? �* ., , like this? i'm not sure whether there was _ like this? i'm not sure whether there was one _ like this? i'm not sure whether there was one person - like this? i'm not sure whether there was one person overall l like this? i'm not sure whether i there was one person overall with responsibility. my experience of how the business worked was that might be someone holding the pen on the brief but they would then reach out to the relevant directors or heads of in those particular areas to get the appropriate response. 50 looking at this, i would have expected this to go into the legal team.- to go into the legal team. putting it another way. — to go into the legal team. putting it another way, would _ to go into the legal team. putting

it another way, would you - to go into the legal team. putting it another way, would you expect| it another way, would you expect careful— it another way, would you expect careful and — it another way, would you expect careful and diligent checks to have been _ careful and diligent checks to have been made before going on the front foot? _ been made before going on the front foot? ~ , ,., , been made before going on the front foot?_ because _ been made before going on the front foot?_ because that - been made before going on the front foot?_ because that is i foot? absolutely. because that is what this is, _ foot? absolutely. because that is what this is, this _ foot? absolutely. because that is what this is, this is _ foot? absolutely. because that is what this is, this is going - foot? absolutely. because that is what this is, this is going on - foot? absolutely. because that is what this is, this is going on the l what this is, this is going on the front— what this is, this is going on the front foot — what this is, this is going on the front foot. it is facing the mps down — front foot. it is facing the mps down. . it front foot. it is facing the mps down-- it is _ front foot. it is facing the mps down.- it is saying, - front foot. it is facing the mps| down.- it is saying, move down. yeah. it is saying, move alon: , down. yeah. it is saying, move along. mps. — down. yeah. it is saying, move along, mps, there _ down. yeah. it is saying, move along, mps, there is _ down. yeah. it is saying, move along, mps, there is nothing i down. yeah. it is saying, move| along, mps, there is nothing to down. yeah. it is saying, move - along, mps, there is nothing to see here _ along, mps, there is nothing to see here that— along, mps, there is nothing to see here that is— along, mps, there is nothing to see here. that is what that line is saving — here. that is what that line is saying if— here. that is what that line is sa in: . . here. that is what that line is sa in i _ , , ., , , here. that is what that line is sa in. saying. if it is saying every case, that is quite _ saying. if it is saying every case, that is quite a — saying. if it is saying every case, that is quite a strong _ saying. if it is saying every case, that is quite a strong opening i that is quite a strong opening statement so, i agree. it is that is quite a strong opening statement so, i agree. it is the kind of information _ statement so, i agree. it is the kind of information where - statement so, i agree. it is the kind of information where she. statement so, i agree. it is the | kind of information where she is using _ kind of information where she is using the — kind of information where she is using the court system as a prop, alnrost~ _ using the court system as a prop, alnrost~ it— using the court system as a prop, alnrost~ it is— using the court system as a prop, almost. it is notjust us bringing cases. _ almost. it is notjust us bringing cases. it — almost. it is notjust us bringing cases. it is _ almost. it is notjust us bringing cases, it is the juries and the court — cases, it is the juries and the court system finding them guilty. you can— court system finding them guilty. you can be — court system finding them guilty. you can be assured, mps, that there is nothing _ you can be assured, mps, that there is nothing to— you can be assured, mps, that there is nothing to see here. | you can be assured, mps, that there is nothing to see here.— is nothing to see here. i can't disagree _ is nothing to see here. i can't disagree with _ is nothing to see here. i can't disagree with that. _ is nothing to see here. i can't disagree with that. it - is nothing to see here. i can't disagree with that. it is - is nothing to see here. i can't - disagree with that. it is consistent with the plan _ disagree with that. it is consistent with the plan of— disagree with that. it is consistent with the plan of 2011, _ disagree with that. it is consistent with the plan of 2011, isn't - disagree with that. it is consistent with the plan of 2011, isn't it? - with the plan of 2011, isn't it? robustlv_ with the plan of 2011, isn't it? robustly defend in the hope of

deterring further challenge. in terms deterring further challenge. terms of deterring further challenge. in terms of his purpose, his opening, yeah, i agree. terms of his purpose, his opening, yeah, iagree. you terms of his purpose, his opening, yeah. i agree-— yeah, i agree. you can't help us to establish the _ yeah, i agree. you can't help us to establish the steps _ yeah, i agree. you can't help us to establish the steps that _ yeah, i agree. you can't help us to establish the steps that were - yeah, i agree. you can't help us to| establish the steps that were taken to confirm — establish the steps that were taken to confirm the veracity of the information given to the members of parliament— information given to the members of parliament here? | information given to the members of parliament here?— parliament here? i wasn't involved so i don't know— parliament here? i wasn't involved so i don't know where _ parliament here? i wasn't involved so i don't know where the - so i don't know where the information has come from. i'm not actually sure who held the pen on the brief. . ~ actually sure who held the pen on the brief. ., ., , ., actually sure who held the pen on the brief. . ~' , ., ., the brief. thank you, i wonder if we can take a — the brief. thank you, i wonder if we can take a break _ the brief. thank you, i wonder if we can take a break there? _ the brief. thank you, i wonder if we can take a break there? i _ the brief. thank you, i wonder if we can take a break there? i think - the brief. thank you, i wonder if we can take a break there? i think it i can take a break there? i think it is between — can take a break there? i think it is between 2:55 p m and 3pm, can be broken _ is between 2:55 p m and 3pm, can be broken until— is between 2:55 p m and 3pm, can be broken until 3:10pm? maclean studio: you have been watchin: maclean studio: you have been watching more — maclean studio: you have been watching more evidence - maclean studio: you have been watching more evidence from i maclean studio: you have been - watching more evidence from angela van den bogerd, senior director at the post office, dealing with many of the legal cases against sub—postmasters who were wrongly convicted of theft or false accounting. we saw her witness

statement in which she said she only became