purpose, his opening, 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 untii— 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 formally aware of the bugs and effects within the horizon system in 2013, and prior to that she said she was aware of what she called rumblings about the system. she was pressed over when she learned of the horizon a bug. jason beer asked her if she was aware that fujitsu had for me notified the post office of the receipts of payments mismatches on october 2020, she replied, she was not aware of that, she added she was not aware of a meeting between fujitsu and the post office in october 2010 to discuss the bug and she said she don't have that in 2013 and she was also asked towards the end of the session why the onus was on postmasters to prove their innocence rather than the post office to prove their guilt, she replied, i think back then the assumption was that if there was a loss in the branch, that it was the responsibility of the postmaster. mr

beer noted that there was a lot of assuming going on and she agreed. the inquiry is now taking a break as is customary around this time and we will return when the evidence continues and a reminder that if you want a continues and a reminder that if you wanta summary continues and a reminder that if you want a summary of what has gone on over the last 90 minutes, you can find that on the bbc news website or app, and now we are going to turn to some other news. the disgraced hollywood film producer, harvey weinstein, has had his 2020 sex crime conviction overturned by new york's top court. judges at the court of appeals said he did not receive a fair trial as prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses whose accusations were not part of the charges against him. the court ordered a new trial. weinstein will remain in prison for a separate rape conviction from that year.

weinstein's case was one of the most prominent of the "me too movement" which exposed sexual abuse at the highest levels in hollywood. i wanted to read out one of the key bits from the judges, they said the defendant was convicted by a jury for various sexual crimes against three named complainants and on appeal claimed that he was judged not on the conduct for what she was indicted but on a relevant prejudicial and untested allegations of prior bad acts —— irrelevant. we concluded that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged alleged private sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because the testimony served note material non—propensity purpose, they go on to say the court compounded that error when it ruled that the defendant who had no criminal history, could be

cross—examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed the defendant in a highly prejudicial light. the judges go portrayed the defendant in a highly prejudicial light. thejudges go on to say, the effect of these errors was not harmless. the only evidence against the defendant was the complainants testimony and the result of the court rulings on the one hand was to bolster their credibility, and diminish the defendant's character before the jury, and on the other hand the threat of a cross examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined the defendant's right to testify and they say the remedy for these errors is a new trial. the state of new york court of appeals has ruled that there should be a new trial but that harvey weinstein's 2020 rape conviction was overturned on the basis that he did not receive a fair

trial. as i said, they found that prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses whose accusations were not part of the trial. that ruling meant that he was tried on past behaviour and not solely on the crimes that he was charged with. we should of course say that the 72—year—old will remain in prison for a separate conviction for rape. the harvey weinstein case very prominent of course in 2021, the highest from the me too movement which exposed sexual abuse and misbehaviour at the highest levels of the hollywood film industry. and beyond. he had faced a couple of trials, in new york where he was jailed for 2023, sorry, for 23 years in 2020 for raping two women and for california when he was

sentenced to 16 years for raping a woman in a beverly hills hotel. the breaking news in the last couple of hours, harvey weinstein's 2020 rape conviction has been overturned. another piece of breaking news is that laurence fox has been ordered to pay £90,000 in damages each to two people he referred to as paedophiles on social media. the actor turned politician lost a high court libel case to former stonewall trustee simon blake and a drag artist, he made the remarks on what was formerly twitter or on a decision by sainsbury�*s to mark black history month. we can now go to the newsroom. remind us of the background to this legal case. this started as a _ background to this legal case. “in 3 started as a thread on what was formerly twitter, some heated

dialogue going back—and—forth between a number of individuals over the fact that sainsbury�*s had implemented a black history month promotion, so numbers of people, thousands of people were commenting on a thread on laurence fox's page. ultimately, it got heated with a couple of individuals and those individuals accused the actor and now politician of racism, and in reply to that racism allegation, the politician replied and simply called these individuals paedophiles. they were quite upset and hurt by that comment and ultimately said they were in fear of their lives, being branded as such. so they went to court and today a judge has ordered laurence fox to pay each of those individuals, the stonewall trustee

simon blake and the drag artist crystal, to order laurence fox to pay them £90,000 each in damages for calling them paedophiles. lauren fox said this afternoon that he does not know what the judge will award these people but the costs of these proceedings are enormous —— laurence fox. thejudge said proceedings are enormous —— laurence fox. the judge said the original punishment, they will not be a prison term in terms of the punishment, it will be a financial compensation punishment that he will now have to pay these individuals. have we had any reaction from those individuals? i know this has only broken in the last half an hour. just in the last few minutes, so we have not had any reaction as yet. but in court today the judge said

her written warning, by calling mr blake and mr seymour paedophiles, laurence fox subjected them to an undeserved public ordeal. she went on to say it was a gross groundless and indefensible libel with distressing and harmful real—world consequences to them both. greg, distressing and harmful real-world consequences to them both. greg, in the newsroom. _ consequences to them both. greg, in the newsroom, with _ consequences to them both. greg, in the newsroom, with the _ consequences to them both. greg, in the newsroom, with the latest - consequences to them both. greg, in the newsroom, with the latest on - the newsroom, with the latest on that case, thanks forjoining us. we can head back to the post office inquiry. you were listening to the evidence from angela van den bogerd. she was pressed a lot about when she knew the bugs existed in the system. she was. this the bugs existed in the system. she was- this is — the bugs existed in the system. sue: was. this is the the bugs existed in the system. sie: was. this is the height the bugs existed in the system. s“i9: was. this is the height of the inquiry, to understand what these former executives knew and when they knew it —— the heart of the inquiry.

angela van den bogerd was at the post office for more than three decades and she personally handled a lot of these former sub—postmasters complaints about the horizon it issues when it comes to what she knew about the problems, it is crucial, but she may have received an e—mail in 2010, which came up several times today, that alerted her to some of the problems, but she says that she missed the e—mail and did not see it. this kind of goes back to her apology at the start of the hearing today, because she apologised to the victims and she said she is very sorry for how this has impacted them and their families. but she said she would never have knowingly done something wrong and that she would never knowingly do something wrong and so the key here is whether she truly understood and grasped in her view what these bugs were and what the problems were and she kept repeating throughout the day, each time the inquiry counseljason beer showed

her documents, laying out some of the bugs would be horizon it system, she kept saying, it did not register with me at the time.— with me at the time. interesting. you talk about _ with me at the time. interesting. you talk about the _ with me at the time. interesting. you talk about the postmasters l with me at the time. interesting. i you talk about the postmasters and mistresses and a lot of them are there today because this is a really big day for them, and one of them, mark kerry, speaking to the bbc said the apology you mentioned was very hollow —— kelly. i the apology you mentioned was very hollow -- kelly-— the apology you mentioned was very hollow -- kelly. i had the same from other formats _ hollow -- kelly. i had the same from other formats are _ hollow -- kelly. i had the same from other formats are postmasters - hollow -- kelly. i had the same from other formats are postmasters and i | other formats are postmasters and i spoke to one, wendy, who said as fight she is concerned, she found that this was not a full apology, and they were not really expecting and they were not really expecting an apology because they have been through this over decades, to be fair. wendy said herself and a lot of the other sub postmasters weren't there when a judge said that angela

van den bogerd said that she had misled the court, and they would grasp every time an answer was given, and this took a back to those days, she said —— they would grasp. in fact wendy had to step out several times because she did not want to disrupt proceedings and she suffers from fibromyalgia and stress exacerbates the illness and she needed to cool down. this is a really emotional moment for them, and the busiest i have seen the inquiry in this latest phase in the last few weeks. the last time it was this busy was when they gathered around their champion alan bates on the first day of this fifth phase of the first day of this fifth phase of the inquiry. the first day of this fifth phase of the inquiry-— the inquiry. interesting to point out that she — the inquiry. interesting to point out that she will _ the inquiry. interesting to point out that she will be _ the inquiry. interesting to point out that she will be giving - the inquiry. interesting to point - out that she will be giving evidence not on one day but across two days showing the importance that the inquiry puts to what she knew and when. : , ,:, , : inquiry puts to what she knew and when. absolutely. and she spent so much time at _ when. absolutely. and she spent so much time at the _ when. absolutely. and she spent so much time at the post _ when. absolutely. and she spent so much time at the post office, - when. absolutely. and she spent so much time at the post office, as - much time at the post office, as

well, 35 years, and because her role specifically dealt with these complaints by former sub postmasters and it oversaw a lot of the problems with the horizon it issue, and she also was heavily involved in the mediation scheme in 2013 between former sub postmasters at the post office which eventually failed. the big accusation, that the post office strongly denies, is of a cover—up, and so understanding not only what she knew and when she knew but how they approached disclosure and offering that information to these formats are postmasters who were wrongly convicted, all of those really important questions they will want to ask angela van den bogerd over the course of the few days. irate over the course of the few days. we can now return as the inquiry has just restarted.— just restarted. let's look at the briefin: just restarted. let's look at the briefing of— just restarted. let's look at the briefing of the _ just restarted. let's look at the briefing of the meeting - just restarted. let's look at the briefing of the meeting we - just restarted. let's look at the | briefing of the meeting we were just restarted. let's look at the - briefing of the meeting we were just talking _ briefing of the meeting we were just talking about on the 18th ofjune, 2012. _ talking about on the 18th ofjune, 2012, by— talking about on the 18th ofjune, 2012, by looking at the next pol.

was it common, you are familiar with this document, was it common for a briefing _ this document, was it common for a briefing pack like this to be put together— briefing pack like this to be put together for any significant meeting in particular with mps? yes, together for any significant meeting in particular with mps?— in particular with mps? yes, it was. this is 33 odd _ in particular with mps? yes, it was. this is 33 odd pages _ in particular with mps? yes, it was. this is 33 odd pages long _ in particular with mps? yes, it was. this is 33 odd pages long and - in particular with mps? yes, it was. this is 33 odd pages long and you i this is 33 odd pages long and you can see _ this is 33 odd pages long and you can see that there is an index at the front — can see that there is an index at the front it_ can see that there is an index at the front. if we go to the second page _ the front. if we go to the second page the — the front. if we go to the second page. the attendee list is set out and then— page. the attendee list is set out and then the proposed agenda is set out with— and then the proposed agenda is set out with the lead from the post office _ out with the lead from the post office or — out with the lead from the post office or the mps being identified and the _ office or the mps being identified and the minutes to be allocated to their speaking part. and as you said. _ their speaking part. and as you said. you — their speaking part. and as you said, you were slated to deal with

two cases — said, you were slated to deal with two cases. :, , said, you were slated to deal with two cases-— said, you were slated to deal with two cases-_ if- said, you were slated to deal with two cases._ if we i said, you were slated to deal with | two cases._ if we go two cases. that is correct. if we go over the page _ two cases. that is correct. if we go over the page to — two cases. that is correct. if we go over the page to the _ two cases. that is correct. if we go over the page to the third - two cases. that is correct. if we go over the page to the third page, i over the page to the third page, please — over the page to the third page, please. we can see james arbuthnot was going to give an introduction and then— was going to give an introduction and then as in fact happened, miss perkins _ and then as in fact happened, miss perkins was — and then as in fact happened, miss perkins was going to speak. would you understand these to be, it is entitled — you understand these to be, it is entitled key messages, essentially a speaking _ entitled key messages, essentially a speaking know?— entitled key messages, essentially a speaking know? yes. -- entitled key messages, essentially a speaking know? yes. —— speaking speaking know? yes. -- speaking note. if speaking know? yes. -- speaking note- if we _ speaking know? yes. -- speaking note. if we can _ speaking know? yes. -- speaking note. if we can look _ speaking know? 193 —— speaking note. if we can look at speaking know? i9; —— speaking note. if we can look at that page speaking know? iss —— speaking note. if we can look at that page as well as— note. if we can look at that page as well as 601... thank you. we can see that the overall— thank you. we can see that the overall introduction was indeed given— overall introduction was indeed given by— overall introduction was indeed given byjames arbuthnot and then alice perkins did speak and you can

see that _ alice perkins did speak and you can see that to— alice perkins did speak and you can see that to an extent she follows the briefing or the speaking note and you — the briefing or the speaking note and you can see a second bullet point _ and you can see a second bullet point on — and you can see a second bullet point on the right, taking the issue very seriously, and second paragraph of the _ very seriously, and second paragraph of the minute, a very serious one for the _ of the minute, a very serious one for the post — of the minute, a very serious one for the post office. a mention of reputation — for the post office. a mention of reputation which equates to the second — reputation which equates to the second bullet point? yes. and then ou can second bullet point? yes. and then you can see — second bullet point? yes. and then you can see the _ second bullet point? iss and then you can see the last line second bullet point? i9; and then you can see the last line of the minute, — you can see the last line of the minute, very serious for and mistresses involved, as it is invariably— mistresses involved, as it is invariably like changing, equates to the second — invariably like changing, equates to the second bullet point, this affects — the second bullet point, this affects the life of individuals? yes~ — affects the life of individuals? yes. ,:,

affects the life of individuals? yes, :, :, affects the life of individuals? yes. ., ., ., yes. go over to the page on the side, yes. go over to the page on the side. please- — yes. go over to the page on the side, please. enormous- yes. go over to the page on the side, please. enormous change| yes. go over to the page on the i side, please. enormous change at yes. go over to the page on the - side, please. enormous change at the post office, _ side, please. enormous change at the post office, tight rope regarding questions of money. money is mentioned in the second bullet point on the _ mentioned in the second bullet point on the right, public money is at stake — on the right, public money is at stake and _ on the right, public money is at stake. and then there is the line that there — stake. and then there is the line that there is the issue of trying not to— that there is the issue of trying not to put— that there is the issue of trying not to put temptation in the way of people _ not to put temptation in the way of people. that does not appear to be something — people. that does not appear to be something that she was briefed to say? _ something that she was briefed to say? it— something that she was briefed to sa ? :, , something that she was briefed to sa ? ., , :, . say? it was not included in the briefin: , say? it was not included in the briefing. the — say? it was not included in the briefing, the initial— say? it was not included in the briefing, the initial briefing - say? it was not included in the i briefing, the initial briefing pack. was there another version of the briefing — was there another version of the briefing pack? not was there another version of the briefing pack?— was there another version of the briefing pack? not that i'm aware of. this is the _ briefing pack? not that i'm aware of. this is the latest _ briefing pack? not that i'm aware of. this is the latest iteration? i. of. this is the latest iteration? i believe so. _ of. this is the latest iteration? i believe so, yes. _ of. this is the latest iteration? i believe so, yes. when - of. this is the latest iteration? i believe so, yes. when you i of. this is the latest iteration? i believe so, yes. when you are l of. this is the latest iteration? i- believe so, yes. when you are going into a meeting _ believe so, yes. when you are going into a meeting like _ believe so, yes. when you are going into a meeting like this, _ believe so, yes. when you are going into a meeting like this, in - into a meeting like this, in addition _ into a meeting like this, in addition to the formal briefing, is there _ addition to the formal briefing, is there a _ addition to the formal briefing, is there a scrum down beforehand in which _ there a scrum down beforehand in which people exchange ideas and come up which people exchange ideas and come up with—

which people exchange ideas and come up with additional lines? there miaht be up with additional lines? there might be on — up with additional lines? there might be on some _ up with additional lines? there might be on some occasion i up with additional lines? there | might be on some occasion and up with additional lines? there i might be on some occasion and if there was in this one, i was not involved. but as ever, these are briefing packs, they are not meant to be scripts, just what you are going to be covering. i’m to be scripts, just what you are going to be covering.- to be scripts, just what you are going to be covering. i'm going to examine the _ going to be covering. i'm going to examine the three _ going to be covering. i'm going to examine the three things - going to be covering. i'm going to examine the three things that i i going to be covering. i'm going to i examine the three things that i have highlighted in the meeting. the temptation spoken to by paula vennells and ms perkins, and the line, _ vennells and ms perkins, and the line. every— vennells and ms perkins, and the line, every case taken to prosecution involving horizon has found _ prosecution involving horizon has found in— prosecution involving horizon has found in favour of the post office, and the _ found in favour of the post office, and the line, there has never been a case investigated where horizon has found _ case investigated where horizon has found to _ case investigated where horizon has found to have been at fault. and 'ust found to have been at fault. and just to _ found to have been at fault. and just to see — found to have been at fault. and just to see if any of those three bil just to see if any of those three big claims— just to see if any of those three big claims appear in any of the briefing — big claims appear in any of the briefing notes that were distributed before _ briefing notes that were distributed before the meeting? so if we go to

what paula — before the meeting? so if we go to what paula vennells has come every tone over— what paula vennells has come every tone over the page, what paula vennells has come every tone overthe page, on what paula vennells has come every tone over the page, on the side, please — tone over the page, on the side, please. confirm above postmasters are key— please. confirm above postmasters are key to — please. confirm above postmasters are key to our business, support our branches, _ are key to our business, support our branches, we — are key to our business, support our branches, we have a help desk, horizon — branches, we have a help desk, horizon is — branches, we have a help desk, horizon is used in branches to manage — horizon is used in branches to manage accounting, sub—postmaster, if they— manage accounting, sub—postmaster, if they have _ manage accounting, sub—postmaster, if they have any questions or concernsm _ if they have any questions or concerns... she is confident about the integrity of horizon built on robust — the integrity of horizon built on robust principles of reliability and integrity. — robust principles of reliability and integrity, and has undergone many external— integrity, and has undergone many external audits. and no problems of this nature — external audits. and no problems of this nature have ever been raised. on a _ this nature have ever been raised. on a technical level. there are three — on a technical level. there are three bullet points, occasionally we have incidents of fraud, which is unfortunate because this is public money. _ unfortunate because this is public money, and even in cases of fraud we try to _ money, and even in cases of fraud we try to treat— money, and even in cases of fraud we try to treat the agent with care and respect _ try to treat the agent with care and respect. and so the line about every

case taken _ respect. and so the line about every case taken to prosecution that involves — case taken to prosecution that involves the horizon system has found _ involves the horizon system has found in — involves the horizon system has found in favour of the post office, that was _ found in favour of the post office, that was not part of her briefing either? — that was not part of her briefing either? ., ., ., either? no. if we go to the third .ae. either? no. if we go to the third -a~e on either? no. if we go to the third page on the _ either? no. if we go to the third page on the left-hand _ either? no. if we go to the third page on the left-hand side, i either? no. if we go to the third i page on the left-hand side, please. page on the left—hand side, please. the line in the middle of the page, paula _ the line in the middle of the page, paula vennells said going back to the question, they had not been a question— the question, they had not been a question investigated where horizon had been _ question investigated where horizon had been found at fault which does not seem _ had been found at fault which does not seem to be part of the briefing either? _ not seem to be part of the briefing either? ., not seem to be part of the briefing either? :, :, not seem to be part of the briefing either? ., ., ., either? not from the other document, no. iwill either? not from the other document, no- i will ask — either? not from the other document, no. i will ask again, _ either? not from the other document, no. i will ask again, to _ either? not from the other document, no. i will ask again, to your— no. i will ask again, to your recollection, _ no. i will ask again, to your recollection, was _ no. i will ask again, to your recollection, was there i no. i will ask again, to your- recollection, was there anything done _ recollection, was there anything done outside the preparation of this 33 page _ done outside the preparation of this 33 page briefing pack for ms perkins and ms _ 33 page briefing pack for ms perkins and ms panels that immigrate paula vennells _ and ms panels that immigrate paula vennells to give them information to deploy— vennells to give them information to deploy at— vennells to give them information to deploy at the meeting? —— and ms

paula _ deploy at the meeting? —— and ms paula vennells. not deploy at the meeting? -- and ms paula vennells.— deploy at the meeting? -- and ms paula vennells. not that i am aware of but they may _ paula vennells. not that i am aware of but they may have _ paula vennells. not that i am aware of but they may have decided i paula vennells. not that i am aware of but they may have decided to i paula vennells. not that i am aware i of but they may have decided to meet themselves, to get together themselves, to get together themselves, if they wanted to discuss what we were going to cover, but i do not recall, i don't remember being in another meeting, because normally you would have a prep meeting and then you would go into the actual meeting... find into the actual meeting... and t in: to into the actual meeting... and trying to examine _ into the actual meeting... and trying to examine where the big claims _ trying to examine where the big claims come from, it is all about temptation, we have never lost a casei _ temptation, we have never lost a case, rice — temptation, we have never lost a case, rice and has never been found to be _ case, rice and has never been found to be at— case, rice and has never been found to be at fault, it says. —— horizon has never— to be at fault, it says. —— horizon has never been. where they came from _ has never been. where they came from i— has never been. where they came from. .. ., , has never been. where they came from. ., , ., ., ., from. i cannot see the information come out of _ from. i cannot see the information come out of this, _ from. i cannot see the information come out of this, and _ from. i cannot see the information come out of this, and it _ from. i cannot see the information come out of this, and it seems i from. i cannot see the information come out of this, and it seems to l come out of this, and it seems to have been from... come out of this, and it seems to have been from. . ._ come out of this, and it seems to have been from... you were in the meetinu. have been from... you were in the meeting- did _ have been from... you were in the meeting. did you _ have been from... you were in the

meeting. did you think, _ have been from... you were in the meeting. did you think, goodness| have been from... you were in the i meeting. did you think, goodness me, paula _ meeting. did you think, goodness me, paula vennells has gone off the reservation here? for paula vennells has gone off the reservation here?— paula vennells has gone off the reservation here? for this meeting which is different _ reservation here? for this meeting which is different to _ reservation here? for this meeting which is different to the _ reservation here? for this meeting which is different to the other- which is different to the other meeting, i was in the whole of this meeting, i was in the whole of this meeting, i was in the whole of this meeting, i was in all of it, and it is not unusualfrom my meeting, i was in all of it, and it is not unusual from my experience for bert to be a briefing pack or speaking note, that the person that was directed at might change it, without feeding back to the rest of us, that was not unheard—of. free us, that was not unheard-of. free s lint ? i us, that was not unheard-of. free styling? i would — us, that was not unheard-of. free styling? i would not— us, that was not unheard-of. free styling? i would not say _ us, that was not unheard-of. free styling? i would not say that, i us, that was not unheard-of. free styling? i would not say that, but| styling? i would not say that, but ma be styling? i would not say that, but maybe adding — styling? i would not say that, but maybe adding their— styling? i would not say that, but maybe adding their own - styling? i would not say that, but maybe adding their own potential emphasis. maybe adding their own potential emhasis. , ., , maybe adding their own potential emhasis. , . , . ., , maybe adding their own potential emhasis. , . , , ., emphasis. these are big claims, not oints of emphasis. these are big claims, not points of emphasis. _ emphasis. these are big claims, not points of emphasis. i'm _ emphasis. these are big claims, not points of emphasis. i'm saying i emphasis. these are big claims, not points of emphasis. i'm saying not i points of emphasis. i'm saying not in this case. _ points of emphasis. i'm saying not in this case, but _ points of emphasis. i'm saying not in this case, but in _ points of emphasis. i'm saying not in this case, but in general- points of emphasis. i'm saying not in this case, but in general terms. | in this case, but in general terms. let's look at this case. you could not say— let's look at this case. you could not say that— let's look at this case. you could not say that these are points of emphasis _

not say that these are points of emphasis-— emphasis. they have chosen to s-aotliht emphasis. they have chosen to spotlight certain _ emphasis. they have chosen to spotlight certain aspects i emphasis. they have chosen to spotlight certain aspects of i emphasis. they have chosen to spotlight certain aspects of the | spotlight certain aspects of the briefing pack and bring them all to the forefront, that is what i would say. the forefront, that is what i would sa . ., the forefront, that is what i would sa , :, :, the forefront, that is what i would sa . ., ., , the forefront, that is what i would sa. ., ., , ., say. none of these are in the briefin: say. none of these are in the briefing pack. _ say. none of these are in the briefing pack. it _ say. none of these are in the briefing pack. it touches i say. none of these are in the briefing pack. it touches on i say. none of these are in the i briefing pack. it touches on some of it, the briefing pack. it touches on some of it. the general— briefing pack. it touches on some of it, the general theme, _ briefing pack. it touches on some of it, the generaltheme, but... i briefing pack. it touches on some of it, the generaltheme, but... go i it, the generaltheme, but... go back to it, the generaltheme, but... 60 back to the left—hand side of the second _ back to the left—hand side of the second page, every case taken to prosecution has thus far found in favour— prosecution has thus far found in favour of— prosecution has thus far found in favour of the post office, where is that touched on in the briefing pack? — that touched on in the briefing -ack? : that touched on in the briefing ack? ., ., that touched on in the briefing ack? . ., . ., pack? other than a reference to occasional— pack? other than a reference to occasional incidents _ pack? other than a reference to occasional incidents of - pack? other than a reference to occasional incidents of fraud. .. | occasional incidents of fraud... that is a different point, that is about the incidence of fraud. what about the incidence of fraud. what paula vennells _ about the incidence of fraud. what paula vennells is _ about the incidence of fraud. what paula vennells is recorded as having said is— paula vennells is recorded as having said is when— paula vennells is recorded as having said is when the cases get to court, we always— said is when the cases get to court, we always win. i said is when the cases get to court, we always win-— said is when the cases get to court, we always win. i was involved in the briefin: we always win. i was involved in the briefing pack _ we always win. i was involved in the briefing pack and _ we always win. i was involved in the briefing pack and i _ we always win. i was involved in the briefing pack and i was _ we always win. i was involved in the briefing pack and i was involved i we always win. i was involved in the briefing pack and i was involved in i briefing pack and i was involved in that, and i do not recall anything

in between to get to the vinyl version so i would bejust speculating —— final version. i don't remember any further conversations to say we are actually going to dial this up or down. that is what i'm — going to dial this up or down. that is what i'm asking, _ going to dial this up or down. that is what i'm asking, largely in advance _ is what i'm asking, largely in advance of ms perkins and paul obama is coming _ advance of ms perkins and paul obama is coming to— advance of ms perkins and paul obama is coming to give evidence, was there _ is coming to give evidence, was there an — is coming to give evidence, was there an occasion to your knowledge at which _ there an occasion to your knowledge at which the information we see, iet's_ at which the information we see, iet's tell— at which the information we see, let's tell them about temptation, let's tell them about temptation, iet's tell— let's tell them about temptation, let's tell them about temptation, let's tell them about temptation, let's tell them about horizon always winning _ let's tell them about horizon always winning in— let's tell them about horizon always winning in court, the post office always— winning in court, the post office always winning in court? —— paula vennells — always winning in court? —— paula vennells. let's tell them it has never— vennells. let's tell them it has never been found to be at fault. i never been found to be at fault. remember never been found to be at fault. i remember this meeting and i never been found to be at fault. i rememberthis meeting and i remember remember this meeting and i remember the main meeting and i remember the proper meetings but i do not remember anything else in between. —— the prep meetings. out of the

three things, the bit about the temptation is the one that i would have said something on, i would not have said something on, i would not have been aware of the other information.— have been aware of the other information. 9 , ., , ., ., have been aware of the other information. 9 , ., ., information. why would you have said somethin: information. why would you have said something about _ information. why would you have said something about temptation? - information. why would you have said i something about temptation? because, as i said earlier, _ something about temptation? because, as i said earlier, my _ something about temptation? because, as i said earlier, my very _ something about temptation? because, as i said earlier, my very strong - as i said earlier, my very strong view is that postmasters were very honest and hard working decent people and they did not come into default business and there were occasional situations where as i would say the situation has got the better of the postmaster and i have got examples of that from my own experience, and i would have said at that point, let's remember these are very rare occasions. the other two i would not have been able to comment on. that is why i am saying i don't remember the conversation in between those two things. remember the conversation in between those two things-— those two things. lastly, you win the meeting _ those two things. lastly, you win the meeting when _ those two things. lastly, you win the meeting when paula -

those two things. lastly, you win| the meeting when paula vennells those two things. lastly, you win i the meeting when paula vennells said these things, every case taken to court _ these things, every case taken to court we — these things, every case taken to court we win, and horizon when examined — court we win, and horizon when examined has never been found to be at fault _ examined has never been found to be at fault did _ examined has never been found to be at fault. did those things strike you in— at fault. did those things strike you in the — at fault. did those things strike you in the course of the meeting, hold on. — you in the course of the meeting, hold on. the _ you in the course of the meeting, hold on, the chief executive has gone _ hold on, the chief executive has gone off— hold on, the chief executive has gone off piste? not hold on, the chief executive has gone off piste?— hold on, the chief executive has gone off piste? not really. i would have taken — gone off piste? not really. i would have taken it _ gone off piste? not really. i would have taken it that _ gone off piste? not really. i would have taken it that she _ gone off piste? not really. i would have taken it that she has - gone off piste? not really. i would have taken it that she has a i gone off piste? not really. i would i have taken it that she has a broader knowledge than i have and has information i don't have. that would not be unusual given my role. my role was to talk to cases and that would not have been something i would not have been something i would see as unusual. flan would not have been something i would see as unusual.— would not have been something i would see as unusual. can we take both of those _ would see as unusual. can we take both of those down, _ would see as unusual. can we take both of those down, please? i would see as unusual. can we take | both of those down, please? thank you. both of those down, please? thank you now— both of those down, please? thank you. now we have the second sight initial— you. now we have the second sight initial investigation. i'm going to move _ initial investigation. i'm going to move through and not examine the process— move through and not examine the process by— move through and not examine the process by which second sight

examined its initial investigations or the _ examined its initial investigations or the provision of information to it by— or the provision of information to it by the — or the provision of information to it by the post office, but instead look at _ it by the post office, but instead look at the response to the first second — look at the response to the first second sight report. can we look at the next _ second sight report. can we look at the next pol reference? this is the briefing note to paula vennells — this is the briefing note to paula vennells again. in readiness for the second _ vennells again. in readiness for the second sight report. yes. to what extent were _ second sight report. yes. to what extent were you _ second sight report. i9; to what extent were you involved in formulating this briefing? | extent were you involved in formulating this briefing? i don't really remember. _ formulating this briefing? i don't really remember. i'm _ formulating this briefing? i don't really remember. i'm trying i formulating this briefing? i don't really remember. i'm trying to i formulating this briefing? i don't i really remember. i'm trying to think of the timeline. with belinda as the

programme director for the project, her and her team would have typically held the pen but in terms of aspects that i was involved in, i would have fed into that, so it would have fed into that, so it would have fed into that, so it would have been a collective, usually a collective approach to getting to the content of such a briefing but i actually cannot remember exactly on this one. if rare remember exactly on this one. if we look at page — remember exactly on this one. if we look at page seven, _ remember exactly on this one. if we look at page seven, passage we have not looked _ look at page seven, passage we have not looked at before... it is the foot— not looked at before... it is the foot of— not looked at before... it is the foot of page six, in fact. can we see the — foot of page six, in fact. can we see the forward strategy heading? and then — see the forward strategy heading? and then if we go on the following page. _ and then if we go on the following page, those four paragraphs. to what extent— page, those four paragraphs. to what extent were _ page, those four paragraphs. to what extent were you involved in

formulating this forward strategy? i was aware i was involved in conversations, in terms of whether i was a driving force in the strategy for this, was a driving force in the strategy forthis, no, idon't was a driving force in the strategy for this, no, i don't believe i was. who was the driving force in the strategy? — who was the driving force in the strategy? i�*m who was the driving force in the strate: ? �* , ., , strategy? i'm trying to remember. if we look at in — strategy? i'm trying to remember. if we look at in terms _ strategy? i'm trying to remember. if we look at in terms of _ strategy? i'm trying to remember. if we look at in terms of the _ strategy? i'm trying to remember. if we look at in terms of the meeting i we look at in terms of the meeting with james arbuthnot, that would have been alice and paula and possibly mark davis from the comms team, possibly. but definitely in terms of the 38 in terms of the comms strategy, but i don't know, the recollection of the early days

of the conversations we had, so it would have been alice and paula and susan and leslie would have been at the start, as well, and simon baker and myself, early conversations, but in terms of driving this through, i cannot recall exactly, we had our areas of responsibility. plan cannot recall exactly, we had our areas of responsibility.— cannot recall exactly, we had our areas of responsibility. plan a was to persuade _ areas of responsibility. plan a was to persuade james _ areas of responsibility. plan a was to persuade james arbuthnot i areas of responsibility. plan a was to persuade james arbuthnot to i to persuade james arbuthnot to postpone a meeting with second sight? _ postpone a meeting with second sight? plan b was to prepare a full communications strategy with tactics in line _ communications strategy with tactics in line with _ communications strategy with tactics in line with an approach to minimise reputational impact on the post office? — reputational impact on the post office? yes? was that the strategy that was— office? yes? was that the strategy that was in— office? yes? was that the strategy that was in fact adopted? rebuttal and tactics aimed to reduce reputational impact? | rebuttal and tactics aimed to reduce reputational impact?— reputational impact? i think in terms of the _ reputational impact? i think in

terms of the reputational i reputational impact? i think in i terms of the reputational impact, the