pounds in legal fees, all public funds to corporate law firms. it is a shameful spectacle and it conveys a shameful spectacle and it conveys a pitiless, brutal message. and in these circumstances is it really any wonder that demoralised victims looked on, exhausted and aghast because nothing has changed. flare because nothing has changed. five ears have because nothing has changed. five years have passed since mrjustice fraser said, and i quote, the post office appears at least at times to conduct itself as though it is only answerable to itself. the statement that it is prepared _ answerable to itself. the statement that it is prepared to _ answerable to itself. the statement that it is prepared to preserve - that it is prepared to preserve documents as though that were a concession and the object refusal to accept the relevance of plainly important documents is extremely worrying. the parallels with nondisclosure in this inquiry to that in civil trials are glaring. you may have read in the press, sir,

about complaints from the metropolitan police that there are still problems with disclosure, where the metropolitan police have sought the assistance of the post office. but leaving aside the issues of nondisclosure, the imperious attitude that mrjustice fraser astutely observed is also relevant. the same arrogance, highhandedness and inexhaustible funds for attritional warfare we still see today, not only in our client is' desperate struggle for conversation, but in the post office's contempt to control you, sir. not once, not twice, but three times the post office tried to play divide and rule in its attempt to overrule the expert you had nominated and to divert you from decisions you had made. those decisions of yours, sir, being informed by your own

substantial experience in criminal trials and appeals. but the post office wanted to hijack the narrative. i refer, of course, to the instruction of mrjonathan laidlaw casey in an unsuccessful attempt to manipulate this inquiry, presented with a fait accompli, volume one, and then ambush e with laidlaw volume two and then question your decision not that two volume report into evidence. but of course the post office knows best and continues to act as if it is answerable to no one and, in fact, you will have read in its written submissions that all it ever wanted to do was help you when it did all of those things in defiance of the orders you had made. the mindset remains the same. and so it was when

the post office claimed that the public interest cases were not to be compensated despite offering no evidence against them, and so it was the same as ever when it grotesquely singled out, sought to victimise and to defame mrs adebayo, denying her conviction was unsafe under the cloak of qualified privilege. it's atrocious attempt at victimisation echoes its past wrongs, its deplorable behaviour tells you that it's instinct to skate with the individual remains unchanged, that its propensity to abuse both power and privilege still lurks beneath the surface. the mindset remains the same. i began with compensation because it demonstrates that the post office's wrongdoing is still can continue on, not past or historic. the truth is there is

nothing full, fair or prompt in its conduct of this process, sir. and where victims have not had the benefit of legal representation they have been further degraded, insulted and exploited in the most terrible fashion with token payments for the destruction of their lives. so i returned to your question is the post office worth saving? only when or if it is safe. it will only be safe if it grasps and understands the nature of its own history rather than continuing to deny it. it can only be trusted when its deeds match its words and when it has restored justice by way of full and fair compensation to those it destroyed. and you have seen that the post office and its paymaster shareholder have failed dismally on both counts,

so enough, we say, with commissioning reports, with strategy papers and intangible outputs that waste public money and prove nothing. the victims of its monumental harm deserve to be compensated, they are more deserving of millions than the firms who are paid to fight them. and the evil that the post office did was profound. it was the cause, the perpetrator and the prolonged air of the most serious series of miscarriages ofjustice in our history. and yet still it plays the adversarial game. together with miss

paige, instructed by mrs hodge, james and alan, we represent a small cohort of extraordinarily fine, courageous and exceptionally remarkable people who have suffered beyond imagination and who are being re—victimised and re—traumatised in this appalling process. we only represent former sub supposed masters which has allowed us the freedom to argue that there is absolutely nothing to be done with an institution so blind, so wilfully incapable of understanding its own terrible wrongdoing. ourfocus throughout this inquiry has been on genuinely attempting to assist you to establish the truth and thereby facilitating future prosecutions of those responsible for these terrible crimes, based upon this inquiry�*s

fair, impartialand unimpeachable fair, impartial and unimpeachable findings fair, impartialand unimpeachable findings of fact that you will record in due course. and, of course, our otherfocus, which is why i began with it, is compensation. unspeakable crimes compensation. unspea kable crimes were compensation. unspeakable crimes were committed to conflict the innocent. evidence was commodified, the truth was withheld and such outrages will only be propitiated by full and fair compensation and by yourfair and fearless full and fair compensation and by your fair and fearless findings of fact, which will bring with it the restoration ofjustice and accountability. so i come now to the paradigms cases of lee castleton and seema mr and the perversion of justice at their trials. they were

regarded as test cases by the post office to be one at all costs and by any means necessary seema mccrum's case and lee castleton show that which the post office is still capable. the post office should have said to lee castleton we perverted the civiljustice system for a collateral purpose. we didn't come after you for the money, we knew the case made no commercial sense, but we wanted a deterrent, we needed a precedent, and in order to get one we destroyed you and your family. we abuse the process of the corn we told the judge that we did not know of any problems and withheld the previous report. we are sorry, we fought the case on a false basis, we incited or allowed false evidence to be given against you. we admit it,

evenif be given against you. we admit it, even if they do not. we brought the case on a dishonest basis when we said you had adopted the accounts, we took advantage of you, we knew you had adopted the accounts, you had made nearly 100 calls to the helpline begging for help, but we as a clever, little legal trick to reverse the burden of proof, to ruin you, yourfamily and all of reverse the burden of proof, to ruin you, your family and all of your futures. to deter others. what about seema misra? we needed another scalp by 2010, even before edwin and co—were all breathing down our necks and so we trod on yours. if we convicted you we could see off the civil claims and deter others from challenging the system. we knew about bugs, we knew that the receipts and payments mismatch had been disclosed to you, particularly as it revealed remote access without

branch knowledge or consent. we knew that the jury, according to mr singh, were utterly beholden to gary jenkins and it was his evidence that convicted you. and of course mr jenkins knew all about covid remote access, but he hid that from you as well. we allowed false and misleading evidence to be used against you. so many people were awaiting the outcome of your trial and not long after you conviction we obtained the transcript to use in our defence of the civil claims. you were our priceless test case and it was for that that your freedom was stolen. your conviction was the so—called shining proof of horizon�*s integrity. your conviction was the cornerstone of our strategy of deterrence and containment. and when we, the board and the executive, found out that garyjenkins had lied, we could not let you know. we

could not tell you. the case of seema misra is as dark and as appalling as anything you have witnessed. it is a microcosm of the wickedness the post office perpetrated up and down the country to convict people. but the cover—up brings with it a deeper level of wickedness because it involves 1397 00:11:26,458 --> 00:11