it appears ms neald gave a broadly similar account.e statements which questioned whether the losses were genuine or horizon generated. they requested relevant disclosure and access to horizon for the purpose of examination by a forensic accountant. solicitors on behalf of the post office asserted that material relating to horizon was not disclosable because the case turned on the deposit slips which want no part of horizon. ms neald repeated the disclosure request with the result that the post office agreed on a defence expert should be allowed to attend the branch to analyse the data. the post office serve their witness statement by garethjenkins in which he maintained that there was no problem with horizon. call logs show some difficulties with horizon had been sporadically reported to the post office between 2005—2011. other records show numerous difficulties with horizon in 2009. the post office accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case, and that evidence from horizon was essential to the prosecution of both ms sefton and