Former Head Of Legal at the Post Office apologises for 'suffering'

To begin by saying how to all those who’ve suffered, families, friends, postmasters, Crown Office workers, that I am truly sorry for the suffering caused to you and your families. I wish that things had been resolved more quickly and again, I’m very sorry that they haven’t been. I’m here today to give my evidence, the inquiry with establishing the facts, and to try and ensure that something like this never happens again. Thank you. Can you assist us? This is October 2010. Were you aware of issues relating to the Horizon system and litigation challenging the Horizon system earlier than October 2010? So this was part of a relatively late disclosure. I’m trying to recollect when I became aware of it. I don’t think I was. No, I don’t think I was. But it’s not my recollection, certainly not from, that’s not what I recollect. Obviously seeing this now. Then things were being raised and I think what I was trying to do was to look at this on a more, on a more on a rounded basis. So I received this from Mandy, who was obviously a litigation lawyer in the RMG civil application team. And as you said, you were the senior recipient of this e-mail. Yes, in the post office, yes. Can we please look at Paul 00055590? We’re still in October, 21st of October. And this is an e-mail that this inquiry has seen quite a lot of. It’s the e-mail from Jarnal Singh in relation to the MISRA case and it’s where he says it is hoped the case will set a marker to dissuade other defendants from jumping on the horizon bashing bandwagon. And you were a recipient of that e-mail? 21st of October? That’s correct. In the e-mail that we looked at earlier from Andy Talbot, she suggested a call to discuss matters going forward after the Sema Misra case had concluded. Do you recall a conversation, a meeting once it had concluded? I’m afraid I don’t recall one, no. Do you recall receiving this e-mail? Is that the one on the screen? Yes. Yes. Well, it was in the first batch of documents provided to me. I don’t mean recall from the inquiry providing it to you, but do you recall in your first year at the post office receiving an e-mail from a senior lawyer in the Criminal Law Division referring to the Horizon bashing bandwagon? No, I’m afraid I don’t. Is it likely that that was sent to you in your capacity as head of legal of the post office? It is yes. Yes. Can we please move on to, we’re going to now move to April 2011 of why do you think this e-mail was sent to the three of you about the case of Mrs. O’dell? So I, this is my recollection, I think at the time I was trying to understand this process that went through in with regard to sub postmasters and the civil litigation process and to try and bring some elements of proportionality to it. As a commercial lawyer to say, should we be taking this action given the likelihood of us being able to recover and the costs? Again, this is another e-mail we’re now in 2011 that relates to a sub postmaster raising an issue relating to Horizon in her defence. Do you agree with that? I do agree with that and and it’s your evidence, is it that you were involved because you wanted to bring a degree of proportionality to these matters? That’s my recollection, yes. And, and I think in Alison’s also there’s evidence she mentions that I’d gone up to Chesterfield and we had a conversation about the Horizon cases. Yes. And I think this, this goes back to my comment around proportionality to try and understand what was going on with these cases and why we were bringing them and what had happened. So it wasn’t necessarily driven by I believe that Horizon wasn’t working. I just wanted to understand the process and the authorization process for bringing those claims.