Loud groans came from the public gallery at the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry when former CEO Paula Vennells said she couldn't "remember" if she took advice from a PR professional not to review 5-10 years' worth of past prosecutions.
The chairman of the Horizon IT inquiry had to intervene in proceedings today after the public gallery, mainly made up of subpostmasters, groaned. Responding to an email from a PR guru in which he advised not to look at historical Horizon cases because it would end up on the front page, Ms Vennells said: "You are right to call this out. I will take your steer."
Counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC asked: "You did take the advice of the PR guy, didn't you?" Mum-of-two Ms Vennells began her answer at the inquiry at Aldwych House in central London by saying "I don't remember".
After chairman Sir Wyn Williams intervened, Ms Vennells continued: "As I tried to say before, what we were working to at this stage was numbers of cases going through a scheme, and a scheme that was going to be opened up to anybody who wanted to come forward.
"I understand how this reads, but I don't recall making any conscious decision not to go back and put in place a review of all past criminal cases."
Ms Vennells, 65, broken down in tears on Wednesday as she was grilled at the inquiry. The former chief executive issued an apology to furious postmasters including Alan Bates, saying: "I am very, very sorry."
Follow our live blog below...
Inquiry won't sit on July 4 and July 5 due to the General Election
Chairman Sir Wyn Williams confirmed the inquiry will not sit on July 4 and July 5 due to the General Election.
He said otherwise, proceedings will continue "as if a General Election isn't happening" and said tomorrow's session will see court participants address Ms Vennells.
Those in court include subpostmasters, including those who were jailed.
Paula Vennells fights back the tears as Mr Beer KC refers to her 'personal circumstances'
Paula Vennells weeps - again - as Mr Beer KC alludes to "personal circumstances" which led to Ms Vennells stepping back as CEO.
She composes herself quickly but, for the second time in two days, the former Post Office boss becomes emotional during the proceedings.
"On that last point, if I may, because of a family situation, I had to step back from my role as chief executive, sort of from January 2019 onwards. I was involved, sort of in-and-out of the business, as we were going through hospital visits, and then step back much more from March," says Ms Vennells
Paula Vennells appeared to look for a 'non-emotive' word for bugs
Mr Beer KC asks why Paula Vennells had looked for a "non-emotive" word for bugs when preparing communication to subpostmasters.
The inquiry is heard the mum of two had asked her husband for advice and it is suggested the bugs could be referred to as “Exception or anomaly” or “Conditional exception/anomaly which only manifests itself unforseen circumstances”.
She is asked why she is trying to find a “non-emotive” word if, as she has said, she believed there were no systemic problems, bugs had been fixed, and were in some ways, and Jason Beer KC quotes, “a red herring.”
“We were seeking to use language that I thought described better the situation and avoided confusion,” she says.
Paula Vennells questioned about negative press coverage
Mr Beer KC has asked Paula Vennells why she had given an instruction local press should be “scoured” for negative media coverage at the time.
But she says she was “simply stating an ambition” for the Post Office to set out a positive view of itself and maintain its reputation. She talks about how Post Office was trying to establish itself as a separate entity from Royal Mail after the business was separated.
“It’s a hypothetical statement I’m making, to try and illustrate how important it was that the Post Office was portrayed in the way it is a brand that people love and trust."
“Was …” Mr Beer KC interrupts.
Paula Vennells admits she was 'clumsy' criticism of Susan Crichton
Paula Vennells says she has badly worded criticism of Susan Crichton in documents, with attention drawn by the inquiry to her phrase “Susan was possibly more loyal to her professional conduct requirements and put her integrity as a lawyer above the interests of the business.”
And Jason Beer KC seems unimpressed with this . “Why did you type something that didn’t express what you believe?” he asks. “It’s clumsy, Mr Beer,” she says.
He pursues it: “Did you think there was a choice to be made between, on the one hand, the lawyer’s professional obligations and their integrity, and on the other, the needs of the business, and Susan Crichton made the wrong choice?”
“No, I didn’t,” Vennells replies.
Paula Vennells denies wanting everyone 'to get the bare minimum'
Mr Beer KC asks Ms Vennells if she "wanted everyone to have the bare minimum" with the mediation scheme.
But Ms Vennells denies this was the case. She also says she did not blame Susan Crichton, the Post Office's former general counsel, for any issues faced.
Ms Vennells goes on to stress she "did not want to set expectations that the Post Office couldn’t meet" under intense grilling by Mr Beer KC.
Paula Vennells asked if her purpose with the mediation scheme was to minimise the amount of compensation
Paula Vennells is being asked if her purpose with the mediation scheme was to minimise the amount of compensation that would be paid to subpostmasters.
She said “We must at this stage have had concerns about potentially paying out major compensation if it wasn’t due.” Ms Vennells says she thought the scheme would be a mediated conversation between the parties.
But Mr Beer KC puts it to her that in the email by her shown to the inquiry, she is saying essentially that the Post Office had a hope of paying out minimal compensation, but that the mediation process as set out and about to be shared with subpostmasters appears to offer a level of compensation as the only outcome of a case. Where you, he asks, always intending the scheme to only pay out “token” amounts.
“It wasn’t meant in the negative sense,” she says. Mr Beer KC is drilling down on the use of the word “hope” about compensation levels being minimal.
'I would not cover anything up in this process'
Continuing in the claims the ex-general counsel had warned about the potential number of successful claims, Vennells insited she would not "cover anything up"
She said: "Mr Beer, I would not cover anything up in this process. I’m sorry, this is an important point. If she had said that to me I never once withheld information from the board.
“I’m very sorry my recollection is I don’t recall it.”
Vennells has 'no recollection' of chat with ex Post Office general counsel on claims
Mr Beer has asked Vennells if she recalls Susan Crichton, former Post Office general counsel, saying there would be “many successful claims” from wrongful prosecutions.
He said: “Susan Chrichton has told us in the inquiry she spoke to you before the meeting to say in her view there would be many successful claims against the Post Office arising from past wrongful prosecutions. Did she tell you that?”
Vennells replied: “I have no recollection of that whatsoever.”
Mr Beer countered: “That would be very significant information, wouldn't it?”
She said: “It would.”
Vennells denies Second Sight report was 'spin'
A confidential report read out at the inquiry in an update for Horizon was described as “spin” by Mr Beer.
The report read: “The CEO [Vennells] explained although the Second Sight report had been challenging it had highlighted some positive things as well as improvement opportunities.”
Mr Beer asked: “Is that how you really read the Second Sight report? Isn’t that, to put it mildly, spin on the Second Sight report?”
She replied: “I don’t believe I was doing that.”
'How many branches have to be affected for it to be systemic?'
Attention has turned to what Paula Vennells understands systemic issues to mean.
Mr Beer said: "Did you understand systemic issues is an issue which affects the entirety of, i:e all of the system? On the technology front?
Vennels replied: "Yes, or a scale of branches."
Mr Beer: "What was the scale of branches it had to be for it to be a systemic issue?"
Vennells: "It was a system issue in terms of interfaces. I had accepted the definition of systemic which Second Sight had said. "
Mr Beer: “Which was?”
Vennells: “I can’t remember.”
Mr Beer: "Would it cover an issue which affected the balancing of 500 branches?"
Vennels: "That would be a serious issue, I don’t know if I went into any numbers of branches. I didn't think of numbers of branches."
Mr Beer finally asked: "The Post Office went on to use this phrase to year in, year out in order to defend its system. Did it not occur to you there was a category of case involving a large number of branches which may have experuienced a problem with Horizon’s systems but which didn’t affect every branch?
She replied “I don’t imagine I ruled that out at all.”
Vennells was 'looking for systemic weakness- not miscarriages of justice'
A transcript from a conference call showed Vennells was “looking for systemic weakness in Horizon - not if it caused a miscarriage of justice”.
Mr Beer said the the call was between Alwen Lyons, Susan Crichton, and Ian Henderson in 2013.Ms Crichton - general counsel for the Post Office at the time. In it, she claimed Vennels had told her she was looking for systemic weakness in Horizon, not if it had caused a miscarriage of justice.
Vennels replied: “I can't remember the conversation".
Inquiry returns after breaking for lunch
After a lunch break the inquiry has returned for the afternoon session.
Vennells doesn't accept that bugs in IT system was 'world changing information'
Paula Vennells did not accept that finding out there were bugs in the Horizon IT system was “world changing information”.
Counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC said: “You tell us time and time again in your witness statement that up until May 2013 you had been told time and time again that there were no bugs in Horizon.”
“Yes,” Ms Vennells replied.
Mr Beer asked: “Isn’t this world changing information for you?”
Ms Vennells accepted it was “information that changed” but later added, when asked the same question: “Sorry what I’m not getting across clearly enough was that this was important but I was reassured at the same time that these bugs had been dealt with.”
The barrister asked: “Is that reassurance anywhere in writing or is it one of these corridor conversations?”
Ms Vennells said: “I think it is in writing in the Second Sight interim report.”
Vennells being asked about reliability of witness
Paula Vennells agreed that the “right and honest” thing to do in response to a letter from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) asking for information about the Horizon system would be to tell them of concerns about the reliability of leading Horizon engineer Gareth Jenkins’ evidence.
The Horizon IT Inquiry heard a letter from the CCRC, sent to the then-Post Office chief executive in July 2013, said: “For obvious reasons, we have read the recent media coverage concerning the Post Office Horizon computer system with interest.”
The letter asked for information directly from Post Office, “especially accurate information as to number of criminal convictions that might be impacted by the issue and what action is proposed, or being taken, in that respect”.
Jason Beer KC asked: “The right and honest thing for the Post Office to have done would be to have let the CCRC know, and know promptly, over its concerns about the truthfulness and reliability of the evidence that Gareth Jenkins had given to court wouldn’t it?”
Ms Vennells said: “Yes it would."
Mr Beer went on: “That didn’t happen for years and years did it?”
“I understand that to be the case now,” Ms Vennells replied.
'Red herring'
Counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC asked Paula Vennells: “Did you ever connect the long running criticism with Horizon’s integrity that had been forced upon the Post Office by subpostmasters for years and years with being informed that there was a problem with the expert evidence on which the Post Office had relied about bugs?”
Ms Vennells said: “I don’t think I made that connection because it was very specific.”
She said she was told the two bugs were related to Horizon Online before adding: “And the bugs had been fixed and the postmasters had not lost any money as a result of that.
“There is even documentation that refers to them as a red herring.”
The former chief executive added that the fact that former Post Office general counsel Susan Crichton was going through a review into the flagged issue “seemed to be reassuring rather than concerning”.
Vennells responds to claims about an unsafe witness
Paula Vennells said she was not told that leading Horizon engineer Gareth Jenkins was an unsafe witness.
Ms Vennells was informed that there was a problem with some of the expert evidence, given by Mr Jenkins, about bugs on which the Post Office had relied on in prosecutions, including the conviction of Seema Misra, the inquiry heard.
When questioned on whether she asked who this witness was, she said: “I think I was told that it was someone who worked for Fujitsu who was very competent on the system.”
She told the inquiry she did not ask how many cases he gave evidence in. Questioned on whether she asked what the Post Office was doing as a result of its concern that Mr Jenkins failed to mention in cases knowledge of bugs, Ms Vennells said: “I was told that we were going back looking at or that Cartwright King were going back and looking at cases.
“I understood because that was the obligation that one had to do was that any case that he had given evidence in needed to be given this evidence around these two bugs even if it didn’t affect those cases.”
She denied being told he was an unsafe witness.
Vennells 'did not connect' known Horizon bugs with subpostmasters' claims
Mr Beer asked Vennells: "Did you never at any time connect the long running criticism of Horizon’s integrity that had been forced upon the Post Office subpostmasters for years and years with being informed there was a problem with the expert evidence by which the Post Office relied about bugs?"
She said: “I don’t think I made that connection because it was very specific which was these two bugs were related to Horizon Online which affected, all of whom had been informed or in the process of being informed, the bugs had been fixed and the postmasters had not lost money from that.
“I accept now that was incorrect.”
Vennells was 'concerned' when told about bugs in Horizon systems
Vennells has claimed she was “concerned” when she discovered evidence produced by Horizon which helped convict subposters had issues.
Unable to say for sure when exactly she discovered that fact, but believed to be mid 2013, she said she was told the Post Office’s expert from Fujitsu - responsible for Horizon - had to be stood down because he had not revealed "one or two bugs" he knew about in a case.
Mr Beer said: “You knew there had been prosecutions and that was founded on evidence from Horizon. When told by Lesley Sewel there was an issue with the expert evidence relied on to convince sub postmasters, were you concerned?”
She said: “Yes.”
Second Sight had 'criticism' of work done into scandal
Paula Vennels has told the inquiry there was “criticism” of the work carried out by Second Sight.
She said: “There were concers their work was not sufficiently evidence based. There was criticism Second Sight had done but there was an understanding we had committed to do that work.”
Groans from inquiry as Vennells claims 'I don't remember'
Mr Beer has produced another email sent by Vennells in July 2013, regarding a media statement.
It reads: "There are two objectives, the most urgent being to manage the media. The second is to make sure we address the concerns of JA and Alan Bates, mainly looking forwards. I will take your steer."
Mr Beer said: "You did take the advice of the PR guy, didn't you?"
When Vennells said she "really didn't remember" it drew a number of groans from those present at the inquiry. They were warned by inquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams: "Hold on now please. Thank you."
She continued: "As I tried to say before, what we were working to at this stage was numbers of cases going through a scheme, and a scheme that was going to be opened up to anybody who wanted to come forward. I understand how this reads, but I don't recall making any conscious decision not to go back and put in place a review of all past criminal cases."
'Grossly improper perspective'
Mr Beer is asking about the email Vennells sent in 2013 warning if they were to look into more cases than the ones in the 18 months before, the Post Office would be “on the front page”.
He said: “Why aren’t we going back further, five to ten years? This says we can’t do that. We’ll be on the front page. That’s a grossly improper perspective, isn’t it?”
She replied: “Yes it is. Yes it is.”
Decade of miscarriages of justice could have been prevented
Jason Beer has asked if her review of all prosecutions of false accounting could have prevented a decade’s worth of miscarriages of justice
She said: “We were concentrating on individual cases."
She later added: “If somebody had committed false accounting over a long period of time and had therefore reached a large sum, and I realise today and regret what I said, that I understand today why some subpostmasters were driven to do this, but at the time my naive assumption was if someone was false accounting on a regular basis over a long period of time and accumulated a large amount false accounted, that might give an intention of something that was perhaps more planned.”
'I don't remember'
The second day of the questioning of Paula Vennells has resumed and she is now being asked about an email she sent in 2013 which has a number of suggestions, such as asking external lawyers to review all prosecutions in the past 12/18 months, in the light of the Second Sight findings.
Mr Beer asked: "What was the logic at looking at cases over the last 12/18 months?”
The former Post Office CEO replied: “I’m afraid I don’t remember.”
Inquiry takes short break
After a tense opening session, today's second day of questioning of Paula Vennells has taken a short break.
Vennells asked to repeat answer 'no systemic defects were found'
Mr Beer asked: "How did it come about by late May the Post Office was proposing by looking a two to three cases Second Sight could answer the very big question have systemic defects in Horizon resulted in the wrongful conviction of sub postmasters?"
She replied: “I’m not sure. When the report was produced one of the conclusions was no systemic defects had been found.”
The lawyer was so taken aback, he asked Vennells to repeat her answer.
Vennells asked if Second Sight got it wrong
Vennells was asked: “On what basis did you understand Second Sight were not using all of the evidence the Post Office given to them.?
She replied: “From conversations with the team.”
Mr Beer said: “Second Sight were getting it wrong, they were not looking at the evidence?”
Apologising for cutting across the lawyer, Vennells replied: “No, I don't think that is what I was told. What I was told was they hadn’t yet had time to take account of the PO view in what they were doing.”
When asked if they were biassed, she answered: “No, certainly not at this stage. My very clear recollection is this is simply the team felt it was unfair because PO hadn’t had the opportunity to contribute yet.
“Whether that was true or not I didn’t check with Second Sight but I was told the work was so far behind SSS had yet to take account of the PO’s input.”
'Post Office will be damned if they do, damned if they don't'
Mr Beer then read out a private email from a meeting of lawyers claiming an “impasse has been reached” in terms of the Horizon litigation.
The second bullet point reads: “Whatever the findings of the expert report it will not resolve the problem. POL will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If the findings are there are no issues with Horizon, people will see it as a “whitewash” whereas if the findings are negative it will open the floodgates to damages claims by SPM imprisoned for false accounting.”
Mr Beer asked: “Was that view communicated back to you relevant to decisoin making?”
Vennels replied: “No, absolutely not.”
The lwayer asked: "That would be a reason not to commision an independent report as it might find out things or bring damages claims against us?"
Vennells denied it, adding: "No I did not know about this."
Vennells denies only choosing 'less risky' cases to be looked into
A tetchy back and forth played out between Vennells and the lawyer when asked about the cases looked into.
Mr Beer asked: “Were you aware the view among the lawyers that if we review a large number of cases that might open the floodgates to damages claims?”
Her immediate response: “No.”
He countered: "A less risky approach would be to just pick the cases the MPss were interested in.”
Vennels dismissed it, saying: “I don’t remember that at all.”
Vennells' uneasy as she answers questions on pregnant postmaster
Asked about the case involving Seema Misra, who was wrongly jailed for 15 months when she was eight weeks pregnant, Vennells seemed to squirm under questioning.
Mr Beer asked if Seema's case should have been included in the review, Vennells said: "I wasn't involved in that conversation."
Seems later rejected an apology from the Post Office.
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiT2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm1pcnJvci5jby51ay9uZXdzL3BvbGl0aWNzL3BhdWxhLXZlbm5lbGxzLXBvc3Qtb2ZmaWNlLWxpdmUtMzI4NzI4MjbSAQA?oc=5
2024-05-23 15:28:10Z
CBMiT2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm1pcnJvci5jby51ay9uZXdzL3BvbGl0aWNzL3BhdWxhLXZlbm5lbGxzLXBvc3Qtb2ZmaWNlLWxpdmUtMzI4NzI4MjbSAQA
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar