RR we did when we changed a line of code, but we’d never change £10 to £100
POQC there is no way anyone at Fujitsu would change any transaction data
RR that’s not my recollection - we could do it and did
POQC no one at Fujitsu would do this - it would be more than they’re job's worth to muck about transaction data
RR we were not mucking about. without correcting a corruption and re-inserting it, it would continue to cause problems.
POQC is that what you’re talking about?
RR no i don’t recognise this - the data could have been transaction data that we were changing
POQC you say you’d contact the branch...
RR yes the terminal had to be switched on - we would go in with our remote log on - and this would be noted in the logs.
However for some transactions we’d have to go in with...
POQC when would you do this exactly?
RR I can’t remember specific reasons we would do this. If we were doing it 2 people would have to be there to be an independent witness and it would be logged at our end.
POQC and the PO had to give their consent?
RR we were supposed to get the SPM’s consent - I’m not sure we’d go to the PO for consent.
POQC and you’d have to get permission from the SPM
RR the idea was we should and we did
POQC so when you did this proper protocols were followed.
POQC any changes you make without SPM awareness would not affect branch accounts?
POQC any examples?
RR I can’t remember
RR it would have been our job because it was trying to fix a corruption in the data
POQC it was only done when you HAD to do it?
Horizon, which is something I confirm that the SSC could do and that I did do this during my
time at Fujitsu. …"
transaction injected by Fujitsu would be “clearly distinguished” by a counter position “greater
than 32” because it would have been inserted at the correspondence server. "
there is a very important factual point here, which is that whilst we could insert transactions
using the correspondence server (and these would have a counter position greater than 32),
we could also insert transactions remotely by using the correspondence...
through the gateway, to the individual counters in a branch. The nature of many problems
meant that we had to implement a fix in this way rather than going to the correspondence
server, and we frequently did use this method in practice."
RR no - but it happened quite a bit
transactions so that the software would not detect any discrepancies.”
POQC explain why that was.
RR if Riposte was looking at certain transactions going thru..
POQC we’re not talking about transactions in branch are we?
POQC you said you didn’t
RR i misunderstood - we did. I wouldn’t insert data to correct the system when it hadn’t been written...
POQC but you didn’t?
RR not me no.
RR you have two types of data here - the first one yes, the second one no. The first one we corrected corrupted data with the SPM logged on to rebuild message store on the counter...
RR just to stop you there - we had to do that the other way round
POQC was that line of data a new transaction
RR no it was an existing transaction..
POQC you says it happened every couple of months? Could it have been less?
RR yes - further away you got the riskier it was
POQC and Fujitsu didn’t like taking risks. that’s not what you were there to do?
[POQC taking RR to a PEAK from 2009 long after he left]
POQC asks RR to explain a harvester exception
RR when the overnight UNIX servers the harvesters would run sequentially from 2am to grab the massive amounts of data from the Post Office terminals.
RR GS new more about UNIX than anyone there.
J intervenes to ask why RR is being asked about a PEAK 5 years after he left Fujitsu.
This will overrun I think.
RR isn’t sure.
POQC how clear is your recollection
RR it was 17 years ago so… I might be wrong
POQC that’s very fair of you
particular counter became corrupted. "
summary of this at paragraph 1131, his description is very much a simplification of the process,
which was not straightforward."
data transmitted after that corruption could become stuck on the server for that counter and
not be replicated to other counters, the gateway server or correspondence server…."
correct the problem, we would have to copy the data after the corruption to our own computers,
fix the corruption and then replace the data with our corrected copy and build this back on to
the counter server."
or mistakes made when replicating data. As part of the rebuilding process, we were able to
delete data from the counter server, and did this as part of the process I have described above."
across and/or data being permanently deleted. Data was occasionally lost because we were
unable to copy it form the counter and thus were unable to rebuild the database correctly."
RR because it didn’t seem important, but I see how it might be
RR not always
POQC when then?
RR when it came to re-inserting it
RR relatively small
They move on.
Subpostmaster’s knowledge (which Dr. Worden acknowledges in principle at paragraph 1134)
and in my recollection it …"
for example if the Subpostmaster was away from the branch on a lunch break and had not
logged out of the system. Whilst in some circumstances we did notify the Subpostmaster…"
advance in order that they did not use the counter being worked on, there were times where
the job needed to be done quickly to prevent potentially catastrophic failure and we were
unable to contact the Subpostmaster beforehand."
POQC if you cou;dn’t contact the SPM before would you make sure they knew
RR afterwards, yes
POQC concludes xe of RR.
PG you’ve got closure category codes and the legend or description against them… “program approved no fix required” lots of them. What does that mean?
PG “administrative response” what does that mean?
RR don’t know
PG there are more than 5000 of them- now the court was shown a document which you haven’t seen...
63 - programme approved no fix required - “there IS a fault in the product” at this distance in time can you remember any examples of this
Did that ever cross your desk?
PG you were asked about pressure in relation to SLAs
IH we were first appointed July 2012 and towards the end of 2012 we were in active discussion with JFSA and PO. After we issued our interim report...
POB - there were 150 mediation scheme applicants
IH - and 136 were accepted onto the scheme
POB you finished my question.
IH letter is dated July 2014 - a long time after we started work on the mediation scheme.
POB well I want to look at this. If you have concerns you can raise them.
Here are the scope of services - ie what you have to do.
IH I’ve read that
POB does that accord with your recollection of what your role was
IH this letter arrived half way through the mediation scheme
POB it was recognised in an early stage that 2S might not be qualified to adjudicate on every issue
IH I take issue with “early stage” this letter is not written at an early stage...
POB but thereafter it was recognised?
POB but you agreed it
IH half way through the mediation scheme, yes.
POB Part 1 report was intended to be a largely uncontroversial?
IH yes uncontroversial to reflect the permanent relvant information. Part 2 was the thematic issues.
IH yes both of which had substantive responses from PO to them
Now onto key documents used in the mediation scheme.
POB without apportioning blame to anyone would it be fair to say the mediation scheme
POB reads from letter from Sir Anthony Hooper to an MP about the slow pace of the mediation scheme from Dec 2014
IH I don’t remember this letter or appendix, but it does look broadly familiar so we may have discussed it at the Working Group
[boy this talk of CQRs CRRs, CEDR and Working Groups is taking me back. Heady days. Joke.]
So 18 months after scheme closed there had only been 12 mediations - is that right?
IH this letter is to PO GC so I wouldn’t have seen it, but the progress timeline is about right.
POB showing the court their termination letter and a longer letter in which PO sets out a plan for how 2S can finish its outstanding work.
IH you haven’t mentioned a 3rd document which was a press release announcing the termination of the mediation scheme which I think is the primary document
IH yes but the working group was terminated the day before it was due to meet which was a considerable shock to all concerned.
IH and we were invited to complete it by early april so we continued to work on that.
POB there is then an exchange of letters in which the terms of 2S and PO ongoing relationship was agreed.
J has some questions. You don’t need to tell me who told you, but you were told your first WS was too long
IH I was told it stood the risk by the court of being consdered too long and i should reduce
J and you were told you couldn’t discuss certain things because of your contractual relationship with the PO
IH yes it has been modified by the PO to allow us to appear in court under a protocol
J but it has narrowed...
J takes him to the 2014 engagement letter - clause at 6.2 in that letter - 2S will not act directly or indirectly in any capacity against the Post Office save to the extent any work...
Was that clause in the initial contract?
IH I don’t recall?
J was this letter a change in terms
IH we anticipated we might be asked to give factual evidence or support in some way to claimants in a legal action. We were quite up front about it...
POB back on his feet. Did you feel inhibited in answering any questions I asked?
POB but there was no risk of that in the questions I asked
IH I’d have to refresh my memory of the questions. I’m sorry.
J I think, Mr Draper [POB] that’s rather something for me to deal with.
PG QC now on his feet asking for 3rd party disclosure order to get some documents from Royal Mail.
J asks PO QC who acknowledges he has no brief but recalls being told by RM they would not surrender docs without an order.
PG brings up a document noting concern from RM rather than a refusal.
J says its’ a logistical problem I can’t make an order in these circs about that. I can express a view on the transcript...
Hopefully by reading the transcript which I am sure you will show them they will see there is very little to be gained by being uncooperative. But I will not pre-judge the order.
16 documents remained redacted on privilege
4 were confidential or irrelecant
7 docs had redactions removed or reduced because they had been applied too widely. POQC shows J an example...
J confirms these numbers.
POQC gives another example to satisfy his lordship...
J well redaction on relevance is potentially a two-edged sword.
[his lordship seems satisfied by the example]
[we move on]
J about to spell out what is going to happen wrt to tomorrow’s judgement.
It will be open to the public - there will be paper copies but it will be instantly posted on the relevant websites
Thanks for reading.