Judge (Mr Justice Fraser) is sitting we are into housekeeping before the witnesses are called.
discussing the possibility of a day’s sitting next week to do some mopping up...
Like so many Post Office witnesses he is a lifer. Started as a counter clerk in 1984.
PG has noticed that some of the screenshots aren’t from the guide by spotting some text was in italics on some screenshots and some weren’t.
Judge asks who did
PG doesn’t know
We move on.
We’re now onto buying a stamp. Again.
This time the physical interface procedure on Horizon is being discussed and they are going through it.
“Exotic though your hand movements are, they’re not going to appear on the transcript.”
PG is now asking questions with his hand behinds his back.
PG they could be further apart
DJ it appears so yes
PG and you are aware of problems that SPMs (subpostmasters) have with miss-keying?
DJ disagrees - he thinks both on legacy Horizon and current Horizon can reverse these - contradicting PO report.
DJ not really
PG says - well we’ve seen lots of mistakes made with extra zeroes on the end - is there not a potential?
PG walking through why busy people make mistakes
PG notes that the 0 and 00 buttons have been next to each other since Horizon started.
[weirdly doesn’t ask why it was never changed]
PG you must make a cash declaration by 6.55pm - what happens if it goes at 7.01pm?
DJ cash management team use that info to work out what cash to send or collect from a branch.
PG do you know if any thought has been given to this?
PG Post Office has a lot more tools available doesn’t it
DJ I don’t know
PG Why doesn’t the PO just work things out from till rolls
DJ I don’t know if it can print out till rolls like an SPM
DJ i would advise to raise the issue with NBSC [helpline]
PG but if it’s their responsibility to find their discrepancies in branch...
J intervenes to ask DJ the process
DJ explains the filtering process and then the eventual report which is printed out
PG if you’re looking for a duplicate you’d have to remember the ...
DJ well yes… [blethers] I’m guessing… but… I’m not quite sure what you’re asking
PG Okay let’s say you get a discrepancy of say £1792. This could be a single duplicate entry or many…?
DJ it’s not the most user-friendly way of investigating.
J you say you can filter in branch
J that would only help if you knew what you were looking for?
DJ not necessarily - you can filter to a day if you know when the cash declaration misbalanced...
We are now looking at p6 of the Network Development Programme Simplification internal PO document.
PG “there are a number of branch ops/processes around accounting and reconciliation - they are unecessarily complext… lack of visibility” etc etc
PG do you agreee?
PG “ill defined and out of date processes…” is that fair
DJ my experience is that suspense accounts work
PG is that a reasonable view in that document or completely unreasonable
DJ no it’s reasonable
POQC (Anthony de Garr Robinson) on his feet. how experienced a Horizon user are you?
POQC it was suggested that the buttons in H are too close together - comment?
DJ the fact the buttons are so close together means mistakes can be made...
DJ if you press the wrong button you get the wrong total so you’d notice it
POQC do you have a view as to keeping the layout of a system over time is a good thing or a bad thing?
J has questions about his experience. was it all in Crown branches?
DJ is done. Andy Duggs (?) is up next.
Andy DUNKS is his name! He works for Fujitsu. he is an Information Technology Security Analyst. First Fujitsu witness in the box. And a new barrister at the front bench.
AD for Mr Dunks
CB how many extractions have you carried out in your 17 years
CB how many people in your team
AD 3 of 4
CB similar extractions?
CB 700+ in 2013/4 why?
AD no idea
CB would it make sense that was during mediation scheme?
CB 2016/7 - 400+ because of these proceedings?
AD don’t know
CB we don’t have figures before 2014 - Mrs Mather said there is a contractual limit of 720
CB so that means you must be keeping a record
CB so why did we not get given them
AD don’t know
[we move on]
We move on to AD’s job.
CB really the only time records are audited is when the ARQ logs are extracted?
AD we call it audit transaction records but it’s not pre-audited
CB so it’s slightly misnamed
CB you only give evidence on...
AD it’s probably misleading. I’ve done extractions for legacy Horizon too
CB so when you refer to controls on data are you talking about all the time or the data you extracted for this witness statement
AD just for this WS
AD never given PO unfiltered data
CB what do you mean by data integrity
AD that is what I’m led believe means is untouched
CB so not tampered with?
AD so integrity means directly comparable with the live data
CB lets look at what Dr Worden [PO IT expert witness] says. He says it is secure and tamper proof
AD where the data is stored I don’t know so I can’t answer that, but in….
CB a “gold standard”?
CB it’s important, right?
CB asks about the list of controls he put in par 6 for his WS. When you set out these 12 controls when you were drafting your statement, did you refer to any document?
AD no I wrote them from memory
CB in terms of those 12 controls...
CB so anywhere we look these 12 controls would always be in place at any point in time
[we go to par 8 of AD’s statement]
CB [reads] "there is no reason to believe the info in this WS is inaccurate…"
AD is not sure
CB you don’t know what you mean by system?
AD I think I mean the data extraction system
CB okay - the process for removing data [he reads on]
AD there’s never been a problem when extracting data
CB in all your 17 years
CB so you are not aware of any problems with the data extraction process ever?!
AD no. [corrects himself] well there may have been problems...
CB how do you know if the system wasn’t operating properly it wouldn’t affect the data?
AD because there are checks and balances. we’d be told by the system if there was a problem in the data...
AD no it’s not its what I am saying
CB let’s go back to Mr Godeseth’s WS [Mr G’s WS agrees with AD]
It explains to the reader how to get ARQ data from Horizon and give it to the Post Office.
AD can’t remember reading it
CB continues to read from it “the integrity of audit...
CB that wording mirrors the wording in your WS [goes on to give more examples in which the wording of his WS matches this document, despite AD a) saying he wrote his WS from memory and b) not having read the document for several years]
[CB keeps reading from audit extraction client user manual.]
CB but it says “may” so it might not be.
J intervenes - he didn’t write this
AD I don’t know
CB have you had an error message to that effect
AD can’t remember
CB it says here “seek resolution from audit support"
AD I can’t remember I guess they’re try to sort it out.
Gareth Jenkins WS from 2010 for Seema Misra now being discussed.
CB I assume you are fmailiar with the Misra case?
CB you provided a WS
CB Ms Misra was a West Byfleet SPMR charged with fraud and theft
CB reads about legacy Horizon data extraction from GJ’s WS and notes that there has only been one instance of legacy Horizon duplicating data.
CB so there was a semi-automated process for removing duplicated records generated by this tool. Remember that
AD not really
AD that’s right - that was not done in our team
CB goes back to GJ WS re Misra trial - and notes there were some duplicate transactions which made their way into info re the Misra trial...
CB why does the language in GJ’s WS from 2010 exactly match the language in your WS?
AD we do have a standard witness statement we produce for ARQ proceedings
CB so your witness statement was just cut and...
CB notes another paragraph in another witness statement in 2010 from the Misra trial. Again it is almost identical to a paragraph in yours.
AD I was trying to imply the data I had extracted hadn’t been touched
CB no - I asked you how you satisfied yourself the controls were in effect when you extract the data
AD I had no reason to doubt it
Ms Tomasin not identifying duplicates is a problem for the Post Office and a SPM trying to get to the source of the problem isn’t it?
AD we just extract the data
CB and identifying gaps or problems is not your concern?
CB are you aware of any other problems?
[we move on to a PEAK]
CB “spreadsheets provided the prosecution team missed out whether a transaction was a reversal” “prosecution team well aware” “fix must be got out or prosecution evidence is not completed” This is Aug 2011.
AD I don’t recall it no
CB “fix deployed” “all is working well” so up until 2011 the data you retrieved did not have an indicator that information being extracted was incomplete. Is that a problem?
AD I don’t know...
CB did you hear the Helen Rose report being mentioned on Tuesday?
CB it wasn’t until the summer of 2013 that the reversal indicator didn’t show whether it was system or user generated. Is that outside your knowledge
AD I was trying to tell you about the integrity of the data extractions process, not the data itself.
CB so you can’t say the data itself
AD I can't, no.
POQC reads par 8 of his WS "There is no reason to believe that the information in this statement is inaccurate because of the improper use of the system. To the best of my knowledge and belief at all material times…"
and asks if he would have signed his WS if he didn’t believe it to be true.
He has produced 2 WSs - second adding clarifications and corrections to the first. POQC asking questions which is odd. Normally it is a perfunctory “is that your witness statement”.
Big disco about duplicates.
TG - A record can be written to an audit trail twice, and as long as that’s spotted and dealt with it’s not a problem.
TG - does know his stuff - he wants to go to absolute brass tacks on how it works. Describes what an audit trail is. HOL has a journal sequence number which stops...
Talking about Wigan and Bootle data centres and the copying of info.
TG yes because we’d have to explain it
POQC are you aware of it happening in HOL?
TG in 1987 for a number of years.
PG goes to par 5 of TGs WS…
TG’s full name is Torstein Olav Godeseth. He sounds like he’s from Somerset.
PG and Horizon when it started was being procured by DSS and PO. So it was unusual.
TG that’s right my Lord
PG then you went to Fujitsu in 2010. Why?
TG my contract came to an end at PO and I picked up a contract at Fujitsu. In November last year I accepted a full time role
[explains impact problem]
PG you have effectively worked in Post Office and Fujitsu and the whole Horizon project
TG not involved after procurement for a bit
PG clarifying your WS
PG you speak in your WS about consulting with colleagues in areas to ensure you were correct. which areas
TG nothing specific
PG so you were sufficiently uncertain.
TG no just double-checking stuff
TG I had a pretty good feel for it. I had to know how Riposte works, but it’s right to say I needed GJ’s input
PG listing lots of “I understand from Gareth”s
TG it’s difficult to judge how much I knew beforehand but talking to GJ freshened up my knowledge. GJ is the expert on Riposte.
PG he’s the person to talk to
TG writes: "A small group of Fujitsu users from the Software Support Centre (SSC) (30 users) have ...
TG about that
PG let’s look at the words “a small group” means in this case “the whole of SSC” yes?
TG now clarifying that injections could be made at the counter.
PG was section 36 [which I’ve just quoted in the last tweet] from Gareth too?
TG steve parker when he was preparing his WS
PG were you shocked by this?
TG not shocked. I was just finding out things I didn’t know before
PG in quite...
TG it was done because it was an operational necessity in quite a controlled way. i had expected messages to be introduced using a different counter position. The standard practice was to label what we are doing so we could see it in an audit trail.
PG the short point is you learned when Mr Parker was prepping his 2nd WS it was in fact possible to inject transactions which an SPM...
TG I don’t know how they would know that these transactions weren’t being injected. Someone had to be in the branch logged on when these injections were made.
IF someone wasn’t logged on then RIposte
PG let’s separate what you can do not what you’ve inferred from PEAKs. You realised for the first time
PG and if we go back to your WS - “in legacy Horizon any transactions inserted…” would be greater than 32 so it would be clear...
PG it’s not clear that you got this info from Mr Jenkins. So you had a conversation with Mr Jenkins on a contentious point in this litigation. He told you something and you believed it. Then you found out it was wrong.
PG did you not want to know how he had that information wrong?
TG I didn’t have a further conversation with him
PG so your knowledge it limited to what you can infer from the PEAKS
TG yes that’s fair
TG yes but I wasn’t involved in the rollout of Horizon - I went to parcelforce etc
PG are you regarded as a knowledgeable person within PO as to whether remote
PG very knowledgeable?
TG very knowledgeable yes
PG and is your evidence to court that you were completely unaware remote access in this way was possible
PG so were you surprised when Gareth Jenkins told you it wasn’t possible
TG I’m not sure what he told me was that specific
PG but this was the point of your evidence in 58.10
TG that’s not the point I am making
PG [reads him the point] you were specifically ruling out transactions in a way a Subpostmaster could note see
TG asks him to repeat the question
TG I think there are too many editors in this
PG you say "In Legacy Horizon, any transactions injected by SSC would have used the computer server address as the counter position which would be a number greater than 32,…"
TG doesn’t accept the point.
PG my lord shall we leave it there?
we do. for lunch.