Thread by @nickwallis

NEW: Paula Vennells breaks her silence! #PostOfficeScandal This letter just posted on the BEIS select committee website:

Dear Mr Jones,
1. Thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions. Being able to answer them well is important...

for sub-postmasters and their families, for the public, and for me.
2. Before I turn to them, I wish to share some thoughts.
3. Most importantly, I want to say that I am deeply sorry for those sub-postmasters who have suffered, for their families and colleagues...

… and for what they have been through. I have read many of their stories, and they are harrowing. They are with me every day.
4. I also wish to recognise that it is now clear from the judgments in the group litigation that there was a real risk – over a period of 20 years...

… beginning in 1998 - that sub-postmasters could be blamed for financial anomalies caused, not by their own fault, but by defects in the Horizon technology. For the avoidance of any doubt, I was and remain deeply disturbed by what has come to light: it is contrary...

… to what I believed throughout my time as CEO of Post Office between 2012 and 2019.
5. In light of this, I welcome both this Committee’s inquiry and the Government’s announcement that there will be an independent review of the Horizon issues...

… I will do my best to assist both the Committee’s investigations and, in due course, the independent review.
6. I am aware that there have been calls for criminal proceedings against Post Office and against institutions and individuals who were responsible...

… for or involved with the investigation and prosecution of sub-postmasters who were affected by the defects in Horizon. I wish to state for the record that I do not accept any personal criminal misconduct.
7. I also wish to make the following points, not by way of caveat...

… read the rest here:

committees.parliament.uk/publications/1…

#PostOfficeScandal

Selected highlights to follow:

26. First, I played no role in investigatory or prosecutorial decisions or in the conduct of prosecutions. There was full separation of powers, with the team responsible for prosecutions reporting to the General Counsel.

28. I recall that I first raised the issue of Post Office prosecutions with the then General Counsel shortly after I became CEO because I wanted to understand the rationale for the policy...

… It was explained to me that the practice was an inheritance from Post Office’s days as a division of the Royal Mail; that it was a long-standing arrangement that had been reviewed by Royal Mail management in the past; that it was practically...

… necessary given the pressure on the CPS budget; and that Post Office approached prosecutions with the same rigour as the CPS, that it is to say that we applied the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Code for Crown Prosecutors...

… The application of the Code meant, as I understood it, that decisions to prosecute were made by applying two tests: first, whether there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and second, whether a prosecution was required in the public interest.

29. Although it seemed there were good reasons in principle for Post Office to continue the practice of bringing private prosecutions...

... the Board adopted a new prosecutions policy in February 2014 to focus on the most egregious cases of wrongdoing (e.g. cases involving thefts from vulnerable people).

[doesn’t say WHY they changed. An insider told me it was blatantly obvious they were over-prosecuting people]

31… Fourthly, in July 2014, Post Office engaged a senior criminal QC to advise on the response to a letter received from the CCRC regarding convictions relating to Horizon, and also to advise on prosecution related issues..

… In referring to this advice I do not and do not intend to waive any privilege of Post Office or myself, if any, over the advice the criminal QC gave.

[well, of course]

32… it would have been wrong for me to become involved unless of course I became aware of a systemic problem, which I did not…

[900 prosecutions over 15 years?!? Eh?!]

Vennells next answers are responses to the following BEIS select committee chair’s questions: "10. The Judge in Bates v Post Office stated that Post Office Ltd had operated with a culture of “secrecy and excessive confidentiality”. Did you as Post Office Ltd CEO over...

… see a culture of “secrecy and excessive confidentiality”; Was Post Office Ltd, as the Judge stated, fearful of what it might find if it looked too closely at Horizon?
12. Do you regret that following Bates v Post Office Limited...

… that Post Office Limited had not been fully transparent and open?”

Vennells answers:
43. The general description of Post Office during my time as CEO isn’t one I recognise. The culture I recognise overseeing in Post Office was one of openness...

… to challenge and a desire to make sub-postmasters and Post Office sustainably successful and accessible for all…
44. I recollect the culture being open and inclusive. I believe I helped create a culture that welcomed input and criticism as that is how we learned.

47. The Judge in the group litigation found that information did not consistently flow between Fujitsu and Post Office as it should have done, and some information which the Judge considered important was not acted upon quickly enough...

… or became siloed in parts of the Post Office and not, it seems, brought to the attention of senior management. As a result of the group litigation, I am aware of one instance... where I was given information that the Judge found was wrong...

… It is hugely regrettable that the defects were not identified sooner, and I can only say that I am sorry for it.

And this is Vennells on the allegation her organisation obstructed Second Sight:

[sorry - Second Sight were the independent investigators brought in at the behest of MPs and the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance - they essentially blew the lid off the whole thing - meet @WarmingtonRjw and @forensicgod, everybody]

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod So the chair of BEIS inquiry asks: "Second Sight told us that Post Office Limited obstructed their access to legal files to review cases as part of the Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme. Did you as Post Office Ltd CEO...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … actively stop files and information being released to Second Sight when requested? Why were they refused access to files?”
Vennells replies:

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod 48. I believe that I first became aware of this issue when I gave live evidence to the Committee alongside Ian Henderson of Second Sight in February 2015. I told the members of the Committee that I would look into the matter...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … and would come back to them, which Post Office did in follow-up written evidence provided to the Committee in March 2015.
49. The Scheme was governed by a Working Group which was to agree the methodology for the operation of the Scheme and...

… identify the cases which were suitable for mediation: this part of the Scheme was called the “Complaints Review”. The Working Group consisted of representatives of Post Office, JFSA, Second Sight and it was chaired by Sir Anthony Hooper, a former Court of Appeal judge.

50. Post Office decisions in relation to the Scheme were discussed in the first instance by an ad hoc Board sub-committee, consisting of the then Chair (Alice Perkins), myself, and two non- executive directors.

… Meetings were attended by, among others, the General Counsel and the company secretary.

[that would be Susan Crichton before she was disappeared/resigned and Alwen Lyons, OBE]

51. I understand that, in 2015 [by this time Chris Aujard was General Counsel], the Working Group decided that, in cases where there had been a prosecution, Second Sight would be given access to all of the documents that would have been available...

… to defendants and their lawyers, plus any documents that had come to light subsequently.

[thoughts? @WarmingtonRjw and @forensicgod]

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod ... Some time later, Second Sight began to request access to Post Office’s internal prosecution files. Its justification for the request was that Second Sight wanted to assess whether Post Office had complied with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod 52. As Post Office informed the Committee in follow-up written evidence in March 2015, Second Sight had been given access to everything in terms of prosecution material that the Working Group had decided they should be given access to. This was not...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … , itself, a reason to refuse additional documentation. The decision that was made, collectively by the Board sub- committee, was that Second Sight would not be given access to the internal files...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … . Firstly because the documents were legally privileged and, as I understood it, it had never been agreed that Second Sight would be given access to privileged material...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … Secondly, it was the view of Post Office that the conduct of prosecutions was outside the scope of the Scheme. Thirdly, Second Sight, as forensic accountants, had no expertise to consider legal matters.

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod [Now onto the suspense account issue, or in layman’s terms Where Has All The Money Gone? - this is the question from the BEIS inquiry chair]
"Second Sight also told us they suspected that money...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … paid in by sub-postmasters to cover shortfalls may have ended up in Post Office Ltd’s central suspense accounts and ultimately its profit and loss account….

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … Did Post Office Ltd, as they contend, frustrate them in investigating this possibility and did you as CEO look into this. Do you think this could have been a possibility?”
To which Rev Vennells replies:

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod 53. I have very little recollection of this issue and I can only tell the Committee what I now recall. I believe that Second Sight raised it with me in conversation. Since it was a technical financial control issue...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … , I asked the CFO to look into it, and I can see from the transcript of the evidence to the Committee on 2 February 2015 that Second Sight had already met with the CFO to discuss the further information they said they required. I cannot remember...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … how this was resolved, but I do not recall any further communication from Second Sight to me on this issue.

[so that, apart from the rampant prosecutions, is the single biggest issue facing her in this scandal and she decided not to get involved. Staggering]

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod Okay - on to remote access:

54. Given my personal involvement, I have read with particular care the parts of the Bates v Post Office judgment which deal with remote access. The Judge was absolutely right to conclude...

@WarmingtonRjw @forensicgod … that I was trying to get to the truth. The issue of whether Post Office or Fujitsu had the ability to access and alter branch information remotely had been raised during my evidence to the Committee in February 2015...

… I wanted to give an answer that was direct and factually accurate. I raised this question repeatedly, both internally and with Fujitsu, and was always given the same answer: that it was not possible for branch records...

… to be altered remotely without the sub-postmaster’s knowledge. Indeed, I remember being told by Fujitsu’s then CEO when I raised it with him that the system was “like Fort Knox”. He had been a trusted outsource partner…

… and had the reputation of a highly competent technology sector CEO. His word was important to me.

[I smell a court case…]

55. It is clear with hindsight that the information I was given about remote access was seriously inaccurate. I only became aware of this from the litigation, after I had left the Post Office….

… If I had become aware during my tenure as CEO that the information I passed on to the Committee was wrong, I would have informed the Committee immediately and launched an investigation into how I came to be misinformed….

… Today, I have no means of finding out any further details, and I do not believe I would be helping the Committee by speculating.

[there are bombs dropping all over the place here…]

[Okay - onto the PO’s decision to tank the 2013 - 2015 mediation scheme]

56. I first want to clarify what happened. In March 2015, Post Office took the decision to end the Complaints Review (and therefore the role of the Working Group) and to push all cases in the Scheme...

… through to mediation, apart from where there had been a conviction: in those cases, Post Office took the view that the CCRC was the correct route, indeed the only possible legal route, for the individual to challenge their conviction….

Accordingly, the mediation process (overseen by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution) continued: it was only the machinery of the Working Group which ended. Post Office funded Second Sight to complete its final report...

… and all applicants received a copy. We also funded the production by Second Sight of individual case reports for the Scheme applicants to use at their mediations.
[she appears to be completely ignoring the final Second Sight report which was also sent to applicants...

… which the Post Office rubbished and rebutted with an even longer report of their own, which when held up against the High Court judgments, appears to have been a tissue of crap]

57. Thisdecisionwasmadeafterlengthydiscussionsatbothsub-committeeandBoardlevel.From the perspective of Post Office, there were a number of problems with the Scheme by 2015...

… including that JFSA was promoting group litigation as an alternative to the Scheme and becoming increasingly less collaborative as a result.

[promoting to whom? don’t remember that till much later. Good to know it’s the JFSA’s fault, though]

… Also, the Scheme was simply taking too long: its progress had been greatly delayed by disagreements within the Working Group as to whether individual cases should proceed to mediation….

… We believed that it was in the interests of the Scheme applicants for all cases to flow through to the mediation stage.

[I might need to be corrected on this, but I was told it was the Post Office...

… people on the Working Group who were apparently resisting attempts to get cases through to mediation! Maybe Vennells is right, misremembering or being disingenuous. I wonder how much help from inside the Post Office she’s had with her letter]

58. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I do not believe that the Scheme would have been a solution. The main practical problem was that, as the Scheme took such a long time to progress, the group litigation gained...

… momentum and for many sub-postmasters the litigation became the preferred route for raising these issues: that was certainly the position, we believed, of JFSA. Indeed, my recollection is that over the months that followed the end of the involvement of the Working...

… Group, the mediation aspect of the Scheme more or less petered out, as more sub-postmasters joined the group litigation.

[Wha?! The group litigation wasn’t even a thing until 2017 - I might be very much mistaken but this seems like straight up bullshit]

[Okay - the big one - how much did the PO board and the government know?]

59. Horizon came up, in different ways, at the majority of Board meetings. For example, we discussed the relationship with Fujitsu...

… and plans for the replacement of the existing Horizon system. Whenever there had been a test or audit of Horizon, the Board would be informed….

… The Board was also informed of any major outages or faults, and the steps that had been taken to rectify them. We also discussed the complaints, the Scheme, and the group litigation.

60. Additionally, a Board sub-committee was set up under each Post Office Chair (there were two during my tenure as CEO). These sub-committees were chaired by the Chair and occasionally by the Senior Independent Director...

… (two different individuals over time), who was also a member of the sub-committee, as was each UKGI director who sat on the Board. The UKGI directors were fully engaged in the discussions and Post Office (including myself and each subsequent Chair)...

… had conversations with their senior line director and the Chief Executive of UKGI too from time to time. The present UKGI incumbent director joined the Board in 2018 with a fresh pair of eyes….

… His questioning was challenging and because of that it was helpful; it did not lead to any different outcomes. He was fully engaged on the Board, sub- committee and with ministers and lawyers at BEIS.

[BOOM. Govt knew everything. Ministers complicit.]

[Govt. have bullshitted for years that the PO was doing everything by itself and it didn’t get involved.]

[We go to final Q from the BEIS inquiry chair: "17. Lord Callanan has stated that on Horizon, Post Office Ltd “clearly misled” BEIS officials, while the Minister has told this Committee that the advice Post Office Ltd gave BEIS was “flawed”. Did Post Office Ltd under your watch..

.. mislead BEIS officials with flawed advice and, if not, are Government Ministers wrong?]

Vennells answers: 61. I do not know whether the Minister had any specific episode or episodes in mind when he made these recent comments. During the time I was CEO...

… , I was often involved with material prepared for meetings with BEIS colleagues. I would never have presented anything to BEIS that I believed to be untrue or misleading, nor would I have allowed anyone else to do so.

And there endeth the letter. Hot take to follow...

Hot takes:

1. Massively trying to throw Fujitsu under the bus.
2. Legalistically refusing to accept responsibility for anything
3. Failing to disclose why PO went from rampantly prosecuting anything that moved from 1999 to 2014 to not really prosecuting anyone thereafter.

4. Failure to ask or understand the question “Where Has All The Money Gone?” with regard to suspense accounts.
5. The government knew everything.

Right. Better read the other letters now. They’re here:
committees.parliament.uk/committee/365/…

@threadreaderapp unroll pls