Thread by @nickwallis

At the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, watching David Smith, former Post Office MD (2010) give evidence.

You can watch along live here:

I have limited capacity to type, so I'll jus screenshot and post up interesting documents. David Smith commissioned the infamous Ismay report:

postofficescandal.uk/post/rod-ismay…

This is David Smith's Witness Statement:

postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/witn0…

Some interesting pars...

19....in around June or July 2010, I remember that some questions were raised regarding Horizon, in light of a parliamentary question from Ms Patel
(Member of Parliament) and a Channel 4 news report which was looking into the losses that SPMs...

... were experiencing. I believe that the Board were asked by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills ("BIS") (now known as the Department for Business and Trade) to pull together answers to these
questions and conversations were subsequently held...

20.1 cannot recall precisely what happened next but I can remember that we asked for confirmation as to why we were being told that the system was
robust. This resulted in a report being written which I understand has beennamed 'the Ismay Report' by the Inquiry...

... had the report given any sense that there was a
problem, we would have done a deeper dive into the system. However, it was unequivocal in telling us that the system was robust and providing reasons
as to why.

Smith, in oral evidence, has admitted there was no written brief for Ismay's report and is being both unequivocal that he would have wanted to know from Ismay about any problems with Horizon, whilst also admitting they were involved in an assurance exercise...

This was his written response to Priti Patel MP, after being instructed by the then PO minister Ed Davey to respond to concerns about the Horizon system:

A few days later, this email came from the Shareholder Executive (now UKGI) a govt body:

So Smith sends this email a day after replying to Priti Patel:

Asked why he blithely told Priti Patel everything was fine and the next day started asking questions, he says the email from ShEx got him thinking.

His email of questions continues:

Here's how it finishes:

Says it was about "trying to stress test what people were telling me so that I've got confidence and so that ShEx have confidence in our position"

The PO's response to C4:

The Ismay report was commissioned almost immediately afterwards. Smith said he told Ismay the board wants an "honest view" and "not one-sided". He then contradicts this by saying "I was asking him to give me the rationale as to why the business...

... thought we were comfortable and confident in the assertions we were making."

This Ismay's evidence:

Smith says its not true. He is taken to an email sent on his behalf by his PA which contradicts him:

Smith says the Inquiry might be "splitting hairs here".

Inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams intervenes to say he's "struggling" with parts of Smith's evidence.

After to some to-ing or fro-ing, Chair points out that Smith intended Ismay to draw together conclusions that "had already been arrived at". Smith agrees

On receiving the Ismay report, Smith says in his WS:

Counsel to the Inquiry asks how he came to the conclusion no investigation was needed. Smith says they took the assurances from Fujitsu and Seema Misra's case was a "test" of the Horizon system, which it had passed.

Says he didn't review the Misra case in detail. Counsel to the inquiry brings up Smith's email to his team after Seema was sent to prison:

Smith apologises to Seema Misra and tells the inquiry he was just congratulating his team.

Counsel to the inquiry finishes, and Flora Page, Seema's barrister asks the Chair before asking her questions that he read Smith the self-incrimination warning. Chair asks why...

Page replies "We say that the Ismay report was a cover-up."

Chair complies. The self-incrimination warning gives witnessses the opportunity to request to not answer a question if they think it might help convict them in a criminal trial.

Page says that when Smith commissioned the Ismay report he and his senior leadership team knew "that Horizon's integrity was very much in doubt and that you wanted to cover it up."

Smith replies: "No. Absolutely not."

Page brings up the top level meeting in Sep 2010 which shows there was discussion about a serious bug in Horizon and remote access by Fujitsu, the Friday before the Misra trial began. This was not disclosed to the Misra team. "What sort of culture were you presiding over?" asks..

... Page. Smith says he was not aware of it at the time. He says he is "shocked and frankly appalled if that was the sequence of events"

Page asks if he knew that Ismay was told about "back doors" to Horizon after writing his report and did nothing about it. Smith says he. was unaware. Page calls up this email:

And says the Misra trial was being used to justify the Post Office's confidence in Horizon. Smith disagrees.

Smith's evidence ends.

@threadreaderapp unroll pls