Thread by @TomWitherow

Now: Former general counsel Susan Crichton is giving evidence at the Post Office inquiry.

She says "sorry for the suffering" to postmasters and their families, and that she "wished things were resolved more quickly".

She left in mysterious circumstances in 2013. Live updates 👇

Susan Crichton, who reported to Paula Vennells, has been seen by some as one of the "good guys" doing what she could against resistance from other execs.

The inquiry live stream, which currently has around 7,000 viewers, can be found here:

Will be intersting to see circumstances of her departure (to be replaced by Chris Aujard, who was much tougher on Horizon issues), and any documents between her and the board.

It may also be the first hearing to get sight of transcripts of tapes made covertly by Second Sight.

We have heard Crichton say she wanted to bring proportionality to civil claims against SPMs so Post Office wasn’t bring expensive claims to chas e<£10k.

She also claims she sought to pause prosecutions pending the independent review. Some evidence has been shown backing this up.

Here she asks Jarnail Singh, criminal lawyer, what the risks of pausing the Tracey Merritt case in June 2012.

He replies in his typical garbled English with the tunnel-vision view that postmasters are theves using till "as a bank" and must be hit hard.

According to Jarnail Singh, a "U-turn" to drop criminal cases and will result in...

... "Copulation" 😂

Susan Crichton: "I think there was a group of people who have worked for PO for a long time who held this view. They said it was public money and we need to protect it with recoveries."

She names Kevin Gilliland (now OBE), network director, and Angela Van den Bogerd.

Post Office directors were told in Jan 2012 that the company had won every criminal prosecution based on Horizon.

This was untrue. There were 5 acquittals by jury following claims Horizon was faulty inc Maureen McKelvey (2004), Suzanne Palmer (2007) & Nichola Arch (2000).

These are minutes that show Les Owen (later chair of Royal Mail) bringing up Private Eye reporting, and asking for assurances.

He may have felt he received them from Susan Crichton based on internal audit and Deloitte checks.

CC @rbrooks45.

Before Second Sight were brought in, a "thorough" review of Horizon by Deloittes costing up to £500,000 was suggested.

But Crichton says now: "I remember thinking this wasn’t looking at it from the point of view of people using the system, but rather as a system as a whole."

Crichton took advice from QC about different investigation types:

QC gave advice about how "risky" different reviews are - suggesting still resistance to an open audit of Horizon/cases.

Crichton claims she was trying to push the business away from this established view.

You could also read this as saying approach to consider individual cases - which is effectively what happened through SS and mediation scheme - was less risky that a full system audit of Horizon.

This could lead to civil/criminal cases collapsing and appeals if it found faults.

Crichton says chair Alice Perkins asked her for a different review to consider individual cases and the experience of postmasters' using the system - i.e. not a process-driven review of the system as a whole.

We're now looking at @WarmingtonRjw Second Sight's 2012 proposal:

The document shows that the Horizon system would be tested but - as Crichton says in evidence - this was "in the context of individual cases", and wasn't a whole system audit like the Deloittes option.

Crichton is asked why the Post Office did not pursue the Deloittes technical investigation into the entire Horizon system.

SC says she & Alice Perkins were keen to look at it from the postmasters' view and the "objective was to satisfy MPs with respect to their constituents".

Email from June 2012 shows Crichton believed the independent review should not "reopen cases" with respect to convicted postmasters, meaning they would not get a full, independent review.

She is asked: Was that a mistake on your part?
Replies: Yes, I think it was.

Alice Perkins argues back against this position in an email that follows:

"I am clear that we should include ALL the MPs' cases, irrespective of whether they have been decided in court...
"I feel very strongly about this..."

Later felt "business was pushing back" against her.

Susan Crichton under pressure for saying the proposed investigation into the case of Seema Misra (jailed while pregnant) would be "red rag to a bull".

She makes half-hearted excuses, before admitting it was "the very thing to do at that time" and her view was "short-sighted".

Email from Simon Baker, an IT specialist, spies "the opportunity to really contain the scope of the investigation".

Leads to Crichton being tested on a previous email in which she said she wanted to "box off an issue".

Crichton today: "Second Sight wasn’t able to get through cases as we had hoped... It wasn’t my intention to restrain or contain the scope, but I was concerned that we needed to get to some determination on MPs’ cases."

Focus on timing does mirror Baker's email (see pts 1 and 5).

👀 Paula Vennells canvassed her husband for a "non-emotive" word for computer bugs to send to her PR chief - in an apparent attempt to soften criticism of Horizon.

She suggests "exception or anomaly". PR Mark Davies replied: "I like exception v much".

Amazing bit of evidence.

Susan Crichton also received legal advice on obtaining an injunction on the Second Sight report based on defamation.

Pretty amazing given her evidence that "the investigation was independent and must be allowed to be so".

Injunctions for libel almost impossible to get in UK.

The "exceptions" wording for bugs pops up in a briefing note for Paula Vennells and Alice Perkins ahead of a meeting with an MP.

This is despite the original report by the Fujitsu expert, Dr Gareth Jenkins, using the word bug for 62 branch and 14 branch issues in 2010/2011.

More evidence Post Office board wanted to sack investigators from Second Sight -this time from a report of a meeting between Susan Crichton and external lawyers.

The board is "not coping well with the fact they are independent".

CC Project Sparrow: bbc.co.uk/news/business-…

Susan Crichton confirms, in oral evidence, her belief she "flagged" legal advice that a key expert witness had misled "several" trials to Paula Vennells and the Post Office board.

This was Simon Clarke's advice from July 2013. Vital evidence from Crichton.

Crichton visibly shifts in her seat as she admits evidence showed replacing "bugs" with less emotive terms was at "forefront of her mind".

Re this email (re drafting a report for the Board).

She had previously said she could not recall thinking about switching "bugs" term out.

Spot the difference! This is Crichton's process of drafting a note for the Post Office Board:

Right-hand side: Draft doc.
LHS: Final document that the Board saw.

Crichton notes there was an ongoing disclosure process, and says she shared "risks" from RHS with Paula Vennells.

External lawyers told Post Office they believed 5-10% of their prosecutions - 55 a year - "may be successfully quashed" in 2013.

It took seven more years and a £100m court case for postmasters to get their convictions overturned.

We're getting into the way Crichton was pushed out.

Crichton said today she tried to protect Second Sight's independence against Board. Evidence does appear to back this up.

July 2013 Board minutes show Board lambasting "management" of SS & asked about moving Crichton on.

Looking out for number 1?

Board members asked for legal advice about their own *personal liability* for the scandal.

They were advised it was unlikely and directors' insurance would likely cover them.

Back to Crichton being shunted out of the Post Office;

Alice Perkins (chair) appears to blame Crichton for negative findings of independent Second Sight report saying SC didn't "mark" Bates et al: "We had lost control of the process".

In note, "I" is Perkins; SC is Crichton 👇

Interesting.

Crichton told Perkins a @biztradegovuk official told her they "had always felt uncomfortable" about Horizon cases".

Asked why they didn't act, the official said "PO had always been so forceful in its defence". SC names Will Gibson as one of her 2 points of contact.

@biztradegovuk Chair Alice Perkins tells execs including Vennells:

🚩 "Cap" Second Sight's involvement after first 47 cases.
🚩 "Pin down and cap SS's costs".
🚩 Cannot afford to make wrong choice on mediation chair.

@biztradegovuk On to set-up of the mediation scheme in 2013;

Paula Vennells says the "hope of mediation was to avoid or minimise compensation".

She says exec "explained that there were steps in place to advice postmasters... this was a chance to be heard and not to expect compensation".

That's all folks.

A day full of insight - with quite a few more touch-points into what SPMs allege is a cover-up, and our first sight of the documents passed between executives and the Board.

Tomorrow Crichton's successor Chris Aujard will give evidence. Thanks for following!

@threadreaderapp unroll please