Thread by @nickwallis

Here we are at Aldwych House, London for the first day of Paula Vennells' evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Former Subpostmaster Lee Castleton is looking forward to it! Note Seema Misra behind him to the left and Davinder Misra to the right. Looooong 🧵to follow.

Here are some more photos from outside

We've been let into the hearing room. I'm sitting next to @MarinaHyde from the Guardian and a nice man from the BBC. Patrick Spence and Natasha Bondy (both exec producers on Mr Bates vs The Post Office) are sitting close by. The room is packed. Here is Paula Vennells arriving this morning.

https://x.com/richardgaisford/status/1793172303477354814

@MarinaHyde I'd say there are about 30 Subpostmasters and their partners here. Scott Darlington, Kevin Brown, Jo Hamilton, Janet Skinner, Siema and Kamran Ashraf, Chirag Sidhpura, Alan Bates' partner Suzanne is here but I haven't seen him yet.

@MarinaHyde I'm told he's here. More spots - Darren Jones MP - former Chair of the BEIS select committee, former SPM Chris Trousdale (among the first six to get his conviction quashed back in 2020), Alison Hall, Professor @RichardMoorhead, Harjinder Butoy

Chris Head of course! Plus many more former Subpostmasters - forgive me for not mentioning them all. Good hack turnout as well. Glad to see @tomwitherow @JohnHyde1982 @BBCEmmaSimpson and @PaulBrandITV here (again, amongst many others).

The hearing is about to begin.

@TomWitherow @JohnHyde1982 @BBCEmmaSimpson @PaulBrandITV You can watch it here on youtube live

@TomWitherow @JohnHyde1982 @BBCEmmaSimpson @PaulBrandITV Chair of the Inquiry Sir Wyn Williams (SWW) is here in person.

Vennells strolls in a grey trouser suit and orange scarf. She is sworn in.

A reminder nothing I write is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes". It is a summary and characterisation of what is being said. The transcripts will be up on the inquiry website tomorrow and there are many other journalists here doing live blogging with direct quotes.

Vennells (PV) is being given the self-incrimination warning by the judge. This indicates she is a person of interest to the police and CPS.

Jason Beer KC is asking the questions.

We are going through corrections to PV's Witness Statement (WS)

Vennells starts with an apology which nearly takes a little bit of personal responsibility. She also says she's followed and "listened to" ALL the human impact statements and "was very affected by them". I guess she's had time on her hands.

This is Jason Beer KC

Vennells' first WS is 775 pages long. Beer (JB) says he's less interested in her narration of the documents and wants to get into her personal recollections.

JB are you the unluckiest CEO in the country?
PV I was given much info, and there was info I wasn't given. I was too trusting. I did probe and I did ask questions. Info wasn't shared.

JB says her WS said that no one told her there were bugs in Horizon or integrity issues
PV yes
JB no one told her about the Fujitsu (F) contract
PV correct
JB she was told by Mike Young the Computer Weekly article was rubbish
PV yes
JB lists all the bugs no one told her about

[there are lots of bugs being listed]
PV agrees she wasn't told about them or was told about them late
JB [still picking up her WS] you weren't told about suspense accounts
PV correct
JB by May 2013 you believed there was no bugs in H
PV yes
JB she was not show Simon Clarke's Advice until it was made public in 2021
PV correct
JB she was not aware of the instruction to shred documents until 2021

JB you did not see Brian Altman's advice and weren't advised of it
PV corr
JB did not see Altman's General Review until the Inquiry sent it to her
PV corr
JB didn't see Altman's 2015 advice.
PV I didn't see any advices
JB didn't see the Swift review
PV corr
JB not on the litigation committee
PV corr I was on the subcommittee tho

JB taking all that into view - was there a 12 year conspiracy at the PO
PV no - we made mistakes - "conspiracy feels too far fetched"
JB was there a motive to keep things from you?
PV you've conflated too many things - no reason for people to do that. The Inquiry heard from Susan Crichton that it was practice not to share legal advices, but they were not shared - the outcomes were discussed. Having read one of the BA advices he was hugely critical of the pre-2012 approach - had we seen it we would have asked different questions. There was too much reliance on the lead general counsel's case to take a decision on what was shared. But the original advice would have been so much more useful. CEOs and boards should know what advice

[I said she would blame the lawyers, and it hasn't taken her long]
JB you've focused on legal advice. there are other issues - bugs and defects in H - why did that not reach you
PV the contract with F - I reviewed some of the strategy, but it would not have crossed my desk as MD or ND. But the SLAs should have been reviewed.

PV one of the biggest challenges reviewing the docs is how much went on at an individual Subpostmaster (SPM) level were not seen. Big things got picked up, but single branch issues weren't.

[Vennells is trying to turn this into a lessons learned lecture]

JB isn't all this really obvious
PV it is
JB if it's obvious, why wasn't it done

PV it's all to do with layers of escalation and it didn't give you a line of sight to what was happening to an individual
JB so you don't believe there was a conspiracy - it was more to do with the way the organisation and structured
PV yes
JB who was responsible for that
PV colleagues also did not give me information
JB if it was org and structure of the company which stopped you from getting documents, who was responsible for that after you became CEO
PV as CEO you're responsible for everything and everyone who accounts to you

PV at the time we did not see what was happening in an individual SPM's branch
JB before Alice Perkins left before the departure of Susan Crichton "it's the fact that she sees so much that's beyond her control is the problem. it's her alibi". - is the same true of you?
PV no I probed and I worked in a structured and informal way. I was criticised for being too curious
JB you say you always enjoyed a good relationship with Moya Greene (RMG CEO)
PV [is cautious] yes I got on with most people
JB I'm focusing on Moya Greene

JB points out the overlap between the two CEOs time at RMG and PO and it is substantial
JB produces a message exchange

PV replies

The exchange continues

JB in the course of that exchange MG accuses you of knowing. Knowing what? Bugs errors and defects (BEDs)
PV no i understood MG had returned to the UK and listened to the inquiry and was trying to square her memory with what she was hearing
JB let's go up a page "I think you knew" and you say "that isn't the case" - what were you denying
PV I think MG thought there was some conspiracy and I was telling her that's not the case
JB "how could you not have known"? - you don't answer that question do you
PV no I was very concerned it is not good practice to be exchanging text in the middle of the inquiry
JB you've been exchanging lots of texts in the course of this inquiry
PV only during select committees and when the inquiry was non-statutory - my intention was entirely positive

JB how could you not have known?
PV this is a situation which is so complex. I have asked myself that question. I've learned some things during the course of this inquiry. I wish I had known
JB how come you didn't?
PV which question am I trying to answer - there were two trials - the CI and HI trial (both part of Bates v Post Office). I watched a number of aspects which came up during the CI trial - the onerous nature of the SPM contract. I was in the board meeting when the board reviewed the SPM contract with Linklaters and we were told we were fine. A relational contract in that meeting was mentioned and I thought that's the sort of relationship we have - on the IT. that's more complex - when Jason Coyne revealed all those bugs in the system...

JB but why didn't you know this

PV it's about sharing info, F's role, corporate memory

PV there was no idea no corporate memory about the birth of H
JB how come we found it out then? We asked for documents - we got them. We spent five months looking at them
PV there are known unknowns [witters]
JB even the CEO of the RMG who supported you all these years doesn't believe you does she
PV that's what the text says - whether she still thinks that, I don't know

[JB moves on to the 2nd of his 7 topics (today?). Which is this inquiry. He reads out Vennells' apology]

JB our request made in Aug 2023, seven months before you provided your WS was to reflect and set out what you would do differently in hindsight. in your WS (below) you say you will reflect in evidence. Why not do it in the WS as we asked you to do

PV I read very many documents and I have a list of things in my head to tell you and I will add another written document
JB why didnt you do what we asked you - were you adopting a wait and see approach - see what comes up and what you get asked and do and don't have to answer
PV no - that's not the way I work
JB why didn't you do what we asked you
PV it was simply a matter of time

[on to topic 3 - what went wrong]

JB shows her this from her WS

And this.
JB I just want to focus on "as a result of the Horizon system"

JB do you think this is just about H?
PV no I meant to say all the matters relating to H and the matters brought up by the Inquiry
JB this suggests it's the system that's the problem
PV that's not what I intended to convey
JB is this the culture which runs through the PO for the use of powers it elected to use and to blame the IT
PV no - I agree with your point. this is much much broader than an IT system
JB you finish your statement with the same words you used when you returned your CBE. They're a cut and paste
PV I don't recall that
JB did you think then this is about H?
PV no as I explained, it's a poor choice of words

[Topic 4 - whether your priority whilst at the PO was to protect the business]

JB says quotes doc below about PV's priority is to protect the business and people having no problems

JB why wheel out the message that because many SPMs had NOT complained, those who had complained should be disregarded?
PV "this reads badly today". I'm sorry. from the 136 that went into the Mediation scheme I was told there was no problem with any of them
JB so why focus on those who had no problem -
PV we did focus on those
JB no you didn't that's not your priority
PV this is badly worded - and can be read that way. I accept it
JB was this the message that was cascaded down through the business

JB it's what SPMs were told - it's not the system. It's just you.
PV no I listened into calls and they were given the help they needed - but I have seen the evidence that people weren't
JB worse they were told they were the problem

[we move on to Gareth Jenkins briefly - this is in PV's statement about the illogicality of standing GJ down when Lesley Sewell said it was for bugs which had nothing to do with the cases involved]

JB so it was illogical - why was this not drilled into
PV don't know
JB you had highly paid legal people - why not ask to see why GJ had been stood down
PV don't know. It should have been shared with me

[we go to topic 5 - Alisdair Cameron]
JB he told us that you did not believe there had been any miscarriages of justice - you could "not get there emotionally" - did you believe that?
PV I was told there had been no evidence found where F records had been checked and I was told everything was golden
JB so you did believe until April 2019 that there had been no miscarriages of justice
PV I think that is right
JB was that because you could not get there emotionally
PV in 2016 I got an email from Tim McCormack and he said that the police had been brought into Mrs Misra's case. I immediately reacted to that by asking Tom Weschler to look into it. Suspend all judgment into Sparrow

JB so AC is wrong to suggest this was not something you could reach at "an emotional level"
PV you cannot make decisions at CEO level on emotion
JB were you clear in your convictions that there was nothing wrong with H
PV no that's wrong
JB he says you never deviated from your path there was nothing wrong
PV no he's completely wrong

We go to a meeting dated 18 June 2012

JB takes her to a little speech PV made to MPs at the meeting

JB reads it out...

He goes over the page

JB is this not a reflection of the unwavering belief that AC mentioned.
PV it is a representation of the information I was given in Jan 2012. The GC told the board this in 2012. It was an understanding in the organisation which I now know was completely incorrect.
JB you know it was incorrect because [he tells her of Nicki Arch, Maureen McElvey and Susan Palmer's acquittals.]
PV acknowledges
JB why tell these MPs every prosecution had been successful and was found in favour of the PO

[Vennells bursts into tears]
PV the PO knew personally I didn't know that and I am really sorry for what happened
JB you had a briefing pack - 20 pages long for this meeting
PV yes I remember it

We see p1 of the briefing pack

We see the key messages for Vennells

JB where does it say there - that every case taken to prosecution has been found in favour of the PO
PV I don't think it does
JB Where does it say there has not been a case investigated where the H system was found to be fault
PV I don't see it
JB where does it say anything about temptation and SPMs having their hands in the till
PV that was discussed in the meeting
JB where does it say here
PV if it isn't there...
JB where does it say here every keystroke is recorded
PV that was picked up by Lesley Sewell
JB where does it say it here
[it doesn't]
JB so how come you said all this to MPs?
PV when you're in a meeting you take the briefing in with you you raise things you consider important in a meeting
JB isn't the purpose of a briefing to get the key messages factually correct
PV yes

JB so you went freestyle?
PV no - not at all. I would have used the briefing and added in "further information that I thought was relevant". Apologises (as she can see her in her line of sight) for the fact the info she was given about Jo Hamilton in that briefing wasn't accurate.

[a hiatus. in the words of the chair "very slowly I'm being attacked by drips". There is laughter]
[the Inquiry has sprung a leak]
JB "Sir, I don't think that's tolerable for you, a form of Chinese water torture."
[we have our first BREAK of the day]

[we're back]

JB takes PV straight back to PV's claims to MPs - specifically putting their hands in the till, no probs with H and no court case has failed - these weren't in the briefing - you'd got them from elsewhere...
PV yes
JB takes her to Jan 2012 board meeting

JB takes her to this

JB is that the occasion you are referring to? "The Business has also won every criminal prosecution in which it has used evidence based on the Horizon system's integrity."
PV yes and that was the view in the PO generally
JB what does that mean?
PV it was an assumption everyone in the PO
JB SC told us she got this info from Jarnail Singh and you would probably tell us that you should be able to rely on SC
PV yes absolutely
JB was there a lessons learned review of cases which finished adversely
PV are you asking me
JB well we've been told there should be after each case and that it did happen, but we've never seen any evidence of one
PV neither have I

JB how were these falsehoods allowed to perpetuate and be regurgitated around the business
PV I though the lawyers would check
JB so when you said this in June 2012 to the MPs, you remembered it from Jan 2012
PV yes
JB what about the hands-in-the-till line
PV apologises for it and calls it an assumption based on a) cases where in theory it took place and b) George Thomson told her it happened - SPMs borrowing money from behind the till to go to the cash and carry

PV I was shocked when I heard it, but it made sense.
JB is there a written record of what you've just said?
PV no, but it was a meeting between GT and Kevin Gilliland

[we move on to the Martin Griffiths case]

JB lays out the situation (including that MG was held responsible for a robbery at his branch - to which PV says "he shouldn't have been") leading to MG's suicide.

JB takes her to Alan Bates' email alerting the PO to MG's hospitalisation

More

JB is reading all this out

JB then takes her to another doc - an email chain between her and SC

Paula's reply

JB why raise contributory factors to a suicide
PV I am very sorry about this - every email you will see from me I am asking about MG and his family. re contributory factors - I had to understand if there were details to understand how I would have to communicate something this serious to the board. I had a personal experience of someone who took their own lives and so I tried.... [she breaks down again]

[JB asks her to compose herself rather than try to talk through it]
PV I spoke to the SPM's father who told me there were other factors in his son's death. In MG's case I was told by the general manager of the Crown Offices that was not necessary in this case. So I was probably thinking about that in my email. My first concern is and was always MG and I am sorry he is not here today.

JB what about the Alan Bates bit
PV I knew some of the PO colleagues AB was talking about and I thought his language was extreme. He was rightly very very angry.
JB you say in your WS that AB's accusations of blame were unhelpful - is that right?
PV yes because the PO needed to respond to this properly and I had to understand what had gone on.
JB were you trying to sow a seed that there were other factors than the PO being to blame
PV no I was not at all
JB takes her to an email chain which starts without PV

The message gets to PV. This is her response

She then pivots to "the business"

JB quotes "I had heard but have yet to see a formal report, that there were previous mental health issues and potential family issues." - were you asking your team to dig into MG's possible mental health issues?
PV i had to pass this info on to the board and AB had said the PO was to blame and I did know from previous examples and other information.... it doesn't matter. I shouldn't have used those words
JB who did you hear about previous mental health and family issues?
PV can't recall - i'd seen an email
JB was it a rumour
PV no not at all
JB help us then - where did this info come from?

[she can't]
PV but rumour would be a very inappropriate word

JB takes her to this email

JB "I possibly heard (but may be confusing with a previous case) that Martin had had some mental health issues?"
JB how do you possibly hear something?
PV I was stating uncertainty
JB If it's uncertain, why state it at all. Possibly confusing with another case?
PV I'm trying to ensure there wasn't confusion
JB in your WS you said you were very aware of the background to suicide - it's very complex. Is your evidence that you were looking to explain his suicide for the benefit of his family?
PV no I was simply trying to get to understand whether what AB said about the PO being responsible for MG's death
JB and the sister
PV yes

JB you knew it was the family's view that MG had taken his own life because it had been ruined by the PO
PV yes
JB you'd just been told about his death and wanted to get on the front foot
PV no
JB and you tasked your team with coming up with information which countered this
PV no I just wanted the wider picture

[JB's last of the general questions - it's about PV's lack of recall]

[JB lists a bunch of "don't recall"s and where she "lacks recollection" of facts] which might be damaging to the PO. But you have not forgotten things which attribute blame to others [JB lists them again]

JB why do you remember things which tend to be exculpatory of you that diminish your blameworthiness
PV I don't believe that's the way I approached my statement at all. I approached it with the intention of integrity and truth...
JB why when you recall a convo of which there are no minutes or other record they exculpate you
PV not my intention
JB some might say there are others at the inquiry who have done the same - was this a habit of people at the PO - only recollect the good and forget the bad
PV can't speak for others. I approached this with complete integrity. And I don't think there was the wrong culture at the PO. We had pre-mortems. Bad news is good news. etc

[we got back to the beginning]

You spent 12 years at the PO. Jan 2007, MD in 2010 and left as CEO in April 2019.

JB did you sign off of on Lee Castleton's legal spend
PV no
JB when you joined you had no exp of managing a large IT team and you never worked for anyone which prosecuted its staff
PV correct
JB you say you put SPMs first and before the PO rep
PV yes
JB in your WS you refer to protecting public money - were you preoccupied with public money
PV no but we had to be aware of it
JB lists the mentions of the PO's rep in her WS - lots of them - were you preoccupied with the PO's rep
PV I never put it before the SPM's suffering
JB what did you know about their suffering

PV I understood from clearly that people had been prosecuted and we brought in 2S - goes off on one about the brand of the PO being built on the SPMs
JB what suffering were SPMs undergoing
PV [waffles]
JB no no no - you said at the time you did not put the PO brand above their suffering
PV not my intention, but I am sure there will be examples where we did, because we got this horribly wrong

JB asks about prosecutions. PV says she wasn't aware of differences in the way the PO prosecuted in different terrirtories. Says she didn't know PO prosecuted people itself at all until 2012. JB takes her to an ARC meeting minute

Presentation from John Scott

continues

JB Asks what PV might know about investigatory casework?
PV don't know
JB isn't this (see below) about the PO investigating its own fraud
PV yes - a sensible thing to do
JB so you know in 2008 the PO was undertaking criminal investigations in its own name
PV I don't think I took that from this

JB who did these investigators work for
[PV wiffles - but maintains that she did not know that the PO was bringing its own criminal investigations]

JB what about this line about "asset recovery" doesn't this suggest that the PO is doing its own asset recovery
PV not necessarily
JB who would be doing the asset recovery
PV I don't remember this meeting - I'd speculate it could be internal or external asset recovery
JB wouldn't expect you to, but do you agree from this record of the meeting that the position was that it was openly discussed the PO was conducting investigations of its own staff and was recovering money from them
PV ...yeeeesss....
JB so why not appreciate that until 2012,
PV cos the inference I may have drawn from that meeting was that we were doing a very different level of investigation and prosecution. I should have known and I should have asked more questions. When I joined the RM in 2007 we knew they were investigated and prosecuted. It was a historic reality and became a continuing reality. It was a serious mistake I did not understand it.

JB so for five years between 2007 and 2012 you did not know about POID and there were 100 people working there who prosecuted your staff up and down then country
PV I didn't know it was that big. I knew JS led a security team.
JB when in 2012 did you first become aware the PO prosecuted its own staff
PV when we were prepping to meet JA and the MPs
JB was it a surprise?
PV yes it was
JB never raised in your years of the prosecution. of your staff on your years on ARC
PV not that I can recall
JB what about among PO board or exec team
PV no
JB how was it that this little backwater of activity was going on without anyone knowing about it?

PV it's unacceptable. My only explanation was that it was an accepted reality
SWW isn't accepting the reality an awareness of the reality. JB wants to know how it could possibly be you were using a function which was highly unusual for a private company?
PV I agree. It was a function that one didn't hear about. We knew about cases being prosecuted... can't remember if the numbers were in significant litigation reports. Understood they were being conducted by external authorities.

SWW yes but in 2010 there was a case. Mrs Misra's case that generated a great deal of publicity - odd that it didn't filter through until that point that it was the PO prosecuting not the CPS
PV no documentation
SWW you don't need documentation to infer that it might have been of interest to senior people
PV no - there were not, as far as I was aware discussions that it was the PO that investigated or prosecuted. The assumption was that it was brought by external authorities
SWW what about separation? surely you discussed the lawyers during that process? That the prosecution was going to be carried out by PO lawyers now?
PV no discussion about that at board level. IT had 200 projects. SC asked HF to look into it but i only know that from disclosure [by the Inquiry]

[that's absolutely nuts. PV appears to be saying that no one at board level seemed to know the PO prosecuted it's own staf!!]

JB did you know of the fearsome rep the PO investigators had?
PV not at the time - only when we got back to the feedback from 2S and from listening to SPMs. SC also commissioned a piece of work which looked into the investigation team. When I heard about the feedback I personally spoke to John Scott and sat in on his sessions to effect a culture change.
JB so how come you didn't at that time speak to JS about how the PO was prosecuting people - hundreds - didn't you ask who was managing him.
PV at the time I spoke to him it had stopped.

[we were on a break - we are about to finish that break]

[Back to the complete lack of corporate awareness that PO was prosecuting]

JB takes us through an email chain

Alan Cook responds

The email eventually reaches Vennells.
JB asks what she would have understood by Cook saying that "we" have prosecuted [Michael Rudkin's] wife.
PV that when "we" prosecute - the case was made by the PO but the prosecution was done by an external body
JB was it not commonly understood by the senior managers - that's why we say "we" prosecuted...?
PV no

JB what about subbies with their hands in the till?
PV I would never call them subbies
JB what about the rather more important allegation of them having their hands in the till
PV sorry. Both are inappropriate

[we move to Horizon (H) and bugs errors and defects (BEDs)]

In her WS Vennells says she had no awareness of H when she joined and no knowledge of BEDs

JB takes her to this and asks where she got the 600 number from.
PV she has no idea
JB in a briefing for Bates v Post Office litigation steering group in Nov 2018 prepped by WBD it says Dr Robert Worden calculated a max of 672 BEDs in H's lifetime
PV might be that. not sure. It's late knowledge.

[Jb brings up the Detica report - highlights a load of deficiencies across the PO estate]

Dated 1 Oct 2013. JB takes her to a conclusion

Vennells did not see this report. She says she should have. Her ExCo members AvdB, Lesley Sewell and Chris Aujard all saw it.
JB who should have brought it to your attn
PV all three
JB this is important, isn't it - independent consultants come in and agree with 2S
PV yes
JB why would the above keep this info from you?
PV don't know

PV was not under the impression people were withholding information from me. This should have gone to me and the group exec
JB would it have affected your approach to 2S? Rather than them being slow, not sticking to their brief, producing unevidenced concs and taking the side of SPMs (all things you said), that instead, the PO's own consultants believe 2S's observations were correct.
PV yes and the root-cause analysis failures too
JB another red flag,
PV yes

JB was this conclusion brought to your attention?
PV no. none of it was, but it wouldn't surprise me

JB you didn't get Detica's report
PV no
JB did you know it was happening
PV not sure I did
JB was any of this reported to you
PV don't believe so
JB this is a detailed independent third party report expressing serious concerns about processes, procedures, IT inc H - should it have been brought to your attn
PV yes
JB so a serious failing by AvdB, CA and LS
PV yes - it should have gone to the wider leadership team - the ND would have found it helpful
JB why would they keep this from you?
PV no idea

[we move on]
JB from at least summer 2012 - you received direct correspondence from people having problems with H
PV yes
[we are shown some]

This is Vennells' reply

JB was it relevant that Pervez was a "trusted individual"
PV it would not have made a difference
JB alll complaints by SPMs whether magistrates or not should get investigated by you
PV yes. I am sure they were not, but they should all be investigated in the same way
JB you responded personally to this, but not to others
PV I could when I did. Letters went through a process. If I got an email I did respond where I could
JB nothing to do with Pervez being "respected"
PV no

JB takes PV to a letter which talks about losses and the personal attack on him and his staff "I am not a thief or a fraudster, but like a terrier I'll never let go until it's sorted."

PV the letter would go out to the business, and it would come back with a draft letter and briefing report to her.
JB would you look behind that briefing report
PV at first I would just get a draft letter to sign, but I refused to sign them until I saw primary evidence so after than I got the correspondence in a file
JB you wouldn't just sign something
PV well I am sure you might find something where I did, but I did query everything

JB takes her to a letter from Ron Warmington on 2 Oct 2013

They were Lee Castleton, Keith Jones, Jane Brewer, Helen Lloyd-Jones, Pam Stubbs, Noel Thomas, Jacqueline McDonald and Caroline Jack.

JB why did you find the attachments "very disturbing" [see PV's reply below]
PV they explain in clear detail what 2S were looking into - style of the investigators, issues with H, impact on them and their families, financial impacts, and the clarity of the form made it v disturbing and upsetting reading

JB they refer to a wide range of issues including a series of faults with H - misbalancing, shortfalls being wrongly atrib, civil proceedings resulting in his brankruptcy, impacts on his family and children, Noel Thomas and the impact that had on him and his family. Complaints about training. All the things established by the two judgments of Mr Justice Fraser.
What changed between this very distubring reading and you shutting down the mediation scheme
PV [breaks down again] "it was from a point of view of compassion"

PV I was very clear that this was important and not a distraction. By the time 2S were stood down in 2015, we were very clear there was nothing found. In every case there was an explanation for what had happened. We would mediate or go through the courts.
JB did the PO use a series of tactics and systems to iron away these very discturbing complaints over the next 18 months
PV how did they turn out to be without substance
JB we did a thorough investigation and 2S complemented us on one or two occasions on the standard and detail and it's completely unacceptable and I'm very sorry we didn't reach the right conclusion

[WE BREAK FOR LUNCH]

[we are back from lunch.]

We are still talking about SPM complaints which reached PV's office about BEDs

The complaint by a Mr Pennington is about a H shortfall and the SPM has been told he has to make good and that was the contract. And there was no appeal.

JB was the SPMs understanding that all losses had to be made good your understanding
PV yes, after a process. My assumption was that resolution process worked

JB where did you get your understanding that all losses had to be made good however caused
PV it went across the organisation
JB the contract didn't say that at all
PV I know I've read the contract - doesn't say "make good"
JB it doesn't say all losses either
PV I'm not sure I understood that
JB what was your understanding
[there is a long pause]
[good lord if she can't get this right...]
PV I'm not sure I can recall. Colleagues told me the PO in some cases could not determine what happened, and the SPM would be held liable after an investigation
JB if the contract said the SPM was liable for all losses, what would be the point of the investigation
PV to find the cause of the loss
JB why would it matter what the cause of the loss was...

... if the contract said the SPM was liable.
PV [witters]
JB was it your understanding that the contract made the SPM liable for all losses
PV can't say - I relied on other people to tell me what the contract said
[she literally said she read the contract 5 mins ago!!!]

[we go to another Tim McCormack email]

JB this refrain of H being used by millions so its fine is constant around this time
PV yes I used it and it was wrong to use it
[JB reads the whole email]
JB what did you do in response to this email
PV can't remember

JB brings up half an email but doesn't read it

JB does read out PV's response

JB what sensitivities?
PV I'm trying to keep a sense of proportionality around this. I asked questions
JB why Gilliland
PV cos he was ops dir
JB was there a proper procedure for dealing with H by now
PV [witters]
JB some complaints are dealt with ad hoc, some bypass you and some go to a team
PV they always end up with AvdB because that was her job. They go to technical teams and then back through AvdB
JB what about this sounds unusual "but we've said that before!"
PV isn't sure anything other than she's been wrong about stuff before

JB was there a proper way of collating issues with H
PV it wasn't good enough - there was a hub post July 2013
JB so this should have gone to the hub? the one set up by SImon Clarke
PV yes

JB takes her to further on in the chain.
JB why did you ask him to do this - watch AvdB not jumping to a defence
PV AB had been here a long time and seen most things and there was a risk she might not see things afresh
JB was it that she'd worked for PO a long time or was she by default a H defender
PV no I don't think so
JB so you would administer this warning to anyone working for an organisation for a long time
PV no, but... I can't remember something which prompted the comment

[so the person Vennells relied on for advice was known to Vennells to assume/assert guilt or error in SPMs and it was such a problem she had to be monitored by other colleagues]

JB brings up a letter from an MP about Harjinder Butoy who is in the room

JB did you treat letters from MPs differently
PV not personally, but there was a flag process with letters from MPs to bring others into the business
JB would you have even seen this?
PV it really depends
JB was there a way of keeping you informed about SPM complaints about H
PV no. this could have been done much better, but this was over such a long period of time, the PO did not keep a good enough record on this matter.

JB goes to another email complaint from an SPM

It ends
JB wants to know what the urgent/escalation process was

PV ends a long answer by saying she's not happy using the word "noise" around H
JB why use it then?
PV it reflects a wrong understanding - we believed H worked. It didn't mean I didn't take them seriously

JB takes her to a covering email from an MP with an attachment from William Banville (SPM)
JB asks her to look at first 5 or 6 lines, then 10 lines in he starts quoting...

"The entire losses had to be made good, which they were. My initial questions are 1. 2007 to2012 The Post Office management knew of many offices in a similar position so was this a prearranged standard riposte from the ASM. [As most postmasters were told this] was this to isolate us?"

JB asks if this was a standard line - and if there was any investigation into it

PV I never said it. I never heard it. It was not a call centre line. And I had no knowledge it might be a company line.
JB was there a strategy devised to isolate SPMs in this way
PV no. I never heard it at all.

JB takes her to another Tim McCormack email
JB what did you do about this?
PV I don't recall
[there is a large amount of disquiet in the room]
JB it's quite a serious thing isn't it - what did you do
PV I'm sure you have an email

JB brings up the email chain - PV's PA sends it on to flag case advisor, AvdB and others

PO lawyer Rodric Williams sees it and replies suggesting there should be a standard text response they send to journalists etc
JB reads out all of it - the final par causes a stir in the room

JB did you think TM was a bluffer?
PV no
JB TM says there's a problem with the people you surround yourself with. You send it to the people you surround yourself with. Do you see the problem?
[there is laughter in the room]
PV yes
JB shows PV Mark Davies' response

TM replies to PV as a result of getting the standard response (see below)
JB what did you do with this
PV I forwarded it to Tom Weschler

We go to another TM email
JB did you after this time refuse to engage with TM
PV don't believe so - Rodric Williams took on the responses which I apologise for. It may be AvdB went to check out the bug

JB did you join the dots between the complaints you were getting from SPMs about H
PV we had the investigation work in the complaint and mediation scheme and I regret today it didn't expose the issues

[We move on to topic of facility for remote access]
Here is a senior manager raising Richard Brooks Private Eye piece (Richard is in the room)

Here is Vennells reply

JB there seems to be folklore circulating the PO for some time - we've never lost a court case, there's nothing materially wrong with Horizon, the contract requires the SPM to make all losses good, remote access is not possible for the PO or F - how did so many false statements circulate the PO for so long
PV they weren't considered false at the time - but on the court cases that was legal
JB why was no one checking the real facts? Does it say something about the culture of an organisation that this wasn't being done
PV that's valid, but I thought I was getting the best advice because of their expertise

JB brings up PV's WS

PV says she was not sure what she understood about this at the time, but she brought it up with Lesley Sewell and Mike Young to ensure it was fixed.
JB says it's implicit in here that a form of remote access is possible, isn't it
PV not sure I would have understood that at the time
JB at the very least you were aware unauthorised or erroneous transactions could be carried out without the knowledge of the SPM
PV I fully accept what the doc said, but the focus was on the fact the audit was late and had run over budget

PV i didn't pick this up at the time as being something I was unduly worried about. I accept the proposition you are putting to me
JB a facility to carry out unauthorised or erroneous transactions
SWW so anyone with the relevant expertise in the PO would understand it, but you didn't
JB okay I'm calling that remote access 1 - the E&Y management letter. Lets go to RM2, Project Zebra

JB This was a board commissioned important piece of work.
PV yes - it was a desktop exercise. a review of existing documentation
JB in addition to this Deloitte were asked to do a board briefing - you read the draft board briefing and in your WS you say...

We go over the page.
JB checks her conversation with LS was undocumented. PV agrees
JB given you'd received a board briefing which you thought was so serious you were worried about using H, you then say but I was then told THIS by Lesley, so everything was okay

PV what's curious about this is that it was a heavily caveated report. I was concerned. Others were less concerned. They felt if you could find your way through the pars in the report or covering email, then you would conclude that there were no issues. I picked up the balancing transaction issue and picked it up with LS. To your question about why there is nothing documented on this- I find it curious. We did discuss it at boardroom level, briefly. Not sure I would have documented my convo with LS I was quite reassured.
[???]
JB this is exculpatory evidence- you get something serious in writing, then you spoke to someone and you were calmed about it, but there's no evidence of that conversation

[we were on a break we're nearly back from the break. Could be the last session of the day]
My wrist (which is in a splint) has started to throb - I might dial down the live tweets in this last session of the day.... sorry.

Here is the Deloitte briefing document draft which went to the board (or a version thereof). Does what it says on the tin.

There is a summary here and then a list of limitations

JB that top limitation is pretty serious
PV yes - there was always an outstanding questions about validating H in the early 2000s
JB they didn't look at PINCLs PEAKs or KELs
PV no - wasn't sure what they were
JB takes her to the next limitation

JB in fact he reads them all.
JB the line about verbal reassurance is not reassuring at all, is it
PV no but I was told there was more documentation which provided more reassurance

JB takes her to the findings and then says it's finding five he's interested in

Issue 5 - balancing transaction postings, SPM approval is not required
PV that's what it says and F confirmed one transaction had taken place, but in fact the SPM had to approve it. I went back twice to LS to confirm.
JB why was this so important to you out of all of it?
PV it was significant
JB why were you focusing on remote access?
PV because in 2013 there had been Mr Rudkin's challenge via 2S about remote access

JB so something that happened the year before had triggered your concern about remote access?
[PV is thinking very carefully here]
PV Rudkin and the cases going through Project Sparrow
JB you know this issue now is relevant to evidence you subsequently gave to parliament
[PV is choosing her words very very carefully]
PV the explanation I was given was valid and remained valid for many years afterwards [starts wittering and distracting]

JB this board briefing from Deloitte says F could make balancing transactions without the approval of the SPM
PV yes that's what it says
JB this is written evidence to you and the board that F could alter branch transactions without the approval of the SPM.
PV but at the time our understanding was different
JB because of two conversations you had with LS
PV and some documents which we saw before the select committee

JB but you had no idea if F had used balancing transactions before 2008
PV correct
JB but the board wanted to know this - didn't it
PV yes and Lesley told the board that it would be too difficult and expensive to find out
JB we found out. we got told it was like the Wild West before 2008 and before 2004 there was no documentation or auditing of what was going on
PV yes it was regrettable that documentation was not shared

JB goes to a document I first saw on 21 Nov 2018 and wrote up here: postofficetrial.com/2018/11/day-9-…

It is the infamous eve of the 2015 Select Committee email

JB Why did you need to say RM was not possible.
PV I wanted to be able to say that and I wanted to know why it was the case.
JB why NEED to say NO it is NOT POSSIBLE
PV I phrased this point very specifically. Alice Perkins said if you want to get the truth from someone, tell them what you want to say very clearly and ask them to give you the information you need to back that up
JB it's an odd way of going about things - I want to know the answer to the question, here's the answer to the question, tell me I'm wrong
PV well I hoped they would do. I believed this was absolutely the case. I wanted to answer the MPs questions. I was not trying to tell tehm what the ansewr should be.
JB I thought you said thats what Perkins said you should do to get information out of people
PV yes, but it was not done because I knew this was the answer
JB I thought you said a moment ago it was because you believed it to be the answer
PV I did and I wanted to be able to explain

JB Wouldn't the honest and straightforward thing to do her would be to say: ""is it possible to access the system remotely? We are told it is." What is the true answer?"
PV [gets het up] I am being honest and truthful. I wanted an honest and truthful answer

[we move on]

JB you tell us you have no memory of the addendum to the briefing pack which addresses the issue of remote access. did you get it but you can't remember reading it?
PV yes I think so

JB takes her to the remote access addendum covering email - this is the day before the 2015 BIS select committee
JB why is Lesley Sewell not part of this email chain
PV not sure

This is the full addendum document (2 pages back to front)

Here is the issue on remote tampering

JB so this is - what to say on remote access, what to say if you are pushed and then what to say if you are really pushed
PV [reluctantly] yes
JB reads them all out

End of the doc....

JB you accept this was prepared for you and emailed to you. Expressly requested by you. It's a short doc. It was printed out for you. Do you accept it's likely you saw it.
PV yes
JB the addendum gives a strategy to hold four lines, and more if pushed and more if pushed. Did you agree with the strategy
PV no I would not have likely even thought about it

JB why would the PO adopt a strategy of withholding information unless pushed or asked directly
PV you'd have to ask Jane Hill.
JB would that be an appropriate strategy?
PV no - I was going to answer the Select Committee to answer their questions openly and honestly

JB points out how the statements contradict each other

JB is that how the PO operates? tell them one thing and if pushed tell them the other
PV no. it's not the intention and I wouldn't do that. Whatever anyone asks me I would tell the truth
JB we can't question you about the evidence you gave to parliament because of privilege, but we did ask you about your state of mind at 10am on that morning of the Select Committee, and you respond to this in your WS

JB how could you believe there was no way to change branch data having read the addendum which said it was possible?
PV because that was the info I was given
JB first line said that, but the other "if pushed" line says it is
PV sorry I didn't register that

JB last topic before we break for the evening. An email chain

Where Paula is told the PO has been lying about remote access to "the usual commentators"

JB were you aware of H super-users?
PV why do you ask?
JB well you don't say - hang on, what do you mean super-users?
[PV is being soooo careful here - she says something very careful about privileged access in the E&Y report]
JB was Jane MacLeod's email about your statement o parliament?
PV don't think I even thought about that
JB well who had it given statements to that it need to worry about
PV vennells doesn't know

[which is again, ****ing nuts. This was a huge deal for the PO. She's either lying or much worse than I thought]

SWW if i were to suggest to you in that addendum you were being advised to be very precise, guarded and circumspect about what you said to the Select Committee - was that the effect of what you were trying to say
PV yes possibly
SWW why?
PV with hindsight... [longest pause of the day] at the time I didn't ask the question, it didn't cross my mind at all... i could be too trusting of people... why they might have set it out that way... with what I know now... maybe other people knew more than I did and they were trying to direct me to answer in a certain way

SWW thanks members of the public and core particpants for being more restrained over the course of the day

DAY 1 of VENNELLS ENDS

@threadreaderapp unroll pls