Thread by @nickwallis

Good morning and welcome to Day 147 of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry at Aldwych House in London.
We are awaiting Day 2 of former Post Office Chair Alice Perkins evidence. You can read my write up of Day 1 here:

#PostOfficeScandal #PostOfficeInquirypostofficescandal.uk/post/perkins-i…

I will be tweeting proceedings. Nothing is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes". It is a summary or characterisation of what is being said.

If you want to donate to support this project, you can do so here:

You will be added to my newsletter. Your donations keep me here and my journalism free at the point of consumption on the Post Office Scandal website.postofficescandal.uk/donate/

Okay we're underway - Jason Beer KC (JB) is asking the questions.

This is he:

And this is what Alice Perkins (AP) is looking like this morning:

You can watch all this live here:

We start with an email from Tim Franklin. AP agrees his view here reflected that of the board.

JB were you "too nice" as a company to Fujitsu (F)
AP yes as different non-execs came on board that we had to move away from F
JB was it a problem that PO relied on F?

AP yes. we were skeptical about all sorts of elements over our relationship with F
JB had PO inherited that "over a barrel" relationship with from Royal Mail Group (RMG)?
AP yes

JB how would you asses the PO exec's feeling about telling the board an F witness had breached their duties to the court
AP I think a number of execs shared the board's view about F. we wanted to move away from F
JB I'm trying to explore whether this might be connected...

... to the non-revelation of info to the board.
AP maybe I'm being really stupid here but I can't see why it would

[JB moves to the fallout from the Second Sight (2S) Interim Report (IR) - read it here: ]postofficescandal.uk/post/the-secon…

Email from AP to Paula Vennells (PV) and Alwen Lyons (AL)

JB you'd been asking as a board q's about insurance coverage since mid-2013. Seems by now you still had no definitive answer
AP yes
JB takes her to the reply from AL

JB then to AP's reply to that and reads it out

JB so - you and board not clear on insurance position re Second Sight report. were there concerns from Royal Mail (RM)?
AP can't remember there were
JB the 2S report was presented as a positive one. No system problems, but process problems...

... Why ongoing concern about liability with individual board members if the report was positive
AP I don't remember much about this. Alistair Marnoch as Chair of Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) was concerned, rightly but it was more about a failure to answer the question...

... which became a problem rather than the substance of it. Q in the mind of some people on the board that some people might be liable in some way and we couldn't get definitive advice about this. It became a frustration in itself
JB given the continuing concerns...

... in the interim had the board asked any more questions about why there may be claims against them
AP between 2013 and this time you've got the beginning of the mediation scheme and the expectation gap between what Subpostmasters (SPMs) could get from it and what the PO thought

... the outcome might be.
JB so you didn't think there were claims that had merit, but more concerned about claims that lacked merit being brought against the board
AP both. but we believed the Horizon (H) system was sound and we thought the legal side in relation to ...

... past prosecutions was being done properly.
JB still don't understand issue about liability being discussed by the board when there are a series of advices which do expose the board to liability which the board don't see. two parallel stories here.
AP right

JB so what was it that was motivating the board about liability if it wasn't knowledge of the Gareth Jenkins (GJ) problem [for more on this see the first Clarke Advice - ]postofficescandal.uk/post/the-first…

AP repeats herself about not getting clarity on the original q, says Chris Day was not performing well in this area and we were aware there always might be claims against us so it was precautionary

JB takes her back to her email and question - are we safe from legal challenge.
JB why not ask to see the legal advice on this
AP depends which legal advice we're talking about
JB any

AP we were given not even a summary, more of a view on the legal advice and we believed it. we could have asked to see the legal advice, but we accepted what we were being told. that wasn't unreasonable

[JB moves to a new topic. Susan Crichton (SC) substantially to blame...

... for her failure to give the board documents - or rather AP's belief that was the case]
JB takes her to the "alibi" email shown to the inquiry for the first time (tho mentioned during PV's evidence)

JB what do you mean by "alibi"
AP 2S IR landed very quickly with little warning, the costs weren't managed [waffles]
JB alibi normally means if you have been accused of committing a crime you have evidence you are not

AP what I think I'm saying here is that SC had done her job well. She hadn't been able to anticipate the 2S IR. I thought she was very passive. That's what I'm trying to say her.
JB is this contemporaneous knowledge of her failing to do her job

AP not in the sense of concealing docs
JB that's what I was going to ask
AP no absolutely not - I had no idea

JB you say in your WS you replaced nearly all the ExecCo and you were quite proud of that
[takes her to minutes of PO investment review committee]
JB Who are these people?

AP possibly ShEx or business Dept
JB takes her to p3 - a proposed review of PV's suitability
JB did you know this was happening?
AP no

JB takes her to a Feb 2014 presentation to govt

Seems govt didn't think much of PV

Detail

More:

JB did you know there was a view PV was unable to work with people who provided robust challenges to her?
AP knew nothing about this. PV and Susan Barton had different styles. SB was v able and robust - there was tension between the two of them.

JB did PV prefer to have yes men and yes women around her - a coterie of trusted lieutenants Mark Davies etc
AP no
JB were you concerned she couldn't work with people who provided robust challenges to her
AP no

JB takes her to this option and asks AP to read it

And then the "remove" option

JB did you hold any of these views?
AP yes I had reservations about PV's ability to lead the PO
JB was H part of this
AP yes and I set her a personal objective to give priority to H issues
JB in par 180 of your WS you say you had doubts about the level of attn PV was...

... giving to H issues. What doubts
AP I think she was relying too much on her colleagues
JB which ones
AP IT and legal primarily. I felt there was too much passing on of other people's views. Her board updates relied on words others had written for her rather than her own words

JB takes her back to the REMOVE page
JB did you share these concerns?
AP no
JB so how did ShEx get these views
AP Callard as a NED. Feedback from the minister and her office. And interactions with dept officials

JB "she has failed to build relationships with key Directors" - were you aware of this?
AP other than SB, no
JB PV's performance has been questioned by Chair and other members of the board - did you?
AP I spoke to Mark Russell, the head of ShEx - I don't have notes of this...

... but it would have been a topic of convo with the dept
JB which other members of the board
AP all of them
JB did you tell PV that if she wants to get an answer to a question she should tell people the answer she wants and then tell them to provide it
AP no

JB raises the "need to say no it is not possible" email and says PV told the Inquiry you told her to frame it this way - is that true?
AP no - I might have said make sure your proposition is completely clear
JB but that's very different
AP yes
AP can I just add I had NO idea that

... the govt was holding these discussions about PV. None whatsoever. [she is referring to the briefing doc about whether to remove PV]

JB takes her to minutes of meeting with Sir Anthony Hooper, chair of the complaint and mediation working group (SAH)

AP was not present. JB reads out point 4

JB in his evidence to the Inquiry SAH made the point to you and PV that the PO's position didn't make sense about SPMs stealing from the PO. Says he made that point to you over and over again. Did he? Over again or ever?
AP not at all
JB did you ever meet him?
AP once

AP just after he had been appointed and held his first Working group meeting
JB and he didn't tell you on that occasion that in his view the PO position didn't make sense
AP no. I would have remembered that - also it was so early it would be surprising if he'd already...

... come to a view
JB takes her to point 6 and 7 of the minutes

[Sorry I am called SAH SAH not TH as the minutes state - same person]
JB did SAH tell you the compensation claims could be considerable
AP no
JB were you told Bond Dickinson and SAH disagreed on possible compensation sums
AP no

JB the PO took advice about comp from Linklaters
AP yes
JB takes her to board minutes from 26 March 2014. AP was present

over the page...

JB why did the board need to commission work to give Linklaters, the board or those outside it "comfort"?
AP board was still unclear about level of exposure to claims against the PO - in order to deliver their advice Linklaters wanted to be confident about the quality of H

... and they weren't happy with the work 2S had done on it. We had heard that the Linklaters partner was sceptical about 2S's work and that's how we arrived at the decision to get the work done
JB I'm asking about phraseology - why is it when I read board minutes about H

... it's all about "comfort", reassurance, confirming our world view
AP well 2S found nothing systemic and Lord Arbuthnot agreed. We had no reason to have doubts that was the case, but here we were being advised by a well-respected legal firm that the evidence we had was...

... not sufficient. If you're asking me if we were seeking advice which told us what we wanted to hear that is simply not the case
JB takes her to a new doc - the Linklaters advice

Takes her to point 2.3 - there is no objective report which describes and addresses the reliability of H

JB you needed an objective report into H
AP yes
JB that gets translated into something very different in the board minutes

AP an objective report into reliability of H was very broad statement
JB that was what was needed, tho, wasn't it
AP can't help you there
JB did the board commission a review on the reliability of H
AP it commissioned a desktop review
JB does that mean no it did not?

JB Linklaters is saying there is no objective report. Did that come as a surprise to you. Here we are in March 2014 with no objective review of H
AP it made me realise we'd gone down the wrong road with 2S
JB did it not make you think about all the times you'd said you'd had H

... independently reviewed and assured. I've said things in the past which don't stack up
AP I can't remember what I was thinking. just that the work that we'd done so far with 2S was not the work we'd done so far
JB was it not quite sobering

... to find out that you had no objective report into the reliability of H
AP yes

JB says the Deloitte (D) project zebra report was commissioned on the back of the lInklaters report
JB takes her to the Board briefing created on the back of the D report
JB would you have seen this

AP no recollection of seeing this and no reason to believe I didn't
JB no recollection of reading it or not
AP if it came to me I would have read it
JB goes to summary

And reads out the limitations

JB were you disappointed to receive a report which was limited and caveated in such a way
AP we had had a board meeting a few weeks earlier from this when the D partner came to the board and he had given the board an extremely

... positive sense of what D had found thus far and that's recorded in the minutes and there was a discussion about further work that could be done. This written briefing was a follow-up to that briefing. In my mind and my fellow board members we had had that clear and positive..

... steer.
JB so were you surprised to read all these limitations
AP I dont recall seeing this report but I do recall disappointment that D did not feel able to give us the kind of description of H we had been expecting following the board presentation

... and Chris Aujard said there was a feeling there would be reservations about carrying out further work.

[Chris Aujard was General Counsel at the time]
[we have our first morning break]
[Well - that UKGI Vennells doc was new! Open reservations at board and govt level that Paula Vennells was a crap CEO. Luckily they stuck by her, gave her an NHS Trust, a CBE and a seat on...

... Cabinet Office Board. Then the company went boom and has ended up costing the taxpayer more than a billion to bail out.

That is failing upwards through public life like a defective space rocket]

[okay we're back]
JB you were saying we should read the 4 June 2014 D doc in the light of the presentation made by the D partner on 30 April]
JB gets both the D briefing from 4 June and the board minutes from 30 April. These are the 30 April minutes

... the rest...

JB you were referring to this
AP yes
JB the "strong areas of control" is a reference to the control framework and security and processes for changes in the system in this minute, isn't it
AP my recollection of this sort of detail is not good
JB reading the minute as a whole...

... the board needed further work.
AP yes
JB and the D report of 4 June is the product of that work. and the "limitations and assumptions" in the D report explain that work is not complete. Did you focus on the limitations
AP I have a complete blank on this it was a...

.... mystery to me what the board got from D after those 30 April minutes. and then this board briefing of 4 June came through and that's when I saw we had seen this and that's why I amended my written statement before i signed it
JB takes her to p5 in the D report

JB focuses on Matter 4- H is "designed" so that extracts from the Audit Store represent a complete and unchanged record of basket data. were you aware that all D had done was look at how H worked on paper?
AP see that now

JB you call this a desktop review in your evidence - you mean looking at documents
AP yes
JB would that be a concern? you were advised to do an objective review and you've ended up with a heavily caveated review of pieces of paper
AP it should have been

JB raises matter 5 - H provides visibility on transactions. SPMs have visibility of all centrally generated transactions.. except for balancing transactions etc
JB what would you have made re a par like that?
AP this does not come naturally to me this area of work

AP I struggle with it - but you read it out to me and reading it now - this is how H is said to work. It has reservations.
JB would things like this have occurred to you "Oh we don't know anything about pre-2008 - that's a concern" - "we've only got what F are saying here"

... "doesn't that mean F have access to the system without the SPM knowing" - would all this leap out at you
AP no, but reading this out you do now
JB would anyone on the board spot this at the time?
AP I would have thought some members of the board would have spotted this

JB takes AP back to par 2 on p3 of the report

AP this was one of the first bits of text you come to and there was some comfort in that
JB it's still a desktop review. How would a desktop review actually discover whether the system as designed was delivering the processing of data with integrity

AP it wouldn't
JB takes AP to the Chira Aujard (CA) message sent via AL

This is the message

... over the page...

JB so the covering email notes its heavily caveated and its a desktop review
AP yes
JB D refused to allow publication of the report and they refused to allow their name to be used unless further testing was carried out
AP yes - but they went on to say...

... they weren't sure about the value of doing extra work.
JB overall how did you feel about D's work, including the oral version.
AP the picture we were given in oral briefing was not borne out by what followed.
JB did the board realise this?
AP at the 30 April board meeing

... the board got the impression that D would be able to give H a clean bill of health and that we would be able to publish it. the follow up to that meant we couldn't go down that route and that D had come to different view after the 30 April meeting and that...

... meant we couldn't follow the plan we had at the time and that was a disappointment.
JB were D wise to the possibility that they might get associated with giving H a clean bill of health
AP yes - there was some disco about why D felt that way and we got the impression...

... they weren't really interested in doing the additional work

[why not ****ing ask what it meant for what the SPMs were saying?!]

JB takes her to a briefing to AP

[What does success look like, baby?]

JB "in the run up to the election the H issues does not cause the minister problems" - was this a board concern
AP no - the board would never have done anything about H because of the political fallout. Certainly I was sensitive to an election period.

JB was handling ministers a material consideration when it came to H
AP no
JB the PO took control of the mediation scheme in 2014
AP can't remember
[we go to a doc]

It is a Sparrow Board Sub-Committee meeting from June 2014

Reads 3.8 out

JB is this what happened?
AP not quite - working group was disbanded and all applicants would have access to mediation
JB 3.9 is the rationale for this

Sorry and 3.10

JB takes her to 7.3 which supports the above options

JB did the Sparrow Sub-C agree to take this option
AP yes, but it wasn't accepted by the board
JB what are the adverse public relations risk was?
AP there was an increasing... at this stage there was a lot of noise around it, a lot of dissatisfaction with it and I think...

... the point was the scheme would take much longer to conclude than envisaged and the feeling was the longer it went on the more of this sort of comment would continue and this was seen as unhelpful

JB okay last topic - the role of Mark Davies. Goes to an email 21 June 2012 - a month before MD joined the business. PV writes to him

This was about the PO giving interviews ahead of the 2S appointment.
MD responds

PV sends it on to AP

AP replies with "NL" a reference to Norman Lamb the PO minister

JB why were you concerned that the PO minister might have appointed MD
AP MD worked for my husband
JB he was your husband Jack Straw's former SPAD

AP we needed to fill a comms director role - before it was done through RMG. So there was a person in RMG who was at the right level with the relevant experience - that decision was taken before I joined. THere was going to be a job advertised, then I remembered...

... I had heard MD was unhappy where he was. He was eminently qualified, experience and public service values. I suggested to PV or MD but one way or another his name was put into the selection process and I had nothing to do with that.

AP so you wanted to ensure the minister was okay with it and didn't think it was a cosy stitch up
PV replies getting the wrong end of the stick

JB you put her right

PV replies that all is well and the cosy relationship begins

AP says she's happy

JB to what extent did you rely on MD for non comms work
AP I would have relied on him solely for public affairs
JB so only for presentation of matters after a decision had been taken

AP you'd ask how something might come across beforehand, but it wouldn't affect the substance
JB to what extent to your knowledge did PV include MD in the taking of decisions rather than the presentation
AP no visibility on that

JB to what extent did MD have input into policy and strategy issues
AP don't know - the board were very impressed with him, but I don't know how much input he had into decisions

JB takes her to an email from James Arbuthnot (JA)

We see the reply to Arbuthnot, and then...

... a note to AP's PA saying she was going to speak to MD first
JB would that reassure the Chair of the PO that the CEO had had a chat with MD before he was even employed
AP don't know what's going on here.

JB you'd never worked with MD
AP no, but my husband rated him
JB did he perform the role at the PO of a SPAD rather than a comms lead
AP no

JB takes her to a 2015 email from MD about Panorama

JB takes her to her response to MD

JB was it usual for you to have exchanges like this with the comms without the CEO
AP I had access to all the execs
JB what's the reference to Clare Sumner [TH is Tony Hall - DG of the BBC]

AP I shouldn't have written this I think
JB were you trying to exert influence
AP can't help
JB try
AP eh?
JB what are you trying to do here?

AP accepts she is suggesting exerting influence
JB takes her to the reply

JB reminds her of MD's comment that SPMs were suffering "lifestyle issues" on the Today programme
AP remembers it
JB was anything done about it?
AP don't remember

JB takes her to another email AP wrote

This is MD's response
JB would the tactic of the PO not providing a spokesperson stop a news programme going out. was there a duel.
AP these are his words

JB was the PO viewing itself as being in a battle against SPMs
AP yes
JB and people were fighting to protect the reputation of the PO
AP yes
JB and so this was a bloody PR battle against the SPMs

AP we were trying to maintain our position of public trust against allegations we couldn;'t be trusted
JB takes her to Belinda Crowe's response

JB why would the PO be on really dodgy ground?
AP it's about confidentaliaty rather than substance
JB she ends up thinking of the Kipling quote - keeping your head etc
AP presumably

JB MD responds with this quote from Theodore Roosevelt
JB does this give us some insight into what MD saw as his role within the PO?
AP he must have been feeling under a lot of pressure

JB were the PO involved in a worthy battle involving blood and sweat and dust against its SPMS
AP I would not have put it like that

[we break]

[Good god. They were all fucking mad.]

[we're back with questions from SPM representatives. Starting with Chris Jacob (CJ)]

CJ was the board under a duty to care for SPMs
AP yes
CJ you referred to SAH's evidence, but he said it was odd that people of good character would turn to crime at the same time in a way that would guarantee they would get caught - was that not obvious to the board?

AP no it was not obvious. if it were we would do something

CJ why was it not obvious - there was a campaign, there were pieces in Private Eye and Computer Weekly, MPs were talking about it, there were many SPMs...
AP it didn't all happen at the same, so that's a misleading way of putting it

CJ during your tenure there were a lot of red flags
AP there were clues. we now the truth of what happened now. we can see it very plainly and its becoming clearer - but at the time it was not the position

CJ there were SAH's point, the JFSA, 2S, Private Eye and Computer Weekly,
AP I did not have sight of SAH's view
CJ do you accept these matters affected the PO rep
AP yes
CJ did PO make prosecutions which had a material impact on its interest
AP yes - can you slow down?

CJ yes I will - he takes her to duties of the board
CJ it was the duty of the board to be proactive
AP yes
CJ by sitting back and believing what PV and others told it, you were not fulfilling the board's duties

AP I think it's clear we should have followed things up and I have been very straightforward about that
CJ you agree board had duties towards SPMs - you say in par 51 of your WS that you should not have been involved in the granularity in the day to day activity of the PO

... that's wrong, isn't it?
AP If I thought it was wrong I wouldn't have put it in my WS
CJ we say it's wrong
AP board has to strike the right balance - where and when do we get involved - if you get too far into the op responsibility you can't fulfil other functions

CJ you said you were prepared to lift the rock - our clients say you were asleep at the wheel
AP look at what happened in my early months that I lifted the rock and I pretty much did it on my own at that point
CJ should the board not be more proactively involved in SPM cases

... given what happened to them. should not you have taken a more compassionate rather than corporate approach
AP at the risk of repeating myself we did what we thought was appropriate assuming we had the correct information

CJ was it not more about reputation
AP we were acting on the information we were given
SWW intervenes - let me look at the governance issue from the terms of reference again if I may - you have a more than £1m trigger for the board getting involved and then

... you have the phrase "otherwise material to the interests of the Group"
[they agree Group means PO]
SWW how did you define "otherwise material"
AP mindful of affect on the shareholder and reputation. we were also looking at cumulative costs

SWW would the board itself only be in a position to make a decision as to who made a decision if the matter was brought to the board. There was no checking?
AP in relation to prosecutions yes - you're right
SWW so the board delegated prosecution responsibility to execs
AP yes

AP when I joined SC told me prosecutions were handled at arms length from the board, which I accepted. We should have had a paper early on which discussed it, but because we were plunged into separation negotiations etc etc this was overlooked

CJ there should be a system of reviewing and recording decisions etc - we don't see that here do we
AP not sure what you're talking about
CJ was there any auditing of the quality of advice you were being given
AP no we often looked at the advice we got and analyse what...

... we were told, especially if things went wrong
CJ what about reviewing board decisions
AP that's what I'm talking about
CJ you say you were let down by execs and you only got partial information - who were they
AP I discussed that with Mr Beer yesterday
CJ can you discuss it

... with me pls
[AP clearly not impressed with CJ's questioning]
AP Susan Crichton and Chris Aujard
CJ SC said it was unusual not to have a lawyer present as a full time board member - would a lawyer have grasped what was going on better

AP not sure if the GC was on the board in this case it would make much difference. But I do think we lacked having an NED who had a grasp of the detail of these kinds of issues. We could have got a NED on board had we seen the skillset was necessary

AP and maybe we should have gone to get external advice which would come directly to the board on these matters. It can be detrimental for the board/exec relationship which can create tensions with adverse consequences
CJ do you accept if you had a lawyer

.... on the board it would have been less easy for the execs to pull the wool over your eyes
AP possibly

[CJ moves on to remote access]
CJ you say you had no idea remote access could affect safety of prosecutions. DId you know if SPMs could know about remote access they could have raised it as a defence

AP I'm saying this in the context of this E&Y audit. not that i never thought it was an issue
CJ were you aware the PO knew about remote access capability from 2010
AP no absolutely not

CJ there is a document known to the Inquiry in Sep 2010 in relation to the mismatch bug. and one of the solutions was to alter branch accounts - how did this never come to board's attn
AP I'm not the person to answer this

CJ why did you not ask about this
AP we got constant repeated assertions all was fine
CJ you said yesterday it might have been too difficult or people weren't paying attention on these matters and you said you believed in cock up rather than conspiracy - do you now...

... accept there was a conspiracy.
AP I can't answer that
CJ takes her to the issue of suspense accounts at the PO - this is from AP's WS

CJ were you aware that 2S thought the PO was absorbing SPMs money into general accounts
AP I didn't understand it and have nothing to add to that
CJ did the board ever look into where the SPMs money was going
AP no
CJ why is it that SPMs still don't know where the money went?

AP I don't know
CJ takes her to the apology she gave at the beginning of yesterday
CJ you efforts as Chair were seriously lacking
AP I took some big steps to deal with this issue - when I first heard that JA had issues he wanted to raise I agreed to see him

AP I suggested an independent review of those cases. The PO told me that was a bad idea and unnecessary. Nothing happened. I wouldn't let go. I went back and argued for it. We got it. I pushed for broad terms of ref. Later on I and the board as a whole were open...

... to doing a second kind of review through D. There were a whole load of steps taken by me which made a difference. A number of other steps were taken whilst I was Chair of the Board, we reviewed the prosecution policy and had we known of the Clarke Advice we would have stopped

... prosecutions immediately
CJ what blame do you accept
AP we've covered that

[sorry that was the last exchanged before lunch - we've now had lunch and we're about to re-start. Perkins is in the chair. Chair is not out yet.]

Questions from the National Federation of Subpostmasters rep Catriona Watt

CW did your actions whilst chair have an affect on SPMs and their families
AP they must have done
CW the damage done to SPMS today by the scandal is devastating
AP not au fait what's happening with the PO atmo

CW and your failures had a material devastating effect on SPMs
AP think we've covered that ground

AP getting 2S did lead to the unravelling of all this in the end. we reduced the number of prosecutions
CW you said at the start of your tenure you lifted the rock, but then you put the rock back down and became part of the reputation protection
AP no I wouldn't accept that

CW this has been a disaster for taxpayers in funding a war of attrition on SPMs
AP when I was chair we were making inroads into the PO subsidy, but what's happened has had an impact on that
CW in par 36 of your WS was making it sustainable by developing new streams

... of income etc. was the Network Transformation (NT) prog something you were aware of?
AP yes
CW how close was the govt to it
AP they were well aware of it
CW what did PO and govt put in place new income streams to make NT profitable for SPMs

AP there were 3 big streams of income. Mails - so we spent time on online shopping parcel delivery which was difficult as RMG and PO were behind the competition. there was financial services which was small, but we rebooted our Bank of Ireland relationship and that was going...

... well and the third aspect was govt business. This was a disappointment because it wasn't coming thru
CW so really NT was falsely sold to SPMs
AP no there was genuine intent to deliver but the govt business side didn't happen like we wanted

[Ed Henry KC now asks questions]

EH prosecutions were kept arms length from the board
AP yes
EH that's people, but litigation risks... that must have reached board level
AP yes

EH so the board would work in close conjunction with exec team and General Counsel
AP yes
EH in your WS you refer to a doc prepared by Chris Aujard par 298

the end of that par

EH brings up CA's note in his briefing
EH notes that "document retention" is a euphemism for shredding. You say your GC was not fully apprising you of risk - he was.
AP what he wrote could mean anything. That does not mean shredding

EH I'm not suggesting you ought to have read that as shredding - it's that this must have been curated between you, the CEO and GC
AP I find that offensive - that's absolutely not true
EH you've used a number of words to explain like surprising, astonishing etc to

... explain what were matters of central importance. You're making it up. you must have known.
AP say it as many times as you like it's not true
[EH goes to PV's allegation that AP taught her to say what she wants as an answer when she asks a question]

EH "the paper needs to demonstrate the board's concerns on the latter point are unnecessary" - that's you dictating what you want from your people
AP I don't accept the premise of your question

AP i never directly or indirectly encourage people not to give the full truth
EH so your fighting to support clarity in candour on behalf of James Arbuthnot
AP is that a question
EH you never commissioned an independent review of the H system
AP 2S
EH what about Ismay

EH you never commissioned a full independent review of the software
AP JA raised concerns about the SPMs. we discussed an independent review and it was important to do this on a basis he thought would regard as a proper basis and there was quite a lot of discussion with him

... about the best way of doing that. And that's why we went with 2S not D - and I spent a lot of time trying to get the terms of reference done as best we could. that wasn't the best way to have gone about that

... I now wish I'd got the board to help me think this through and put it any review on the best possible footing

EH did you actually read the D report
AP I said this morning I could not remember reading it
EH you can't say
AP I would have read it

EH takes her to 11 Sep 2013 a lessons learned email exchange

EH scrolls down to email from PV copied to AP

Reads on about de-risking the lessons learned review
EH why was it so important for SC to be gone before starting the review

AP this was a lessons learned review about the 2S engagement, timetable, costs, liaison and SC had been the person in charge of that. As long as she was employed it was going to be a much more sensitive issue. The need in my view to learn lessons was just as great

... it was about improving the way the PO went about doing things. In a lot of orgs it's absolutely normal to do lessons learned reviews when things go wrong.
EH no - this is intimately connected to the advice given by Andy Parsons and Hugh Flemington to do with proactive...

... criminal exposure. SC knew about this. Why was it so important to do a de-risked, narrower scoped review after she left
AP nothing extra to add
EH you're using SC as a lightning conductor
AP no
EH and you and PV are stopping this material from coming to the board
AP no

EH so you manage the risk by gelding or downplaying the 2S report and keeping Gareth Jenkins out of the picture
AP no
EH PV spoke to SC's report at the board on 16 July
AP yes
EH so she must have spoken to SC beforehand

AP don't think you can infer that as the decision to exclude SC from the board was only taken quite late
EH you're the chair - events do not overtake the chair - the chair sets the scope and agenda
AP yes but sometimes things kick off and it isn't the right thing to do

... to continue regardless. you need to flex things. I regret that we had not arranged a separate disco on SC's paper. None of us know what would have happened had we done that - whether SC would have contributed more
EH it would have been dynamite

EH she told this inquiry she'd informed PV that there were many claims. it was boxed up and never ventilated before the board for that reason
AP if it was boxed up it was not by me and if it was dynamite we would have dealt with it

EH why did sig advices from Brian Altman not make it to the board from July to Oct 2013?
AP JB asked me about this yesterday and I don't know why they didn't. I'm not in possession of the facts so I don't know
EH the announcement of the floatation of the RMG was on 10 July 2013

EH RMG shares floated in Oct 2013 - this was a huge matter in your mind
AP not particularly - there was an issue about the RM prospectus
EH funding must be v v important for any chair because you've got to fulfil the vision of the govt

AP yes but what's the connection between the floatation of RM and PO
EH shortly after the RM float the govt announced funding for PO
AP don't see that connection

EH from July 2013 the green light was on - that coincided with the 2S IR and the Clarke Advice
[there has been a long argument between EH and AP about the relevance and risk to the RM flotation of the PO's dirty secret, its funding and the govt]

Samantha Leek now asking questions on behalf of Paula Vennells

Takes AP to this email

Scrolls down to the bottom point and highlights it

SL takes AP to PV's email to AP which is further up the chain

And AP's reply
SL so you must have known about the bugs because you don't react to the news of the bugs
AP you can't say that. I don't recall knowing about bugs before then

SL if you'd got this email you're reply "what are you talkin about - I don;t know anything about bugs"
AP I can't add anything to this. I don't remember

SL takes her to an earlier email sent on 16 May 2013.
SL reads "one other issue arose overnight"
[PV not wanting to put anything on paper, hem hem]

AL has created speaking notes for the call to AP by PV

SL highlights the sentence about bugs

She's basically reading out the whole thing

SL do you recall a convo that afternoon in which you were told about thos bugs
AP no I don't
SL so when you got an update on 28 June giving you an update on bugs - are you saying it was new
AP I'm not, I can't - I simply have no recall

[SL's questions end.]

[Final stint for the day. Angela Patrick asking questions with Jo Hamilton sitting next to her]

[so we have a barrister with the same initials as the questioner. hm]

[as she is JH's rep, I'm going to call Angela Patrick JH]
[JH takes AP to an email from PV to AP on 16 August 2013]
It's about the RM prospectus. Notes that PO is in the prospectus risk section.
JH reads the relevant pars

JH you were being briefed on this as an issue from mid August 2013
AP yes
JH it's a risk - and it's very negative - and Susan - SC?
AP yes
JH and SC says it might need to go to HMG and she was letting you know
AP she was

JH takes her to 9 Sep 2013
JH notes her email message "no surprises"

JH says content legally accurate but PV's concern is reputational risk
AP yes
JH whose? logically the PO
AP yes

JH so will had given you assurances - was that Will Gibson at ShEx
AP imagine so
JH Jo S - Jo Swinson
AP yes
JH no challenge by you that the issue is one of reputational
AP no
JH so your focus is reputational
AP we've talked about this a lot, you can infer...

JH Ms Perkins can I step in - I don't want to infer anything. your concern here was political
AP yes
JH and you thought it was a such a deal that the minister would get involved
AP well, might get involved

[JH takes her to a new email from AP to her PA]
JH so the hot topics are 2S and RM prospectus
AP yes

JH now goes to an email exchange between ShEx execs from Sep 2013

JH reads "Alice is properly up for a fight"

And a reply

JH this appears how your position was being presented by Martin Edwards in advance of your meeting at ShEx
AP agrees that's how it appears

JH reads "going nuclear" - is that what the relationship was like? "Going nuclear"?
AP no absolutely not

JH picks up a new email from 20 Sep 2013 - JH reads the whole first bullet point

JH so problems with the language but it could be dealt with in comms
AP yes
JH so it might land on MD's desk
AP yes
JH reads out the final bullet point in the above - the 2S review

[here it is in full]

JH takes AP to the final four points. Remember this being bumped to PV
AP no
JH but we know you were involved, ShEx were involved. PV did earn her keep here, didn't she?
AP those were her words, not mine

JH brings up the "lifestyle issues" MD mentioned on the Today Prog to which Jo Hamilton was a participant. Then takes her to the PV email about the One Show piece I did on 17 Dec

It goes on (the MP Vennells is belittling is Kevan Jones MP)

JH Mr Moloney asked PV if she regretted that message the morning after. Let's look at the next day... this is what PV wrote the next day

JH is this just another example of the belligerent language being used in the business about campaigning SPMs
AP absolutely dreadful
JH this is PV's language
AP yes

PV sends it on to AP
JH did you take issue with what PV was saying
AP don't remember this
PV she was congratulating MD for a job well done - this was a win she wanted to see, yes
AP looks like it
JH was this the PO attitude adopted by the leadership team to the campaigning SPMs?

AP it looks absolutely dreadful because of what we know now
JH stop you there. not now. this was sent to you twice - did you take this up with PV at the time?
AP I remember the Today programme no this
SWW any written response
JH we can't find one

JH was the business bored by the campaigning SPMs
AP not how I would describe it
JH just want to move on and make the PO sustainable
AP we did want to make it sustainable, but we wanted to handle the issues properly
JH but your CEO more bored than outraged...

JH takes her to the Zetter note - dinner on 19 March 2012. Between meetings with JA on 12 March and 28 March

JH takes her to three notes at the end of the briefing
AP not my handwriting
JH whose is this
AP no idea
JH Reputation is key - was this the message you were constantly getting?

AP rep was important on the basis we thought H was sound and the prosecutions were proper
JH we've looked at the rep on the prospectus - fighting - this is before JA proper engagement - reputation was everything

AP no not mine. I wanted to set up an independent review and I wasn't afraid of getting bad news
JH others have mentioned the other work, NT etc - the govts goal was financially able to stand on its own two feet

JH would that before more difficult if the PO faced public approbrium for prosecuting innocent people
AP yes but that didn't matter
JH was it just that you could not or would not contemplate the reality of the matter
AP not on my watch

JH do you think the board should be less bored by this and more outraged?
AP we were not bored - there were things we could do better

[Alice Perkins evidence ends. Inquiry adjourned until Tuesday]

Right - that's me. I'll write up the day's most newsworthy highlights and put them up on

If you want to get the report post pretty soon after it drops, please do sign up via the email box on the website.postofficescandal.uk

If you want to help keep that website running and support my work, join the newsletter mailing list here.
postofficescandal.uk/donate/

[Lot of lively chatter in the room between the barristers teams after Perkins left the room, oddly. There isn't normally. Maybe it's the end of the week mood.]

But I'm done. Thanks for reading. Back on Tuesday at 9.45am for Anthony de Garr Robinson KC and a proper legal big dog - Lord Grabs. Read him going toe-to-to with Mr (now Lord) Justice Fraser at the recusal hearing here:
postofficetrial.com/2019/04/bates-…

Or if you don't have half an hour, read my report here:

postofficetrial.com/2019/04/bates-…

Laters. And thank you for the support.

@threadreaderapp unroll pls