security investigation team that the security investigation team that would have done... but the security investigation team that would have done. . ._ the security investigation team that would have done... but this is about the civil recovery _ would have done... but this is about the civil recovery seeking _ would have done... but this is about the civil recovery seeking to - the civil recovery seeking to recover _ the civil recovery seeking to recover £31,000 from mrs pugh. | recover £31,000 from mrs pugh. [ don't recover £31,000 from mrs pugh. don't know. recover £31,000 from mrs pugh. i don't know. this was for me a routine request because in 2001 we had moved from a regionalised structure into the head of area structure, and i don't know what date,it structure, and i don't know what date, it was probably around this date, it was probably around this date, and then all the branch files were distributed into the head of area and then they were reaching out for information and the information they required did not sit within my team which is why i asked emlyn hughes to facilitate the provisional information so i'm not aware of what or if any investigation was done into that at the time. not aware of what or if any investigation was done into that at the time. investigation was done into that at time. do investigation was done into that at time. ,., ~' ,., investigation was done into that at time. ,., ~ ,., ,., investigation was done into that at time. ~ ., time. do think some sort of investigation _ time. do think some sort of investigation should - time. do think some sort of investigation should have . time. do think some sort of. investigation should have been time. do think some sort of- investigation should have been done if in legal— investigation should have been done if in legal proceedings, the sub—postmistress is saying the loss that you _ sub—postmistress is saying the loss that you are seeking to cover from

me, £31,000, was in fact caused by the horizon — me, £31,000, was in fact caused by the horizon system, this was as early— the horizon system, this was as early as— the horizon system, this was as early as 2004 yes, that should have been _ early as 2004 yes, that should have been done — early as 2004 yes, that should have been done. do think it should have been _ been done. do think it should have been an— been done. do think it should have been an independent investigation, ie independent of the post office? | ie independent of the post office? i don't ie independent of the post office? don't know ie independent of the post office? i don't know about that, it should have been an investigation within the post office but from my working knowledge and my memory, there certainly wasn't a function that did that back then. it was only when we started working on the second site and i started bringing that a team together that we pulled together, from my perspective, knowledge and they know how to put and deal with this type of request, what has happened, can we understand what the cause of the loss is? i don't think it would have been done back then. but why not is my question? we have

seen a _ but why not is my question? we have seen a couple of examples now that happened _ seen a couple of examples now that happened to concern you in the roles that you _ happened to concern you in the roles that you performed relatively early on in _ that you performed relatively early on in the _ that you performed relatively early on in the life of horizon with sub—postmasters raising the suggestion that the loss attributed to them _ suggestion that the loss attributed to them is in fact caused by horizon _ to them is in fact caused by horizon. why was something not done to investigate that? i horizon. why was something not done to investigate that?— to investigate that? i think it would have _ to investigate that? i think it would have depended - to investigate that? i think it would have depended on - to investigate that? i think it would have depended on thel would have depended on the particular area that it was in at the time. so this would have been chester, at the time she was raising issues, i would have expected the chester cluster to do something with it but there wasn't a formal approach, there wasn't anything documented, there wasn't any policy on it. it was very much, it is up to the postmaster to show they are not responsible for the loss, that is very much how it was. and responsible for the loss, that is very much how it was.- responsible for the loss, that is very much how it was. and why was it like that? who _ very much how it was. and why was it like that? who decided _ very much how it was. and why was it like that? who decided it _ very much how it was. and why was it like that? who decided it should - very much how it was. and why was it like that? who decided it should be i like that? who decided it should be like that? who decided it should be like that? _ like that? who decided it should be like that? �* , . ., , like that? who decided it should be like that? �* , . . like that? because that was what was

in the contract. _ like that? because that was what was in the contract. what _ like that? because that was what was in the contract. what are _ like that? because that was what was in the contract. what are you - in the contract. what are you thinkin: in the contract. what are you thinking of — in the contract. what are you thinking of in _ in the contract. what are you thinking of in particular- in the contract. what are you thinking of in particular in - in the contract. what are you | thinking of in particular in the contract? _ thinking of in particular in the contract? i thinking of in particular in the contract? , . . , contract? i started in the directly manaued contract? i started in the directly managed or— contract? i started in the directly managed or crowned _ contract? i started in the directly managed or crowned network, i l contract? i started in the directly - managed or crowned network, i came in through that route and when i came out of the branch structure and came out of the branch structure and came into working with sub—postmasters, there were lots of things that weren't documented, there won't policies, approaches, there won't policies, approaches, there were changes of structures and i think it's very much depended on the people within those areas in terms of the level of support that were given to postmasters at the time. when i came out of that directly managed and came into my area of postmasters, then i was able to assist in some cases because i had the knowledge. with horizon in terms of providing the information, i had to go to where i was directed to get the information but my view is they should have been a function

to do that back then and there wasn't... studio: ijust wasn't... studio: i just want to interrupt wasn't. .. studio: i just want to interrupt the inquiry, the post office inquiry with some breaking news that we are getting. the disgraced hollywood film producer harvey weinstein has had his 2020 sex crime conviction overturned by new york's top court. the court made the decision based on him not receiving a fair trial, you are seeing library pictures of harvey weinstein. the new york court of appeals found that prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses whose accusations were not part of the trial. the ruling meant he was tried on past behaviour and not solely on the crimes that he was charged with. now, the 72—year—old will remain in prison for a separate conviction for rape and new york's highest court has also ordered that there be a retrial so the judges cited errors

in the way the trial had been conducted, including admitting the testimony of the women who were not part of the charges against him so thejudges wrote simply, part of the charges against him so the judges wrote simply, order reversed and a new trial ordered. so, harvey weinstein, the disgraced hollywood mogul, has had his 2020 rape conviction overturned by new york's top court on the basis that he did not receive a fair trial. now, the new york court of appeals found that the prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses whose accusations were not part of the trial. as i said, the ruling meant he was tried on past behaviour and not solely on the crimes that he was charged with. as i said, the 72—year—old will remain in prison, that for a separate conviction for

rape. if you are just that for a separate conviction for rape. if you arejustjoining us, the breaking news in the last few minutes is that a new york court has overturned harvey weinstein's sex crime conviction from 2020. we have a page up on the bbc news website with all of the details that you need on that so you can get more on that decision by the new york court of appeal online. the breaking news, the disgraced hollywood film producer harvey weinstein has had his 2020 sex crime conviction overturned by new york's top court. we will have more on that in the coming hours, let's now return to the post office inquiry.— the post office inquiry. these are --eole i the post office inquiry. these are peeple i didn't — the post office inquiry. these are people i didn't have _ the post office inquiry. these are people i didn't have routine - the post office inquiry. these are l people i didn't have routine contact with at all. or was it the case that you very well knew that the contract

didn't entitle the post office to recover money from sub—postmasters in any or all circumstances, but thatis in any or all circumstances, but that is what the post office pretended, it said. we have seen in the inquiry many letters to sub—postmasters which say just that, you are responsible to make good any losses. that ignores the terms of the contract completely. if i go back, i was in network and that is where i was. the management of the letters and the breaches of contract was managed within network... well, it changed over time but it was primarily the contract managers but it was always under the direction and the instruction of the legal team. there was a very close working relationship between the contract managers and that legal team around what they should and shouldn't do. you mentioned what happened or

changed — you mentioned what happened or changed in 2011 when claims were threatened, can we turn to that, please? — this is a briefing document or a proposed — this is a briefing document or a proposed response to challenges regarding the horizon system, it is dated _ regarding the horizon system, it is dated 12 _ regarding the horizon system, it is dated 12 october 2011 and it is addressed to you, yes?- dated 12 october 2011 and it is addressed to you, yes? yes. and others, addressed to you, yes? yes. and others. and _ addressed to you, yes? jazz and others, and copied to addressed to you, yes? i9:3 and others, and copied to others. addressed to you, yes? i9; and others, and copied to others. we can see the _ others, and copied to others. we can see the heading... at this time, you had a very senior

position? — at this time, you had a very senior position? it— at this time, you had a very senior osition? :. . at this time, you had a very senior osition? :, , , ., at this time, you had a very senior osition? :, , , :, :, position? it was quite senior, not very senior. _ position? it was quite senior, not very senior. but _ position? it was quite senior, not very senior, but quite _ position? it was quite senior, not very senior, but quite senior. - position? it was quite senior, not very senior, but quite senior. i i very senior, but quite senior. i reported it to sue huggins at this point, it was two levels down below executive director. irate point, it was two levels down below executive director.— executive director. we can see that what he is proposing _ executive director. we can see that what he is proposing to _ executive director. we can see that what he is proposing to define - executive director. we can see that what he is proposing to define and| what he is proposing to define and manage _ what he is proposing to define and manage a — what he is proposing to define and manage a coordinated response plan which _ manage a coordinated response plan which defends existing challenges and deters future challenges in the most _ and deters future challenges in the most pragmatic and efficient manner. do you _ most pragmatic and efficient manner. do you know why that was the proposed _ do you know why that was the proposed strategy? to do you know why that was the proposed strategy?— do you know why that was the proposed strategy? to deter future challenges? _ proposed strategy? to deter future challenges? i— proposed strategy? to deter future challenges? i don't _ proposed strategy? to deter future challenges? i don't actually, - proposed strategy? to deter future challenges? i don't actually, as - proposed strategy? to deter future challenges? i don't actually, as i i challenges? i don't actually, as i said previously, this is me coming into this space quite new and i think the only reason i was in this is because of my involvement in the firm down case and my moving into

the role that took on response ability for the contracts. d0 the role that took on response ability for the contracts. do you know why _ ability for the contracts. do you know why a _ ability for the contracts. do you know why a business _ ability for the contracts. do you know why a business would - ability for the contracts. do you know why a business would not j know why a business would not instead — know why a business would not instead have budgets purposed to examine — instead have budgets purposed to examine on their merit any challenges its agents may bring? well, _ challenges its agents may bring? well, it— challenges its agents may bring? well, it should have. this is a very biased view from rod when he put this together. find biased view from rod when he put this together-— this together. and “ust looking further up h this together. and “ust looking further up on b this together. and “ust looking further up on the _ this together. and just looking further up on the distribution l this together. and just looking i further up on the distribution list, do you _ further up on the distribution list, do you know whether any of those people. _ do you know whether any of those people, many of whom we are familiar with, people, many of whom we are familiar with. said. _ people, many of whom we are familiar with, said, hold on, wronged, this is a biased — with, said, hold on, wronged, this is a biased view? -- with, said, hold on, wronged, this is a biased view?— with, said, hold on, wronged, this is a biased view? -- hold on, rod. the format — is a biased view? -- hold on, rod. the format has _ is a biased view? -- hold on, rod. the format has gone, _ is a biased view? -- hold on, rod. the format has gone, i _ is a biased view? -- hold on, rod. the format has gone, i can't - is a biased view? -- hold on, rod. the format has gone, i can't reallyj the format has gone, i can't really read it. susan, legaland the format has gone, i can't really read it. susan, legal and compliance director, i knew her. chris day,

chief finance officer, so i think was my line manager at the time, john scott was very senior. these are all very senior people in here and i don't recall anybody challenging anything here but i don't know. did challenging anything here but i don't know-— challenging anything here but i don't know. , : :, i] don't know. did you challenge it? i didn't, this — don't know. did you challenge it? i didn't, this was _ don't know. did you challenge it? i didn't, this was me _ don't know. did you challenge it? i didn't, this was me stepping - don't know. did you challenge it? i didn't, this was me stepping into l didn't, this was me stepping into this as a new person in this arena. that purpose, that strategy that is set out _ that purpose, that strategy that is set out there, that was the strategy that the _ set out there, that was the strategy that the post office maintained largely— that the post office maintained largely until you left, wasn't it? | largely until you left, wasn't it? i don't largely until you left, wasn't it? don't know. largely until you left, wasn't it? i don't know. i disagree. what i tried to do especially was tried to get under the skin of what had happened in branches and to investigate those cases. so, iwouldn't

in branches and to investigate those cases. so, i wouldn't say i was in this space at the start in this anyway. i didn't challenge it because i came into this new but as i left, i was clearly into a different space.— i left, i was clearly into a different space. i left, i was clearly into a differentsace. h :, :, different space. let's look at what mr isma different space. let's look at what mr lsmay said- — different space. let's look at what mr ismay said. through _ different space. let's look at what mr ismay said. through the - different space. let's look at what mr ismay said. through the last . different space. let's look at what i mr ismay said. through the last ten years. _ mr ismay said. through the last ten years. the _ mr ismay said. through the last ten years, the horizon system has been subject— years, the horizon system has been subject to _ years, the horizon system has been subject to unfounded criticisms. reading — subject to unfounded criticisms. reading at the time, would you have know what _ reading at the time, would you have know what that suggestion was based on that— know what that suggestion was based on that criticisms were unfounded? | on that criticisms were unfounded? i think on that criticisms were unfounded? think this on that criticisms were unfounded? i think this comes back to my earlier comment about rumblings. i was aware of some things, very few and certainly this was me coming more into a national view of this because everything prior to this had been very contained within my area of work. there wasn't anything on a

kind of business level at that point, this was me seeing it at the national level for the first time, i think. it national level for the first time, i think. , :, :, , national level for the first time, i think. , :, , think. it is also raised questions in the houses _ think. it is also raised questions in the houses of— think. it is also raised questions in the houses of parliament - think. it is also raised questions in the houses of parliament and allegations in chords by sub—postmasters and their teams, post office — sub—postmasters and their teams, post office consistently won its prosecutions and presiding judges had made statements which had been expected _ had made statements which had been expected to deter racist allegations, however challenges continued to be made. did you know whether— continued to be made. did you know whether -- — continued to be made. did you know whether —— to deter baseless allegations. would you have accepted on its _ allegations. would you have accepted on its face _ allegations. would you have accepted on its face that the post office had consistently won its prosecutions? | consistently won its prosecutions? would. consistently won its prosecutions? i would. did consistently won its prosecutions? i would- did you _ consistently won its prosecutions? i would. did you know _ consistently won its prosecutions? i would. did you know of _ consistently won its prosecutions? i would. did you know of any - consistently won its prosecutions? i l would. did you know of any presiding 'udaes would. did you know of any presiding 'ud . es that would. did you know of any presiding judges that had _ would. did you know of any presiding judges that had made _ would. did you know of any presiding judges that had made statements - would. did you know of any presiding l judges that had made statements that it hoped _ judges that had made statements that it hoped would deter baseless allegations that despite the work of the judges, the challenges continue to come? _ the judges, the challenges continue to come? not the judges, the challenges continue to come? :, :,

to come? not that i could recall. alain, to come? not that i could recall. again. would _ to come? not that i could recall. again, would you _ to come? not that i could recall. again, would you have _ to come? not that i could recall. again, would you have taken - to come? not that i could recall. l again, would you have taken what to come? not that i could recall. - again, would you have taken what mr ismay _ again, would you have taken what mr ismay said _ again, would you have taken what mr ismay said as being true? at again, would you have taken what mr ismay said as being true?— ismay said as being true? at this oint, i ismay said as being true? at this point. i would — ismay said as being true? at this point, i would have, _ ismay said as being true? at this point, i would have, yes. - ismay said as being true? at this point, i would have, yes. the - point, i would have, yes. the situations _ point, i would have, yes. the situations have _ point, i would have, yes. the situations have arisen - point, iwould have, yes. the situations have arisen in a minority of cases— situations have arisen in a minority of cases where the post offices dismissed the postmaster for financial— dismissed the postmaster for financial irregularities before claiming the accounting issues were wrong _ claiming the accounting issues were wrong due _ claiming the accounting issues were wrong due to it issues rather than money— wrong due to it issues rather than money being stolen. shoosmiths are acting _ money being stolen. shoosmiths are acting for— money being stolen. shoosmiths are acting for several former sub—postmasters who come together. the post _ sub—postmasters who come together. the post office has received letters before _ the post office has received letters before action. these are precursors for claims _ before action. these are precursors for claims for damages, they request significant _ for claims for damages, they request significant materials. the post office — significant materials. the post office had around 20 cases which it wished _ office had around 20 cases which it wished to— office had around 20 cases which it wished to take to court where the defence _ wished to take to court where the defence blamed horizon. do you know what that— defence blamed horizon. do you know what that is— defence blamed horizon. do you know what that is a reference to, cases that the _ what that is a reference to, cases that the post office wanted to take to court? _ that the post office wanted to take to court? :, :, :, :, to court? no. i would have no knowledge — to court? no. i would have no knowledge of _ to court? no. i would have no knowledge of cases _ to court? no. i would have no knowledge of cases at - to court? no. i would have no knowledge of cases at that. to court? no. i would have no - knowledge of cases at that point. the post office is confident that horizon — the post office is confident that horizon isn't at fault. do you know

on what _ horizon isn't at fault. do you know on what basis that that statement was made, the confidence that horizon — was made, the confidence that horizon wasn't at fault? no. other than that was _ horizon wasn't at fault? no. other than that was the _ horizon wasn't at fault? no. other than that was the understanding . than that was the understanding within the business. you than that was the understanding within the business.— than that was the understanding within the business. you refer in our within the business. you refer in your statement _ within the business. you refer in your statement to _ within the business. you refer in your statement to that, - within the business. you refer in your statement to that, that - within the business. you refer in your statement to that, that a l your statement to that, that a messaging coming from the business, the messaging from the post office, which _ the messaging from the post office, which a _ the messaging from the post office, which a person, which individual person— which a person, which individual person was— which a person, which individual person was giving you that messaging is gold _ person was giving you that messaging is gold there wasn't an individual person~ — is gold there wasn't an individual person i— is gold there wasn't an individual erson. . is gold there wasn't an individual erson. , :, :, :,, person. i remember when horizon was installed and — person. i remember when horizon was installed and rolled _ person. i remember when horizon was installed and rolled out _ person. i remember when horizon was installed and rolled out that _ person. i remember when horizon was installed and rolled out that the - installed and rolled out that the message was this is the most secure and largest system in europe and i don't know who said that but i always remembered that and that in itself give confidence in that system, but i can't say that i ever remember a particular person. but

that was the general