and this _ probably not. thank you. and this is _ probably not. thank you. and this is the _ probably not. thank you. and this is the case - probably not. thank you. | and this is the case where probably not. thank you. - and this is the case where you probably not. thank you. _ and this is the case where you were the investigator in the case? as i was trying to explain, there was also a defence expert, and that would have been part of the discussion within the court as well, whatever the defence expert said. it might be something that was accepted, but i think your evidence you accept it would not be appropriate for the post office to make that condition in the first place. certainly with today's knowledge, no. �* . certainly with today's knowledge, no, i ., ., , ., certainly with today's knowledge, no. �* ., ., ~ ., i. no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that — no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was _ no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was 2011. _ no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was 2011. as _ no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was 2011. as | - no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was 2011. as i said - had then? that was 2011. as i said there, had then? that was 2011. as i said there. that — had then? that was 2011. as i said there. that is _ had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the _ had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the way _ had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the way some - had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the way some of- had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the way some of the j there, that is the way some of the cases were going, because of... whether the instructions come from the solicitors, because that's two. who's idea was it? we have seen it now in two cases. we have it in no thomas's case and missmchugh's case.
thomas, which can be found at 0017328. we will look at paragraphs 149—155. i'm afraid i don't have the page number. i think ithink mr i think mr thomas's case, i think you are sister diane matthews in that investigation.— you are sister diane matthews in that investigation.- -- i you are sister diane matthews in. that investigation.- -- you that investigation. correct. -- you assisted diane _ that investigation. correct. -- you assisted diane matthews. - that investigation. correct. -- you assisted diane matthews. i - that investigation. correct. -- you assisted diane matthews. i will. that investigation. correct. -- you l assisted diane matthews. i will read from that judgment. _ assisted diane matthews. i will read from thatjudgment. " _ assisted diane matthews. i will read from thatjudgment. " mr— assisted diane matthews. i will read from thatjudgment. " mr thomas . from thatjudgment. " mr thomas worked as a postman between 1985-1992. he worked as a postman between 1985—1992. he became a sub—postmaster in 1994. in september the 29th, 2006 he pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting. mr
cartwright king. do not _ been made by the criminal law team cartwright king. do not think- been made by the criminal law team cartwright king. do not think it - cartwright king. do not think it would — cartwright king. do not think it would have _ cartwright king. do not think it would have been— cartwright king. do not think it would have been worth - cartwright king. do not think it - would have been worth investigating this inquiry? — would have been worth investigating this inquiry? this _ would have been worth investigating this inquiry? this inquiry— would have been worth investigating this inquiry? this inquiry was - this inquiry? this inquiry was solely— this inquiry? this inquiry was solely about _ this inquiry? this inquiry was solely about the _ this inquiry? this inquiry was solely about the non—credit i this inquiry? this inquiry wasl solely about the non—credit of people's— solely about the non—credit of people's money— solely about the non—credit of people's money being - solely about the non—credit of people's money being paid . solely about the non—credit of. people's money being paid into solely about the non—credit of - people's money being paid into their account. _ people's money being paid into their account. which— people's money being paid into their account, which ultimately— people's money being paid into their account, which ultimately caused - people's money being paid into their| account, which ultimately caused the charity— account, which ultimately caused the charity to _ account, which ultimately caused the charity to have — account, which ultimately caused the charity to have difficulty _ account, which ultimately caused the charity to have difficulty with - charity to have difficulty with their — charity to have difficulty with their cash _ charity to have difficulty with their cash flow _ charity to have difficulty with their cash flow problems. i charity to have difficulty with i their cash flow problems. that charity to have difficulty with - their cash flow problems. that is their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry— their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i _ their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked _ their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked at. _ their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked at. did - their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked at.— their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about — the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about looking _ the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about looking into _ the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about looking into the - the inquiry i looked at. did you not. think about looking into the reasons for that— think about looking into the reasons for that discrepancy in a the discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer _ discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer came _ discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer came in _ discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer came in to _ discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer came in to deposit money. — the customer came in to deposit money. they— the customer came in to deposit money. they did _ the customer came in to deposit money, they did not _ the customer came in to deposit money, they did not deposit - the customer came in to deposit money, they did not deposit the j money, they did not deposit the money — money, they did not deposit the money that _ money, they did not deposit the money. that was _ money, they did not deposit the money. that was the _ money, they did not deposit the money. that was the inquiry. i money. that was the inquiry. whatever— money. that was the inquiry. whatever happened - money. that was the inquiry. whatever happened before, i money. that was the inquiry. i whatever happened before, as i money. that was the inquiry. - whatever happened before, as i say, to use _ whatever happened before, as i say, to use the _ whatever happened before, as i say, to use the word — whatever happened before, as i say, to use the word mitigation, - whatever happened before, as i say, to use the word mitigation, they- to use the word mitigation, they haven't— to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought _ to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought up _ to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought up to _ to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought up to say, - to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought up to say, this i to use the word mitigation, they. haven't brought up to say, this and this happened _ haven't brought up to say, this and this happened. they— haven't brought up to say, this and this happened. theyjust_ haven't brought up to say, this and this happened. theyjust said - haven't brought up to say, this and this happened. theyjust said theyl this happened. theyjust said they were covering _ this happened. theyjust said they were covering up— this happened. theyjust said they were covering up losses, - this happened. theyjust said they were covering up losses, but - this happened. theyjust said they were covering up losses, but no . were covering up losses, but no substantiation— were covering up losses, but no substantiation with _ were covering up losses, but no substantiation with it. _ were covering up losses, but no substantiation with it. the - were covering up losses, but no i substantiation with it. the inquiry was purely— substantiation with it. the inquiry was purely about— substantiation with it. the inquiry was purely about non—crediting . substantiation with it. the inquiryj was purely about non—crediting of people's— was purely about non—crediting of people's money _ was purely about non—crediting of people's money. you _ was purely about non-crediting of people's money-— was purely about non-crediting of people's money. you were aware that an important — people's money. you were aware that an important part _ people's money. you were aware that an important part of _ people's money. you were aware that an important part of their _ people's money. you were aware that an important part of their case - people's money. you were aware that an important part of their case in - an important part of their case in criminal— an important part of their case in criminal proceedings was that the underlying discrepancy was caused by bugs. _ underlying discrepancy was caused by bugs, errors or defects in horizon? as i say. _
horizon system was working? this the defendant had to accept that the horizon system was working? ben horizon system was working? as i said, i believe _ horizon system was working? as i said, i believe it _ horizon system was working? es 1 said, i believe it has horizon system was working? is i said, i believe it has happened. horizon system was working? as i | said, i believe it has happened. as it happened in a case you were involved in? i it happened in a case you were involved in?— involved in? i can't say for definite — involved in? i can't say for definite that _ involved in? i can't say for definite that it _ involved in? i can't say for definite that it has, - involved in? i can't say for definite that it has, sort . involved in? i can't say for| definite that it has, sort of involved in? i can't say for- definite that it has, sort of thing. but in mr thomas's interview, he did say he didn't like the horizon system, because he kept getting error notices, which indicated he was actually making the error, rather than it being the system, and that could be a reason why they may have gone down that line. flan that could be a reason why they may have gone down that line.— have gone down that line. can we lease have gone down that line. can we please look _ have gone down that line. can we please look at — have gone down that line. can we please look at 00,017,903? - please look at 00,017,903? this is a different case, the case of catherine jane mchugh. were you the officer in that case?— the officer in that case? correct. you were _ the officer in that case? correct. you were named _ the officer in that case? correct. you were named as _ the officer in that case? correct. you were named as disclosure i the officer in that case? correct. - you were named as disclosure officer and i think the interviewing officer in that case as well. yes. i in that case as well. yes. ., ., , .,
yes. i will read from this memo. it has our yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name _ yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at _ yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at the _ yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at the top. - yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at the top. sent - yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at the top. sent to | has your name at the top. sent to you by the principal lawyer. says: "the above case was heard in carlisle crown court when it was listed for trial. prior to the case being brought on, there was discussion between all parties with a view to establishing whether or not the pleas offered by defence would be acceptable. an indication was given that a plea to fraud might be acceptable as long as the defendant stipulated in her basis of plea that there was nothing wrong with horizon and she was responsible for the loss and recognise that confiscation would be sought should the loss not be repaid. in the afternoon, the matter was caught on in the indictment was put again, and the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of fraud, excepting there was nothing wrong with horizon and she was responsible for the loss. " just posing there, there was nothing there suggesting it came from the defence. it seems clear, doesn't it,
i had no dealing with that case, that was done with the other officer, and this is what was done with our solicitors.— officer, and this is what was done with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions _ with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions from _ with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions from their _ with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions from their clients - with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions from their clients on i instructions from their clients on the whole. was the post office providing instructions to the lawyers in this respect given a where was this coming from? has lawyers in this respect given a where was this coming from? ben where was this coming from? as i have explained, _ where was this coming from? isi have explained, the investigation would put all the papers together and send it off to the lawyers. lawyers made the bulk of every decision. that would sort of come back to us. we wouldn't say, oh, yeah, we will have to claim as long as they see this or say that. that would be decided at a higher level than me, and its comes from, whether it is mr singh in charge of any of the other lawyers. can we look at the next, please?
thomas's written basis of plea stated that no plane was attached to horizon, and that he accepted there was a shortage which he was contractually obliged to make good, but he did not know how it had come about. the post office accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case and that evidence from horizon was essential to mr thomas's case. mr thomas has stated he was having problems with horizon, in particular his online banking report showed several transactions with a nail amount. these were occasions when he paid money to a customer, but the system did not record the value of that transaction. this led to losses, so he altered the cash on hand figures to balance the accounts. in his interview on percussion, mrthomas accounts. in his interview on percussion, mr thomas of the alleged loss was due to mistakes in horizon and that he did not understand the system. he had made 13 calls to the
bugs, errors or defects in horizon? as i say. not — bugs, errors or defects in horizon? as i say, not in this case. this case _ as i say, not in this case. this case was _ as i say, not in this case. this case was purely— as i say, not in this case. this case was purely that - as i say, not in this case. this case was purely that they - as i say, not in this case. this. case was purely that they didn't credit— case was purely that they didn't credit someone's_ case was purely that they didn't credit someone's deposit. - case was purely that they didn't credit someone's deposit. you i case was purely that they didn't i credit someone's deposit. you as case was purely that they didn't - credit someone's deposit. you as an individual. _ credit someone's deposit. you as an individual. me— credit someone's deposit. you as an individual. me as _ credit someone's deposit. you as an individual, me as a _ credit someone's deposit. you as an individual, me as a business - credit someone's deposit. you as an individual, me as a business or- individual, me as a business or somebody— individual, me as a business or somebody else _ individual, me as a business or somebody else as _ individual, me as a business or somebody else as a _ individual, me as a business or somebody else as a treasurer. | individual, me as a business or- somebody else as a treasurer. they have made — somebody else as a treasurer. they have made the _ somebody else as a treasurer. they have made the complaint— somebody else as a treasurer. they have made the complaint of- somebody else as a treasurer. theyj have made the complaint of saying, somebody else as a treasurer. they. have made the complaint of saying, i have made the complaint of saying, i have paid _ have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money— have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money to _ have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money to the _ have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money to the post - have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money to the post office . have paid money to the post office and it _ have paid money to the post office and it is— have paid money to the post office and it is not — have paid money to the post office and it is not in— have paid money to the post office and it is not in my— have paid money to the post office and it is not in my account. - have paid money to the post office and it is not in my account. that. have paid money to the post office and it is not in my account. that is| and it is not in my account. that is what _ and it is not in my account. that is what was — and it is not in my account. that is what was locked _ and it is not in my account. that is what was locked into _ and it is not in my account. that is what was locked into on _ and it is not in my account. that is what was locked into on this - what was locked into on this occasion _ occasion. but - occasion. butjusti occasion. i butjust to occasion. - butjust to help occasion. _ but just to help you to make sense butjust to help you to make sense of that clip we have just heard from stephen bradshaw at the inquiry, what he is essentially saying is that in his opinion, the missing funds that angela sefton and anne nield were suspected of stealing, that it wasn't relevant to look at the horizon it system. that's what he kept saying again and again, and that's what he was saying in that clip. this is money, by the way, that was reported missing by a charity. their convictions, as i said, were overturned at the court of appeal to my career but what we have really been hearing throughout the afternoon, throughout the day, really, from stephen bradshaw, was
office prosecution lawyer on the 0ffice prosecution lawyer on the case, recorded a conversation with an external solicitor. the notice dated 25th of september 2006, four days before mr thomas entered his plea at the crown court on the basis that horizon was not to blame for the shortage it records: "we discussed whether he should plead guilty to false accounting. i mentioned instructions that we would proceed with false accounting provided the defendant that the horizon system was working perfectly. further instructions are that some money should be repaid, and could inform jack that some agreements should be reached, taking into account the above instructions. i. as into account the above instructions. " as the post office accepts, there was no justification for imposing such a condition before accepting this to thomas's plea. then it continues and paragraph 455: "in our judgment, these additional factors are in themselves bound to bring the