Issues with Suspense Accounts, you are not issues with Suspense Accounts, you are not made aware of them, correct . Correct are not made aware of them, correct . Correct. Paragraph 309 43, you not made correct. Paragraph 309 43, you not made aware correct. Paragraph 309 43, you not made aware of Richard Morgan caseys advised made aware of Richard Morgan caseys advised that if an independent expert advised that if an independent expert exam at horizon and found Fautts Expert Exam At Horizon and found fautts with expert exam at horizon and found faults with it than that would open the floodgates to damages, claims by a convicted the floodgates to damages, claims by a convicted subpostmasters . Correct. Paragraph a convicted subpostmasters . Correct. Paragraph 388 on page 193, your understanding until may 2013 was that no understanding until may 2013 was that no bugs had been found in horizon that no bugs had been found in horizon because that is what you had been told horizon because that is what you had been told by a series of senior it managers been told by a series of senior it managers over the years . Correct. Paragraph managers over the years . Correct. Paragraph 502 on page 246, your incorrect paragraph 502 on page 246, your incorrect understanding of the operation of the central centrelink function, operation of the central centrelink function, in particular that it operated function, in particular that it operated like a Suspense Account aiiowing operated like a Suspense Account allowing time for disputes to be resolved allowing time for disputes to be resolved came from reliance on incorrect resolved came from reliance on Incorrect Information that you had been Incorrect Information that you had been given Incorrect Information that you had been given from others in the post office . Been given from others in the post office . , been given from others in the post office . Yes. Paragraph 563 on page 271. You office . Yes. Paragraph 563 on page 271 you did office . Yes. Paragraph 563 on page 271. You did not office . Is; paragraph 563 on page 271. You did not see simon office . 123 paragraph 563 on page 271. You did not see Simon Clarkes advice 271. You did not see Simon Clarkes advice on 271. You did not see Simon Clarkes advice on the 271. You did not see Simon Clarkes advice on the 15th ofjuly 2013 untit advice on the 15th ofjuly 2013 until after you left the post office, until after you left the post office, indeed not until it was made public office, indeed not until it was made public untit office, indeed not until it was made public until 2021 . Office, indeed not until it was made public until 2021 . Yes. Paragraph public unti12021 . Yes. Paragraph 564 on page Public Until2021 . 123 paragraph 564 on page 271. You did not see simon 564 on page 271. You did not see Simon Clarkes advice of the 2nd Of AugustSimon Clarkes advice of the 2nd Of August 2013 about the head of securitys instructions to shred documents relevant to horizon bugs until after documents relevant to horizon bugs until after you had left the post office . Until after you had left the post office . Indeed, not until it was made office . Indeed, not until it was made public in 2021. Thats right. Paragraph made public in 2021. Thats right. Paragraph 568 page 273. We arejust pausing we are just pausing that because the inquiry itself had paused and that was due to a testing of a fire alarm. They arejust was due to a testing of a fire alarm. They are just pausing was due to a testing of a fire alarm. They arejust pausing briefly for a few moments but as you have been seen, this is a really important day in terms of the post Office Inquiry and the horizon it scandal. This is the day, the start of three days of evidence from that former Chief ExecutivePaula Vennells who was in the job from 2012 to 2019. We heard the a lot of interest as she arrived earlier this morning and what we are just witnessing it at the going through of elements of her Witness Statement. Going through that, more than 700, Witness Statements from Paula Vennells and that last moment we heard that she had said in a Witness Statement that she hadnt seen evidence about the shredding of documents until she had left the post office. But she started giving her testimony and evidence by saying how sorry she was for all Sub Postmasters and their families had suffered and she also said that when she had read, all of the victims impact statement, the one that resonated with her was one who wanted someone to accompany him and stand outside his post office and explain what happened and she said she was willing to do that. Mar explain what happened and she said she was willing to do that. Nor were ou briefed she was willing to do that. Nor were you briefed about she was willing to do that. Nor were you briefed about brian she was willing to do that. Nor were you briefed about Brian Altman She was willing to do that. Nor were you briefed about brian altman kcs| you briefed about brian altman kcs advice . You briefed about brian altman kcs advice . Correct. Paragraph 686 on pae advice . Correct. Paragraph 686 on page three advice . Correct. Paragraph 686 on page three june 21, you did not read the general page three june 21, you did not read the general review of the 15th Of October the general review of the 15th Of October 2013 until you are provided with a october 2013 until you are provided with a copy october 2013 until you are provided with a copy of it in the course of this inquiry with a copy of it in the course of this inquiry by the inquiry . That is right this inquiry by the inquiry . That is right. Paragraph 842, page three injured right. Paragraph 842, page three injured and 76, you were involved only to injured and 76, you were involved only to a injured and 76, you were involved only to a limited extent in commissioning and reviewing advice from solicitors . From solicitors . Sorry, could you sa that from solicitors . Sorry, could you say that again . From solicitors . Sorry, could you say that again . You from solicitors . Sorry, could you say that again . You were from solicitors . Sorry, could you. Say that again . You were involved onl to a say that again . You were involved only to a limited say that again . You were involved only to a limited extent say that again . You were involved only to a limited extent in only to a limited extent in commissioning and reviewing advice from Linklater Solicitors . | commissioning and reviewing advice from Linklater Solicitors . From Linklater Solicitors . I think that depends from Linklater Solicitors . I think that depends on from Linklater Solicitors . I think that depends on which from Linklater Solicitors . I think that depends on which you from Linklater Solicitors . I think that depends on which you are l that depends on which you are referring to. There was a report produced by Linklaters Which came to the board which was discussed and in the board which was discussed and in the preparation for that i worked with a small group of colleagues from there and chase down a list of questions from the board but my involvement in the formulation of the instructions, i had no involvement in the final formulation of the instructions. Of the instructions. Thank you. Our 896, ae~ of the instructions. Thank you. Our 896. Page 400. Of the instructions. Thank you. Our 896. Page 400. You of the instructions. Thank you. Our 896, page 400, you say of the instructions. Thank you. Our 896, page 400, you say althoughl of the instructions. Thank you. Our i 896, page 400, you say although the failure 896, page 400, you say although the failure to 896, page 400, you say although the failure to discuss the impact of delight failure to discuss the impact of delight 2014 report seems surprising now, delight 2014 report seems surprising now. You delight 2014 report seems surprising now, you trusted linklaters to advise now, you trusted linklaters to advise you now, you trusted linklaters to advise you about the impact on criminal advise you about the impact on criminal convictions and they did not criminal convictions and they did not i criminal convictions and they did not i am criminal convictions and they did not. Iam im criminal convictions and they did not. I am im sorry, criminal convictions and they did not. Iam im sorry, could criminal convictions and they did not. I am im sorry, could you say that not. I am im sorry, could you say that again . Not. I am im sorry, could you say that again . You say that although the failure that again . You say that although the failure to discuss the impact of the failure to discuss the impact of the 2014 the failure to discuss the impact of the 2014 Report On Criminal Conviction seems surprising to you, you trusted conviction seems surprising to you, you trusted rod williams and linklaters to have advised you about this, that linklaters to have advised you about this, that it linklaters to have advised you about this, that it was necessary. And they this, that it was necessary. And they did this, that it was necessary. And they did not do so . Yes. Paragraph 1155. They did not do so . Yes. Paragraph 55. You they did not do so . Yes. Paragraph 55. You say they did not do so . Yes. Paragraph 1155, you say you did not see the kcs 1155, you say you did not see the kcs advice 1155, you say you did not see the kcs advice of the 8th Of March 2015 . Kcs advice of the 8th Of March 2015 . | kcs advice of the 8th Of March 2015 . � ,. , kcs advice of the 8th Of March 2015 . M. ,. , kcs advice of the 8th Of March 2015 . � ,. ,. 2015 . I didnt see any advices so i assume that 2015 . I didnt see any advices so i assume that is 2015 . I didnt see any advices so i assume that is correct. 2015 . I didnt see any advices so i assume that is correct. I 2015 . I didnt see any advices so i assume that is correct. I cant assume that is correct. I cant remember that one specifically. Paragraph 1251, page 533, you did not see paragraph 1251, page 533, you did not see Jonathan Swift two review of the 8th not see Jonathan Swift two review of the 8th of not see Jonathan Swift two review of the 8th of february 2016. Correct. Paragraph the 8th of february 2016. Correct. Paragraph 1000 341 page 579, you were not paragraph 1000 341 page 579, you were not on the Steering Group for the group were not on the Steering Group for the Group Litigation and jane mcleod was instead responsible for breaching the board . That is correct breaching the board . That is correct i breaching the board . That is correct. ,. , correct. I was on the board subcommittee. Correct. I was on the board subcommittee. If correct. I was on the board subcommittee. If all correct. I was on the board subcommittee. If all of correct. I was on the board subcommittee. If all of the correct. I was on the board subcommittee. If all of the fact of the matters subcommittee. If all of the fact of the matters ive subcommittee. If all of the fact of the matters ive just subcommittee. If all of the fact of the matters ive just described subcommittee. If all of the fact of| the matters ive just described are true, the matters ive just described are true, and the matters ive just described are true, and if the matters ive just described are true, and if what you say is reliable. True, and if what you say is reliable, was there a conspiracy at the post reliable, was there a conspiracy at the post office which lasted nearly 12 years. The post office which lasted nearly 12 years, involving a wide range of people. 12 years, involving a wide range of people, differing over time to deny you information and deny you document and to falsely give you reassurance . Reassurance . No, i dont believe that was the reassurance . No, i dont believe that was the case. Reassurance . No, i dont believe that was the case. You reassurance . No, i dont believe that was the case. You have reassurance . No, i dont believe that was the case. You have covered a range of different issues. I have been disappointed particularly more recently listening to evidence at the inquiry where i think i have learned that people knew more than perhaps either they remembered at the time or i knew of at the time. I have no scent there was any conspiracy at all. My deep sorrow in this is that i think that individuals, myself included, made mistakes, didnt see or hear things and i may be wrong but that wasnt the impression i had at the time. I have more questions now but conspiracy feels too far fetched. There wouldnt be a motive for such people there wouldnt be a motive for such people to there wouldnt be a motive for such people to deny you information, deny you document and falsely to give you the assurance where it wasnt warranted, would there . I the assurance where it wasnt warranted, would there . I think you conflate to many warranted, would there . I think you conflate to many different warranted, would there . I think you conflate to many different things,. Conflate to many different things, if i may, because you have covered bugs in it, you have covered legal advice, the chairmans report by Jonathan Swift. I cant see that over that period of time that individuals working on all of those documents could have conspired or had a reason to withhold them. The inquiry heard from Susan Crichton, and this is a serious governance lesson, that it was not their practice and the post office and the legal team and the Group Previously to share legal advices. They may have had very good reasons for that, some of which would have a privilege, but they were not shared, the outcomes were discussed. As we go through some documents which we may do, im sure i will recognise some of the recommendations. I have to say, having read some of them, particularly one of the advices where as he was reviewing Prosecution Policy he was hugely critical of prior to 2012, 2013, the documentation, the policies in place, the approach, that advice was never shared with me, with the board. Had we seen it, we may well have asked very different questions. What was shared with the outcome of that advice and different policies and procedures were put in place but i think there is too much reliance, or there was too much reliance on the lead General Counsel in the case, and im not making a point about General Counsel to particular, but to take the decision of what was shared from those reports because what happened is they were reproduced into board documents which were shared but the original advice would have been so much more useful and one of the biggest lessons for me in this case advice, that boards, executives should know when advices are commission, when they are received because somewhere we see that when a commission and they should receive them. You focused on they should receive them. You focused on legal they should receive them. You focused on legal advice, i have asked focused on legal advice, i have asked you focused on legal advice, i have asked you about a range of things, including asked you about a range of things, including the contract with fujitsu, the information about bugs, errors and defects. If there isnt a conspiracy operative to deny you this information, what is the reason that so this information, what is the reason that so much of it didnt reach you . The contract that so much of it didnt reach you . The contract with fujitsu would not have been. The contract with fujitsu, let me start again, existed over a long period of time. I was involved with reviewing the strategy and some of the content of the contract with fujitsu as we prepared to tender the Horizon System up and during 2015. The original contract with fujitsu would not have crossed my desk as Network Director or managing director. What should have happened is the Service Level agreements within the contract should have been reported differently than they were and that also might point to some of your point about bugs, errors and defects because if i turn to those, the reporting that the group executive, Chief Executive and board received and the inquiry heard this earlier, was Different Levels so i think we had a level zero and level one that came to my level to the board. Issues cropped up below that were not reported. One of the Biggest Challenges as i have been going through all of the documentation