Paula Vennells wanted Post Office prosecutions to continue - lawyer

Before we go, here's a look at the key evidence from Chris Aujard today:

• Aujard said former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells opposed pausing the prosecution of sub-postmasters while problems with the Horizon system were being investigated

• There was a lot of focus on a briefing of a report by Deloitte in 2014 into Horizon, handed to members of the Post Office board

• Aujard admitted today that disclosure of this report could have been "handled differently"
• He said it was "far too abridged", having faced pressure from Vennells to get it out "quickly"
• Later, documents revealed how Post Office executives recommended the termination of an independent review into the prosecution of sub-postmasters before it finished its work

Susan Crichton finished her evidence this morning, before we heard from Chris Aujard.

Taken together with yesterday's session, her account painted a picture of an organisation where discussions were often unrecorded, and processes to make sure serious issues were communicated were inadequate.

Crichton admitted that as general counsel she should have made sure the key advice from Simon Clarke – that Fujitsu’s Gareth Jenkins evidence was flawed, and that the Post Office was at risk of failing to retain important documents – was seen by the board.

Crichton said she felt she was being frozen out and discredited in part, as Paula Vennells suggested, for placing her professional ethics above the interests of the business.

It has and will be put to many witnesses in this inquiry that they often did exactly the opposite.

A quick look back at the start of this morning's questioning of Chris Aujard.

The Post Office former general counsel took the opportunity to apologise to those affected by the Horizon scandal.

Watch the clip below to hear what he said.

Chris Aujard was talking about the mediation scheme which opened in 2013.

This scheme was to be run by Second Sight. And the forensic accountants were to focus on this, not any final report on the Horizon IT system as a whole.

If a complaint to the mediation scheme involved Horizon, then the onus was put on the sub-postmaster to prove a technical defect.

Why? Well because the interim version of the Second Sight report suggested there were no "systemic errors".

The problem? That report was only interim! And Second Sight were being prevented from completing a final report by...the mediation scheme!

As we have heard, this all became academic anyway when the scheme was closed down. Partly because of a fear over how much it would all cost.

Before the inquiry wraps up for the afternoon, Aujard was asked if the Post Office wanted to terminate the independent company Second Sight's involvement because it was investigating the points of dispute with the sub-postmasters.

He disagreed, saying there had been numerous issues on the table including the engagement of Second Sight.

This included there being tensions between what the Post Office's position was, the fact that Second Sight were to solely focus on cases in the scheme and Second Sight's position that their remit extended beyond that, Aujard added.

"There was a strong sense by second sight that they had a brief to explore everything," Aujard said.

"There was also strong sense in the Post Office that Second Sight was not providing value for money.

"The third point, is perhaps around balance and impartiality. The strong sense, imparted to me, was Second Sight were not approaching the work in the scheme in a balanced manner, but more in a campaigning manner.

"Whether that is correct or not is for others to judge."

Quote Message: The third point, is perhaps around balance and impartiality. The strong sense, imparted to me, was Second Sight were not approaching the work in the scheme in a balanced manner, but more in a campaigning manner. Whether that is correct or not is for others to judge."

The third point, is perhaps around balance and impartiality. The strong sense, imparted to me, was Second Sight were not approaching the work in the scheme in a balanced manner, but more in a campaigning manner. Whether that is correct or not is for others to judge."

Earlier this afternoon Chris Aujard was asked about the Post Office's power to bring its own prosecutions.

Aujard, previously a lawyer at the company, says former boss Paula Vennells "interjected" into executive committee discussions, wanting "some" prosecutions.

Watch this clip below to hear his comments.

Chris Aujard's hearing has ended for the day.

Inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams has asked him to return at a later date to face further questions from the lawyers representing the sub-postmasters.

We've got some outstanding lines still to bring you from his evidence, so stay with us.

Up at the inquiry tomorrow is Angela van den Bogerd, former people services director for the Post Office.

Moving on with the evidence, a fresh Post Office-headed document is shown to the Inquiry detailing out the initial complaint review and mediation scheme.

It is dated 9 April 2014.

Counsel to the inquiry Sam Stevens goes through the document which shows it recommended "the scheme is closed down as quickly as possible, the working group is disbanded and Second Sight's role is terminated".

He also picks out a bullet point which shows a "con" would be that Option 3 could lead to "accusations of a Post Office whitewash".

Stevens asks if the termination lacked fairness and transparency, Aujard admits it "does lack a public perception of fairness".

Every day of this latest phase of the inquiry has delivered at least one 'oh wow' moment.

Some of those moments have raised follow-up questions for the person giving evidence. Some have raised questions for other people.

I am struck that the evidence from both Susan Crichton and Chris Aujard yesterday and today has raised some big questions for former chief executive Paula Vennells.

- Why did her husband's suggestions of alternative, non-emotive words to describe computer 'bugs' end up in a briefing note for MPs? - After the Costa Coffee row with Susan Crichton, why did she find it problematic that a lawyer put integrity above the interests of the business? - Why did she disagree with two successive General Counsels who told her it was time to cease prosecutions?

Paula Vennells will be giving evidence over three days in May.

Stevens continues asking Aujard about remote access to Horizon.

He displays a document in which Deloitte recommends the business performs "a detailed review of Balancing Transactions use and controls", which the business agreed should be carried out.

"What was done?" he asks Aujard.

Aujard replies that he doesn't know himself, but is likely that would have been taken forward by the IT and the finance departments.

Stevens says that this recommendation was given during the mediation scheme, when remote access was being discussed. Did you not think that was an issue to keep on top of, he asks Stevens, especially since remote access was relevant to both the mediation scheme and past convictions.

"Yes indeed," replies Aujard, but adds that he has "no papers to show what happened in terms of activities that followed".

We're looking now at a Deloitte briefing on its 2014 report that was distributed to members of the Post Office board.

The briefing lists some of the report's key findings into the Horizon IT system, but not all.

Aujard says on reflection it was "far too abridged" and that the full range of issues could have been "brought out more clearly".

He adds that there was "pressure to get something out quickly" to the board, from Paula Vennells "in particular".

Post Office InquiryCopyright: Post Office Inquiry

Counsel to the inquiry Sam Stevens then asks Aujard if he would have read a specific part of a Deloitte briefing to the board. Aujard confirms that to be the case.

Stevens highlights a section of the report that states Fujitsu staff could delete "a sealed set of baskets and replace them with properly sealed baskets", suggesting that remote access to the Horizon IT system was a possibility.

Stevens goes on to say this section of the Deloitte report is clear for a non-technical person to understand, which Aujard confirms.

Earlier he had described a report as too technical for him, a non-technical person, to understand.

Here is the highlighted section of the report in full:

Quote Message: The configuration of the physical hardware does however permit administrators to delete data from the audit store during the seven year period, which was a matter found to be possible and contrary to POL's [Post Office Limited] understanding of this physical protection feature.

The configuration of the physical hardware does however permit administrators to delete data from the audit store during the seven year period, which was a matter found to be possible and contrary to POL's [Post Office Limited] understanding of this physical protection feature.

Quote Message: This could allow suitably authorised privileged staff in Fujitsu to delete a sealed set of baskets and replace them with properly sealed baskets, although they would have to fake the digital signatures."

This could allow suitably authorised privileged staff in Fujitsu to delete a sealed set of baskets and replace them with properly sealed baskets, although they would have to fake the digital signatures."

The inquiry is presented the draft Deloitte report form 23 May 2014, which reviewed Horizon documents, examined transaction data and interviewed Fujitsu and Post Office staff.

There is a list of documents that were reviewed.

Chris Aujard is asked if anyone in the legal department went through the list to check if the documents should be disclosed.

“I’m not sure that they did”, he says.

Aujard adds someone should have looked through the report and asked if it triggered any duties of disclosure.

He is not sure if the report was disclosed to Cartwright King, the law firm which acted for the Post Office.

There was a lot of talk this afternoon about a Deloitte report and whether it should have raised 'red flags'.

The document was not snappily titled so I won't repeat it here, but it was produced in 2014. At that point, the Post Office had got rid of a mediation scheme and the forensic accountants it had been working with.

The organisation asked auditors Deloitte for a report on the Horizon IT system.

The issue was the report was as long and detailed as the document's title.

Chris Aujard said he missed a key bit of info about Post Office accounts being able to be remotely accessed.

A shorter version of the document was given to the Post Office board. However, this was not disclosed to sub-postmasters.

Aujard said he was part of a team that recommended further actions as a result of this report but he does not know what happened next.

What we do know is that it took many more years before unsafe convictions were overturned.

Getty ImagesCopyright: Getty Images

We've heard a lot about the views of Paula Vennells, the former Post Office chief executive between 2012 and 2019.

She took over as Post Office managing director in 2010, and stayed in the top job until she resigned in April 2019 over the scandal.

During her tenure, the Post Office repeatedly denied there were problems with the Horizon system.

This period saw the prosecution of more than 100 sub-postmasters, a failed mediation scheme, and the sub-postmasters' court case culminating in a victory in the High Court.

A part-time Church of England vicar, she became one of the most recognisable faces of the scandal, featuring prominently in the ITV drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office.

She was stripped of her CBE in February 2024, a month after she said she would hand back her title following the Horizon IT scandal.

Aujard is shown a 2014 email from Post Office lawyer Rodric Williams, in which he mentions that a Horizon control was not configured to a more secure setting.

Aujard is asked what his views were on this email when he saw it.

Aujard says that the email raises the question about "who has the requisite access rights" and who could potentially exploit the system.

Discussing a Deloitte report from 2014, Aujard claims the same as Post Office lawyer Rodric Williams previously did at the inquiry, saying he didn't understand its significance.

In the report, Deloitte reviewed Horizon documents, examined transaction data and interviewed Fujitsu and Post Office staff.

Aujard says now in his statement: "A further issue which could have been handled differently is the disclosure of the Deloitte report.

"As explained above, with the benefit of what is now known about issues with Horizon, I can see that potentially the Deloitte report raised a red flag.

"In the circumstances as I thought them to be at the time, I did not recognise it as such and neither did anyone with a better understanding of IT systems than me alert me to any concern."

Stevens asks if Aujard was focused on other matters, such as financial services, rather than a review into past convictions.

Aujard says yes, as it was one of many pressing matters and were not the main focus of his activities.

Asked should it have been his main focus, he says he believed at the time he gave it the appropriate attention, and was informed by those who had more information than him.

"At the time and the circumstances, I believed I was dealing with matters in an appropriate matter," he says.