Ex-Royal Mail CEO casts doubt on Post Office boss’s ‘I did not know’ defence

Wrongfully-convicted sub-postmaster Sami Sabet says he came to the inquiry to see Alan Cook “squirm”.

Mr Sabet was one of more than 160 sub-postmasters prosecuted under Mr Cook’s tenure as managing director.

He received a 12-month suspended sentence in 2009 after pleading guilty to two charges of fraud to reduce his chances of being sent to prison.

When asked why he decided to attend Mr Cook’s hearing in person, he said: “I came here because I really wanted to see him squirm, but what I saw today was not the Alan Cook I thought I would.

“He was more like an office boy – not even a supervisor.”

When asked what he thought about the email sent by Mr Cook, which blamed shortfalls on “subbies with their hand in the till”, Mr Sabet said: “That was despicable.”

The inquiry has now concluded for the day and will resume at 10am on Tuesday 16 April.

Adam Crozier has told the Horizon IT inquiry that sub-postmasters should not have been treated like “they were on the take”.

Counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC asked: “Your objective was to deliver a better group for all stakeholders, and would you agree that so far as this inquiry is concerned, that objective would include treating sub-postmasters as trusted trading partners?”

He responded: “I would indeed.”

When then asked if there should have been assumptions “they were on the take, or some of them were on the take”, Mr Crozier said: “No, I think some of the language I’ve heard over the last few weeks is deplorable.”

Adam Crozier has said he does not understand why the Post Office did not commission an “independent view” of the Horizon system when its issues became clear.

“I can see that there was a lack of transparency now in the Post Office,” he told the inquiry. “I had assumed they were making the same strides that we were in the rest of the company.

“At the time what I don’t understand now is why people – it seems like a perfectly normal thing for me to do is if you were worried about the performance or you thought there was issues, why you wouldn’t get somebody from outside in to look at that and give you a genuine hope and independent view of what the problem was.

“I can see that those were the mistakes and while I used to like to look back on my time as it being very hard but we made a lot of progress, clearly, its impossible to do that now without feeling that it’s in large part tainted by this, for obvious reasons.”

Adam Crozier has said that he did not know that the Post Office employed a “stock line” in response to concerns about the Horizon IT system in which it insisted that the software was “robust”.

He told the inquiry he was “not aware”, adding: “I certainly never heard, I didn’t hear that statement but I never heard anyone say that it wasn’t.”

Mr Crozier went on to say: “It wasn’t an issue that was being flagged up in that, sort of, chain of checks and balances that I outlined earlier, no.”

Asked if it was a serious error to claim it was “robust” when it was not, he replied: “It would indeed, and it would also be entirely wrong.”

Adam Crozier has told the inquiry that Post Office bosses never told him or anyone else on the Royal Mail board about any bugs or defects in the Horizon IT system.

“As far as I recall, they did not,” he said.

He added: “And the operations team, whether that was David Miller, Ric Francis and Paula Vennells, they attended lots of different meetings yet I do not recall them doing that, no.”

Jason Beer KC, the lead counsel to the inquiry, said “the findings of a series of court cases” have established that between 2000 and 2010 that there were “a series of bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system, of which the Post Office knew and which caused, or were capable of causing, financial irregularities and balancing problems”.

“I am now aware of that, yes,” Mr Crozier replied, adding: “I would have expected them to tell the Post Office chief executive and I would have expected the Post Office chief executive to tell the board and myself very quickly and simultaneously.”

The inquiry has now resumed.

The inquiry has taken a break and will resume at 3.15pm.

Adam Crozier has told the inquiry that he would “find it surprising” that Alan Cook did not know the Post Office brought its own prosecutions until 2009.

Quizzing the ex-Royal Mail chief executive on evidence given this morning by the Post Office’s former managing director, Jason Beer KC asked: “How do you feel about Mr Cook’s claim that in his period of office he did not even know that the PO had a prosecutorial function until 2009?

“I would find that surprising,” Mr Crozier said.

Mr Beer continued: “At the time did he strike you as a man who was so out of touch with the business that he was running, that he wouldn’t know one of its functions was to prosecute its own staff, resulting in many of them being sent to prison?”

Mr Crozier said: “He certainly always gave the impression of someone who was very much in control of his brief.”

Adam Crozier has said he trusted Post Office bosses to tell him about any issues within the Post Office that may impact the Royal Mail Group.

In his witness statement, Mr Crozier wrote: “I fully trusted David Mills and subsequently Alan Cook, as well as other POL [Post Office Ltd] executive team members including Sir Michael Hodgkinson, to raise any significant systemic or reputational issues relevant to POL that would have had an impact on the group at either the Royal Mail management board meetings or at the Royal Mail board meeting.”

Jason Beer KC asked: “When you say you trusted do you mean that you assumed that they would?”

Mr Crozier replied: “Not just that. I mean, obviously I assumed there’s good people in the senior positions, very qualified for the roles, that they would volunteer those issues.

“But as you can tell in many places in my statement, I made it clear that our style of management from the board down was to go looking for problems.”

Adam Crozier has said he “does not recall” being involved in or receiving reports about sub-postmaster prosecutions.

It reads: “I do not recall having involvement in or knowledge of the oversight of investigations and prosecutions bought by POL [Post Office Ltd] against sub-postmasters either for theft, fraud and false accounting for alleged shortfalls in branch accounts, or for the recovery of such alleged shortfalls through the use of proceedings.”

His statement goes on to say: “To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall reports of the number of prosecutions being brought by POL against sub-postmasters being escalated to me, nor the fact that there were systemic issues impacting the Horizon system.”

When shown minutes from Royal Mail audit and risk committee meetings that cite prosecution figures, he tells the inquiry: “Yes, but it refers to Royal Mail personnel. We wouldn’t have described sub-postmasters as Royal Mail personnel.”

Adam Crozier has claimed he was not aware that lawyers within the Royal Mail Group, which owned the Post Office, conducted prosecutions during his seven years as chief executive from 2003 to 2010.

In his witness statement to the inquiry, Mr Crozier said: “I do not recall any involvement in or knowledge of the oversight of the investigations and prosecutions brought by Post Office Ltd against sub-postmasters, either for theft, fraud and false accounting for alleged shortfalls in branch accounts for the recovery of such alleged shortfalls through the use of civil proceedings.”

Jason Beer KC, counsel to the inquiry, asked: “Were you not aware that in fact there was no Post Office legal team – it had no separate legal in-house function and that civil and criminal proceedings were brought by lawyers within the Royal Mail Group legal team?”

Mr Crozier said: “I was not, no.”

Mr Beer continued: “So lawyers from within the group gave advice on prosecutions, they made decisions about prosecutions and within prosecutions, and they conducted the proceedings, not any Post Office lawyers, you didn’t know that?”

Mr Crozier replied: “I was not aware of that, no.”

Adam Crozier has told the inquiry he was not aware of any audits of Horizon, any of the Post Office’s other IT systems or its prosecution processes during his seven-year stint as chief executive of Royal Mail between 2003 and 2010.

The inquiry has now resumed after lunch.

The inquiry has taken a break for lunch and will return at 2.05pm.

Adam Crozier has said a lack of transparency at the Post Office is partly to blame for the Horizon scandal.

The inquiry has heard about how Royal Mail Group was struggling financially – and Mr Crozier suggested this meant the Royal Mail side of the business was “transparent”.

In his witness statement, the former Royal Mail chief executive wrote: “During my tenure, the Group was undergoing a major transformation and consequently, there was a clear understanding from the Royal Mail board downwards that there was a lot to be addressed, and that this would require openness and transparency about any problems that existed or that arose.

“While the culture improved over time within Royal Mail Letters, Parcelforce, GLS and the Group generally, it is now clear that there must have been a marked lack of transparency within POL [Post Office Ltd] which meant that serious failings at POL took far too long to surface senior management.”

When questioned, Mr Crozier described Royal Mail as “fundamentally broken”.

He said: “I worry with the benefit of hindsight, Post Office Ltd didn’t have that same burning bridge for a better place for that same transparency.”

Adam Crozier’s witness statement says it is a matter of “huge regret” that he was not aware of the “tragic situation” for sub-postmasters and their families.

His statement reads: “I would like to express my heartfelt sympathies to the individuals and families of the individuals who were so wronged and for whom justice has been denied for so long.

“I can only imagine the immense and continued suffering they must have faced over many years. I feel deeply sorry for those whose lives were ruined and I am grateful for the opportunity to assist in any way I can to help ensure that vital lessons are learnt.”

It adds: “As I explain in this statement, it is a matter of huge regret for me that I was not aware of the tragic situation for Post Office sub-postmasters and their families during my time at Royal Mail.”

Adam Crozier is now giving evidence and is being questioned by Jason Beer KC.

He was chief executive of Royal Mail Group Ltd between 2003 and 2010, a period during which the Post Office was part of his organisation.

Mr Crozier left the role to become chief executive of ITV and did not feature in the channel’s drama series Mr Bates vs The Post Office.

A former sub-postmistress who was jailed during Mr Cook’s tenure said she believes the apology was “sincere”.

Ms Skinner, 52, was handed a nine-month sentence in 2007 over an alleged shortfall of £59,000 from her Post Office branch in Bransholme, Hull.

He apologised directly to her at the inquiry after being questioned by her barrister.

Speaking to reporters outside, she said: “Probably he is being sincere, but I think his evidence has been insincere.

“He was sat at the head of that table and he would have known what was going on.”

Alan Cook has told the inquiry that Paula Vennells would have been the person at the Post Office who signed off on the £300,000 case against Lee Castleton.

Mr Castleton was found to have a £25,000 shortfall at his East Yorkshire branch and declared bankruptcy after being told to pay costs of £321,000 in 2007.

“They did not come to me for approval,” said Mr Cook.

Sir Wyn Williams, the chairman of the inquiry, said: “There would have been a person within the Post Office organisation who would have had authority to sign off spending the money without taking it either to you or to the board.”

When asked if it was likely to have been chief executive Ms Vennells, Mr Cook said “yes”.

Alan Cook has apologised directly to a sub-postmistress who was wrongfully imprisoned during his tenure.

Janet Skinner, who was attending in person, was handed a nine-month sentence in 2007 over an alleged shortfall of £59,000 from her Post Office branch in Bransholme, Hull.

When asked by her barrister if he accepted “ultimate responsibility for her torment” Mr Cook said: “I was the managing director so I was ultimately accountable.

“Whether I was aware is another matter and if I wasn’t aware [of Post Office initiating prosecutions] I should have been aware.”

When asked if he wanted to directly apologise, Mr Cook faced Ms Skinner, who was sitting metres away, saying: “I would love to talk to her afterwards but you may not want to – I can only apologise on behalf of the whole organisation for the way that you were treated.

“It was disgraceful. I can only apologise personally that while I had not heard of your case, I have an accountability that I should have been on top of, I wasn’t.”

He added: “This will be with me for the rest of your life. It will be with me for the rest of my life.”

Alan Cook is now being questioned by Edward Henry KC, who represents Janet Skinner, a sub-postmistress who served a nine-month sentence for false accounting after pleading guilty in 2006.

“She’d been jailed on the lie, Mr Cook, that Horizon was infallible,” Mr Henry said. “But you said you had no idea that these prosecutions were being instituted in your name. Is that right?”

Mr Cook replied: “I knew there were prosecutions.”

Mr Henry continued: “She pleaded guilty to false accounting only because she’d been told that if she did not, the Post Office would prosecute and pursue her for theft. She hadn’t stolen a penny, Mr Cook. All of this was being done in your name and yet you claim you didn’t know.”

Mr Cook responded: “I just can’t be more apologetic, it’s, it’s not...”

Mr Henry interjected: “Mrs Skinner was the mother of two young children. Wrongly accused of theft, she was told that if she pleaded to false acocunting as an alternative to that baseless theft charge she wouldn’t go to prison. Now this was common practice by the Post Office: charge theft and accept a plea to false accounting. Were you aware of that strategem, Mr Cook?”

He replied: “No, in fact worse than that. I, I, when I had reports about them and the individual had pleaded guilty then I thought we must have been in the right. I did not appreciate what was going on.”

Mr Henry then asked: “So this stratagem was reinforcing your ignorance and the general prejudice that these sub-postmasters had their hand in the till. Is that right?”

Mr Cook replied: “I, in the particular cases where the individual pleaded guilty, I, I had assumed that they believed they were guilty. It didn’t occur to me at the time that that was recommended to them by their lawyers.”

Mr Henry said: “It was the most profound structural injustice.”

Mr Cook replied: “I agree.”

Mr Henry replied: “Unmeritorious charge of theft was being used as a jemmy or sledgehammer to force a plea or crush sub-postmasters into submission.”

Mr Cook then conceded: “I don’t know if that was a deliberate strategy by the Post Office but that’s how it manifested itself and it’s unacceptable.”

Alan Cook blamed “subbies with their hand in the till” for the Horizon shortfalls.

In an email sent in October 2009 to Mary Fagan, former corporate affairs director of the Royal Mail, Mr Cook said: “My instincts tell me that, in a recession, subbies with their hand in the till choose to blame the technology when they are found to be short of cash.”

The pair were discussing increasing press interest about concerns on the accuracy of Horizon.

Asked why it was his instinct to think that sub-postmasters were stealing, Mr Cook told the inquiry: “Well that was an expression I will regret for the rest of my life.

“It is an inappropriate thing to put in an email, not in line with my view of sub-postmasters.”

The email was also sent to IT executive David Smith. Addressing Mr Cook, inquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams asked: “Was it your view at the time that he would have shared your view?”

He replied: “I don’t know to be honest. It was regrettable.”

Alan Cook has denied asking for a “more robust defence of Horizon” instead of an independent review in response to claims by sub-postmasters that they had been wrongly convicted.

The inquiry has been shown an October 2009 email from Dave Posnett, one of the Post Office’s in-house investigators, which says that “Alan Smith is asking for more robust defence of Horizon”.

Mr Cook said: “[I was] definitely not looking for a robust defence, just looking for answers. One of the perils of being the boss is that people use your name to get things done and, you know, I would have responded to that if I’d been copied [into the email] and said, ‘That’s not what we’re after’.”

He added: “I wouldn’t have said that. I would have said I... Robust was a word I used which I meant ‘thorough and rigorous’. But defence wouldn’t have been a word I used.”

Alan Cook has told of how he established a “strong relationship” with the boss of the sub-postmasters union, who he says “went out of his way to welcome” him into “the family”.

Describing what action he took to “get close” to the sub-postmasters, he said: “One of the first things I did was to establish a strong relationship with the chap who was then the Federation’s top guy and the top team.”

He confirmed this was Colin Baker, former general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters (NFSP).

The union has come under heavy criticism for failing to support accused sub-postmasters, with Alan Bates telling the inquiry earlier this week that it “continually failed” them.

Mr Cook added: “Colin Baker, in particular, went out of his way to welcome me into the family if you see what I mean – my wife and I used to go to federation dinners and all this sort of stuff.”

Alan Cook has said it was “a shock” when he read a May 2009 article in Computer Weekly which detailed prosecuted sub-postmasters’ claims that the Horizon IT system was responsible for shortfalls they had been blamed for.

“This article was a shock to me,” he said. “Should it have been a shock to me? No, it shouldn’t have been, but it was.”

He added that he had not been aware of the prosecution of Lee Castleton, one of the article’s case studies who was found to have a £25,000 shortfall at his east Yorkshire branch and declared bankruptcy after the case after being told to pay costs of £321,000.

Counsel to the inquiry Sam Stevens asked: “You say you were unaware of it?”

Mr Cook replied: “I was unaware.”

Mr Stevens continued: “Did you not to think to ask why there was such a significant spend on one case?”

“I just don’t recall,” Mr Cook replied. “I can’t think why I wouldn’t and so either it was a mistake on my part or it wasn’t in the report, I don’t know.”

He was also shown a February 2009 email from Brian Binley, who was the Tory MP for Northampton South, which included the claim that “random flaws in the IT are causing deficits in their weekly accounts, sometimes £1,000s of pounds at a time”.

Mr Cook said he had received and read it in May.

Alan Cook has told the inquiry that he visited around 250 branches personally during his time as managing director because he believed sub-postmasters “felt unloved” by the Post Office when he joined the organisation.

“When I arrived, I felt the sub-postmaster community felt unloved to a degree by POL [Post Office Ltd] and one of my early objectives was to try and get close to the sub-postmaster community and try and resolve that,” he said.

Mr Cook described how he started a “programme of visits” to branches to get feedback from sub-postmasters themselves, which he continued throughout his time as MD.

He said: “I found those visits very illuminating.”

Part of the letter to Mr Sabet, written in 2008, said: “In terms of the decision to issue court proceedings, the investigations undertaken by the Post Office security team are to decide whether there is a criminal case to answer.”

When asked if this shows that Mr Cook was aware the Post Office’s own security team made decisions on prosecutions, he told the inquiry: “I didn’t appreciate it was their sole decision.

“Clearly we would have had to decide if it wanted it to happen, but I still felt that it wasn’t the Post Office’s power to do so.”

Alan Cook is now being shown a letter he wrote to former sub-postmaster Sami Sabet, which The Telegraph reported on today.

The former managing director claimed he had not seen it recently – and was shown the letter during the morning break.

The letter was in response to Mr Sabet’s complaints about a prosecution being levied against him.

The inquiry has now resumed.

The inquiry has taken a break and will resume at 10.35am.

Alan Cook has said he deeply regrets not raising “early issues” identified in Horizon in 2009 with the Post Office before he left the organisation in February 2010.

His witness statement reads: “It is a matter of deep regret to me that I did not recognise that the early issues raised in 2009 were an indication of a systemic issue before I left POL [Post Office Ltd] in February 2010.

“What is difficult to comprehend is how these issues did not become apparent earlier, now that it is clear for just how long the errors had been occurring.”

He added: “If I had seen symptoms of a systemic issue emerging, I would have immediately suspended all debt recovery processes and instituted an independent review of Horizon. It will be source of constant regret to me that I did not identify that it was a systemic issue.”

Alan Cook has told the inquiry how he completed the “fast version of the Horizon training course” and worked in a Crown Post Office for a day as part of his induction as managing director.

“One of the things I did as part of my induction when I became managing director... I did the fast version of the Horizon training course and I went to work in a Crown Office for a day, it was probably one of my most stressful days at the Post Office,” he said.

“It showed to me it was a complicated thing to do.”

Alan Cook has said he blames himself for not “picking up on” the fact the Post Office was prosecuting sub-postmasters without the involvement of the police.

“I think it’s sometimes what’s said and what’s heard,” he told the inquiry. “And the problem that I was bringing to the piece was I just had a presumption and I didn’t hear something sufficiently categoric[al] to say ‘What? You mean we decide on our own and no one can stop us?’.

“I never asked that question. Well, when I say I never asked, I did obviously when we got to the Computer Weekly article [in 2009].

“But prior to that point I had gone through not picking up that, and I’m not blaming them for not spelling it out enough. To be frank, I’m blaming me for not picking up on it.”

Alan Cook has said that he regrets “assuming” that the police or the director of public prosecutions were involved in the prosecution of sub-postmasters.

He told the inquiry he had “never come across a situation before where a trading entity could initiate a prosecutions themselves”.

“The Post Office, there was an investigation team, they did the investigating,” he said. “Expressions were used like ‘this is going to court’. I had assumed that the police stroke DPP had been involved.

“I mean, I shouldn’t have presumed, but I did presume sadly. It had gone to court’ was the expression they used. I had not encountered the notion of an organisation that could make that decision on its own.”

When asked if he thinks he should have known the truth, Mr Cook replied: “I think I should yes, and that’s clearly there are many regrets on many aspects of this but that is one of mine.”

Sub-postmaster Sami Sabet has arrived to watch Alan Cook give evidence.

In today’s Telegraph, we revealed how Mr Cook had acknowledged Mr Sabet’s complaints 18 months before he left.

It contradicted what Mr Cook previously told this newspaper in January, when he said he only found out there were concerns just before he left the role.

Read the full story here.

Alan Cook has told the inquiry that he did not realise that the Post Office was the sole party involved in prosecuting sub-postmasters.

“I was unaware that the Post Office were the prosecuting authority,” he said.

“I knew there were court cases but I didn’t realise that in about two-thirds of the cases the Post Office had initiated the prosecution, as opposed to the DPP [director of public prosecutions], the police or whatever.”

Alan Cook, the Post Office’s former managing director, has started his evidence with an apology to “all sub-postmasters, their families and those affected”.

“If I could just say before we get started, I’d like to put on record most strongly my personal apology and sympathies with all sub-postmasters, their families and those affected by this,” he said.

“As we get into the conversation, obviously, there will be an opportunity for me to elaborate but it just felt to me that was an important thing for me to say up front.”

He will be questioned by counsel to the inquiry Sam Stevens.

Alan Cook is currently being sworn in to give evidence to the inquiry.

The Post Office inquiry will this morning hear from Alan Cook CBE, the former independent non-executive director and managing director of Post Office Ltd.

During his time as managing director from March 2006 to January 2010, more than 160 sub-postmasters were prosecuted using faulty data from the Horizon system.

This afternoon, Adam Crozier will give evidence. He was chief executive of Royal Mail Group Ltd between 2003 and 2010, a period during which the Post Office was part of his organisation.

Mr Crozier left the organisation to become chief executive of ITV and did not feature in the channel’s drama series Mr Bates vs The Post Office.

You can remind yourself of how far the Post Office scandal stretches back by scrolling through our timeline below.

Alan Cook, the former independent non-executive director and managing director of Post Office Ltd, has arrived to give evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry.

During his time as managing director, for four years up to January 2010, more than 160 sub-postmasters were prosecuted using faulty data from the Horizon system.

He previously told The Telegraph that he did not know of any concerns about Horizon until just before he left.

The widow of a postmaster who took his own life said she blames the Post Office for his death, as she speaks publicly for the first time.

Jayakanthan Sivasubramaniam, 35, took his own life after he was accused of stealing £179,000 from his Putney Post Office branch during the Horizon scandal in 2005

His widow Gowri told ITV News: “He panicked, that’s the best word. He got scared.

“I think the Post Office is to blame.”

Gowri submitted a compensation claim after the problems with the Post Office’s Horizon IT system became public knowledge.

But it was rejected by the Post Office panel after a three year process.

A Post Office spokesperson said: “Every single claim is assessed by an independent panel before it recommends an outcome, and that offer can rightly be disputed and re-examined.”

We’ll be bringing you all the latest updates from the Post Office inquiry today.