On its final day, the Post Office inquiry heard from lawyers representing key witnesses, including the organisation’s former chief executive Paula Vennells, the company behind the faulty Horizon IT system, Fujitsu, and the Post Office itself.
In their closing statements, parties argued why they should not shoulder the bulk of responsibility, with many blaming others for the scandal.
The probe was originally set up following the wrongful prosecution of more than 900 subpostmasters between 1999 and 2015 after the faulty Horizon accounting software incorrectly suggested the Post Office workers had taken money from their branches’ accounts. Its findings are expected to be published next year.
Here are the biggest takeaways from the last day of the inquiry.
Vennells continued to deny knowledge of Horizon faults
In their closing statement, Ms Vennells’s legal team repeated claims the former Post Office chief executive was unaware of the bugs in the Horizon system, which led to subpostmasters’ wrongful convictions.
Her lawyer Samantha Leek KC said: “Ms Vennells cannot, and does not, try to hide from the fact that while chief executive she did not manage to uncover the truth about the extent of the bugs, errors and defects in Horizon.
“She simply did not get the information, which she ought to have been given by her senior team, whom she trusted and to whom she delegated responsible roles.”
Witnesses blaming Vennells accused of doing so out of ‘self-preservation’
Ms Leek warned the inquiry to treat the evidence of some witnesses “cautiously”, claiming they scapegoating Ms Vennells out of a desire for “self-preservation”.
She told the hearing: “When witnesses have given recent evidence of matters relevant to Ms Vennells without it being supported by contemporaneous documents, this evidence should be approached cautiously.
“It is inevitable, having regard to the very human desire for self-preservation, that witnesses will now seek to distance themselves from Ms Vennells.”
Ms Leek claimed there was never any evidence presented to the inquiry showing Ms Vennells acted in “bad faith”.
She added that her client had “no desire to point the finger at others” – despite previously naming executives Ms Vennells claimed were to blame for the scandal.
Post Office criticised ‘subordinate’ relationship with Fujitsu
In the Post Office’s final argument, Kate Gallafent KC said it was a “deep regret” the organisation’s account system had relied on Horizon’s maker Fujitsu to the extent it did.
Ms Gallafent went on to blame the Post Office’s “subordinate” relationship with the Japanese firm with regard to their contractual obligations and technical know-how.
Fujitsu’s representative hit back at the Post Office’s closing remarks, accusing them of not accepting their part in the scandal.
Fujitsu claimed dozens of workers at Post Office had knowledge of bugs
Fujitsu’s legal representative, Richard Whittam KC, said the Post Office was attempting to “obfuscate its proper share of responsibility by seeking wrongly to deflect blame on Fujitsu and other third parties”.
“The Post Office has been aware for at least 25 years of the potential for – and existence of – bugs, errors and defects,” he said.
“Fujitsu has identified at least 70 individuals within Post Office and Royal Mail in relation to whom the inquiry has received unequivocal knowledge of bugs, errors and defects. This includes members of boards, senior executives, in-house lawyers, as well as individuals working in Post Office’s security and investigations teams.
“The inquiry is entitled to infer from the breadth and depth of awareness of bugs, errors and defects it is likely that key institutional decision makers did in fact have such knowledge.”
Gareth Jenkins blamed Post Office for shortfalls as expert witness
Gareth Jenkins, a Fujitsu engineer, had frequently come to the defence of his former employer, acting as a lead expert witness in several prosecutions brought by the Post Office against former subpostmasters.
Now, Mr Jenkins has been accused of helping cover up the system’s faults in court.
In a written statement, due to be read to the inquiry on Tuesday, Mr Jenkins described “an agenda” against him that was seeking “to make Mr Jenkins responsible for failures which were those of Post Office Limited alone… and which extended well beyond the relatively small number of cases that he was involved in”.
He said that he had “never formally instructed as an expert witness” in prosecution cases, adding he had no ”formal qualifications” for providing that evidence in “a legal context”.
Mr Jenkins denies he obscured issues with Horizon, instead insisting that he volunteered information to the Post Office.