Post Office lawyer denies ‘big fat lie’ over Horizon inaccuracies
A former Post Office lawyer has denied telling a “big fat lie” over whether he knew of Horizon inaccuracies days before the trial of a pregnant sub-postmistress.
Jarnail Singh, who was head of criminal law at the organisation, also claimed he did not know how to save a document on his computer.
Mr Singh was prosecutor in the case of Seema Misra, a sub-postmistress who was pregnant at the time she was handed a 15-month sentence following her trial in November 2010.
Mr Singh claims that he was unaware of any Horizon bugs until July 2013, when forensic accountants Second Sight published a report on the software.
Yet on Friday, the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry was shown a report sent to Mr Singh in Oct 2010, which detailed a bug that could affect branch balances.
Text on the document shows it was saved to Mr Singh’s hard drive within minutes of the email being sent to him, and also printed out.
When Jason Beer KC, counsel to the inquiry, put this to Mr Singh, he said: “I don’t know sir. I don’t recall seeing it, I don’t recall printing it.”
Mr Singh then went on to say he had never “saved a document” while working for the Post Office and Royal Mail.
“You never saved a document?” asked Mr Beer. Mr Singh responded: “Not on [my hard drive]. No, because I don’t know how to do it.”
Mr Beer pressed Mr Singh further on the report, saying: “All of this: ‘If I received it, if I read it’ – it’s a big fat lie, isn’t it? And you know it, Mr Singh.”
Responding, Mr Singh said: “Sir, I didn’t come here to lie, I’m at an age where I have come to assist the inquiry. And that’s all.”
The inquiry later heard that Mr Singh had a secretary who had access to his computer.
Mr Singh said: “I wasn’t very good at the technical IT side of things in the printing… All I did is dictate stuff, and she did the rest and she made up the [case] file.”
Mrs Misra was one of more than 800 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses wrongfully prosecuted after bugs in the Horizon software caused financial shortfalls to be falsely recorded on their branch accounts.
Mr Singh told the inquiry that had he seen the report, written in Sept 2010 by Gareth Jenkins, he would have made sure it was disclosed in her case.
The document is also damaging for Mr Jenkins, who himself was an expert witness in Mrs Misra’s trial and helped secure her conviction.
Mr Singh went on to offer an apology to Mrs Misra, who attended the hearing in person. He said: “I admit mistakes were made and I’m sorry that Mrs Misra stuffered.
“I am ever so embarrassed to be here that we made those mistakes, put somebody’s liberty at stake, and the loss she suffered, and the damage we caused.”
Mr Beer began his questions by asking whether Mr Singh was involved in the cover-up of his own and the Post Office’s knowledge of the existence of bugs prior to July 2013. “No sir,” Mr Singh responded.
The inquiry was also shown an email sent by Mr Singh to Susan Crichton, who was then the Post Office’s general counsel, in response to a question she asked about whether there were any risks if a decision was made not to pursue a prosecution.
Responding to the email, sent in 2012, Mr Singh wrote: “Decision not to prosecute can not be kept secret ‘everybody will find out what we’re doing’ this may open Post Office to criticism and undermine faith in Horizon.”
“Did you see prosecutions as a way of maintaining faith in Horizon?” Mr Beer asked. “No,” Mr Singh said.
When asked why he wrote the sentence, Mr Singh said he didn’t know and added: “All I was thinking was you have got to have a consistent approach.”
In another email, Mr Singh told colleagues it was the “correct decision” not to disclose reports written by officers investigating cases because they might prompt accused sub-postmasters to ask why they were being investigated.
Responding to a May 2014 email about what to disclose to those submitting individual complaints, Mr Singh wrote: “In the Hamilton case, in the officer report the investigator said, ‘Having analysed the Horizon print out and accounting document, I was unable to find any evidence of theft, or cash-in-hand figures being deliberately inflated.’”
Mr Singh added: “In the absence of a file to demonstrate how the case developed, as it was further investigated, this would give the applicant and Second Sight every opportunity to ask why in fact Hamilton was prosecuted.”
When asked about the email, Mr Singh said: “All I’m doing is highlighting different points of view and this is an illustration of why – you’ve got to weigh these things up and I’m asking them to make a decision.”
Lawyers for Mr Jenkins have previously said it would not be appropriate for him to comment on Horizon before he gives evidence to the inquiry in June.
