Closing statements are being presented to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and lawyers for key figures have submitted their final arguments.
Ancient Post Office Boss Paula Vennells says in her own written statement posted online that she is “devastated” that information “was not shared with her” about the faulty Horizon IT system.
It is the first time the inquiry has heard from her since her appearance earlier this year.
Here are three summaries of some main submissions of Ms Vennells and other so-called key participants.
Paula Vennells
Former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells was excluded from the investigation in May. Photo: Reuters
The final legal conclusions of the former boss of the Post Office indicate that there was “nothing to prove that she acted in bad faith”.
As part of a set of closing statements, Ms Vennells is described as someone who “wanted to do right by the sub-postmasters”.
She acknowledges that she “did not succeed in discovering the truth on these questions” because “she herself was not informed of the elements which could have enabled her to do so”.
Her lawyers said she was “devastated” that the information “was not shared” with her but that she “had no desire to point fingers at others”.
His apologies for the investigation were also reiterated as part of his legal team’s 138-page written submissions.
“Ms Vennells apologizes unreservedly to all those affected by the matters investigated by this inquiry,” it read.
Although Ms Vennells admits she was “the ultimate bearer of executive responsibility”, her lawyers say this should “not be confused with the obligation to make every decision personally”.
She “relied” on briefings, reports and advice from “senior colleagues,” including IT professionals and lawyers, they wrote.
His main argument is that the information transmitted to him “was incomplete or erroneous”, or that the information “was not transmitted at all”, therefore adding that “this does not amount… to a failure on the part by Mrs. Vennell.
His final conclusions also sometimes cast doubt on the testimony of other witnesses.
It stipulates that contemporary documents should be relied upon rather than memories, in the event of a dispute.
Fujitsu
File photo: Reuters
Fujitsu, which supplied the defective software for the Horizon accounting system, claims to “recognize and fully accept its share” of failures and “deeply regrets its role” in the suffering of Post Office victims.
Lawyers for the IT company, however, claim that the Horizon IT system was “only part” of the Post Office’s IT infrastructure.
It says Fujitsu and the Post Office “knew from the start” that bugs, errors and defects were present in the computer system.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The written statement admits that Fujitsu staff were able to remotely access subpostmaster branch accounts.
It also calls IT training for Horizon users “inadequate”, as well as that of Fujitsu and Post Office support services.
Their lawyers emphasize that the “miscarriages of justice” were not caused by “solely technological failures” but also “the product of serious human and organizational failures in terms of conduct, ethics, governance and culture”.
The IT company has promised to “never again provide testimony of any kind in support of criminal investigations or prosecutions carried out by the Post”.
Gareth Jenkins, former Fujitsu employee
Gareth Jenkins gave evidence at the inquest in June. Pic: IT investigation on Post Office Horizon
Gareth Jenkins, a Fujitsu engineer, provided key evidence which contributed to the Post Office’s prosecution of the sub-postmasters.
Part of his defense is that he “was never formally commissioned as an expert witness” and had “no formal qualifications” to provide this evidence in “a legal context.”
Mr. Jenkins’ lawyers also accuse the Post of “systemic failures as an investigator and prosecutor.”
They describe “a scheme” which sought “to make Mr Jenkins responsible for the failures which were those of Post Office Limited alone… and which extended well beyond the relatively small number of cases in which he was involved”.
His legal team also describes a “stunning” consequence of his not being “formally instructed” as an expert witness as follows: “…not a single statement prepared by Mr Jenkins on which POL (Post Office Limited ) relied on, in any of its prosecutions. , constituted admissible expert evidence.”
He accuses the Post Office of having “actively misrepresented” him as to the role he was “required to assume”.
Mr Jenkins denies suppressing the problems with Horizon, insisting instead that he provided information to the Post Office voluntarily.
His lawyers describe the prosecutors’ failures as part of a “broader picture of dysfunction.”