Ex-Post Office employee apologises for suggesting altering witness statement

An ex-Post Office employee has apologised after suggesting altering a Fujitsu engineer’s witness statement to prove the Horizon system was not to blame for subpostmasters’ shortfalls.

Graham Ward, a former security team casework manager and financial investigator, said an email he sent to Fujitsu employees in 2006 was “the opposite” of his duties “under the law and to the court, properly and fairly to investigate”.

In the email shown to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry on Thursday, Mr Ward wrote to Fujitsu employees: “Given the allegations made by the postmasters, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s very much in ourselves and Fujitsu’s interest to challenge the allegations and provide evidence that the system is not to blame for the losses provided.”

The inquiry previously heard Mr Ward, who now works for the Metropolitan Police, had told colleagues that engineer Gareth Jenkins’s suggestion that balancing issues could have been caused by a “system failure” were “potentially very damaging”.

In response to questions about his words, the witness said: “I appreciate how it looks now, and I’m sorry that it looks that way now, but it was not my intention for that to happen in terms of removing the words ‘system failure’.”

Questioning Mr Ward about the 2006 email, counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC said: “What were the mutual interests of the Post Office and Fujitsu that you were referring to?”

After a brief pause, Mr Ward replied: “To prove that the Horizon system was working correctly.”

Mr Beer continued: “Why was it in your interest to prove that the system was working correctly and that subpostmasters were wrongly blaming it for losses?”

Mr Ward said: “I can see now with the benefit of hindsight that it was a very one-sided view.

“At the time, certainly in the security team in terms of criminal cases, there weren’t any cases of Horizon integrity challenges or whatever.”

The former Post Office employee went on to say: “I’ve expressed myself badly.”

Mr Beer said: “What did you mean?”

Mr Ward responded: “Well, I just wanted to do the right thing by ensuring that we were able to show that the system was working correctly.”

The counsel to the inquiry then asked: “Would you agree that it would have been in Fujitsu’s interests to show that the system was working correctly and not producing unreliable data?”

“Yeah, I guess so, yeah,” Mr Ward replied.

Mr Beer continued: “And corporately for the Post Office, it would be important to show that the system that was being used up and down the country had integrity and was working properly, wouldn’t it?”

Mr Ward said: “I wasn’t thinking like that at all.”

Mr Beer pressed the witness: “Would you agree that that would be a corporate view which Post Office senior management would doubtless hold?”

Mr Ward replied: “Yeah, I would agree, yeah.”

Mr Beer went on: “Not least because, I think you’d probably be aware, that the proper functioning and integrity of the system was viewed as essential to the continuation of a number of sub-post offices around the country?”

Mr Ward said: “Yeah, I would agree, yeah.”

The counsel to the inquiry then asked: “But as the person responsible within a team for bringing people to justice, is that your principal concern?”

Mr Ward replied: “No, my principal concern was to ensure that we were asking Fujitsu to provide us with a witness statement and provide us with the evidence that the system couldn’t be responsible for losses.

“Again, it’s a poor choice of words, I know, but that’s the view I had at the time.”

Mr Beer then said: “Were you using words poorly, or does this in fact reflect your state of mind at the time?”

Mr Ward replied: “I don’t believe it reflects my state of mind, I was just trying to do the right thing – but I’ve got it wrong, haven’t I.”

Mr Beer continued: “Well, the right thing, would you agree Mr Ward, was to say although it might be in Fujitsu’s interest to refute challenges and allegations to the system or about the system, and it might be in Post Office’s corporate favour or benefit to adopt the same approach, we’re here as investigators or people who assist in an investigation and we’ve got separate duties that we owe under the law and to the court, properly and fairly to investigate?”

“Yeah, I can’t disagree with that,” Mr Ward said.

Mr Beer added: “And what you’ve written is the opposite of that, isn’t it?”

Mr Ward said: “Yes.”

In his witness statement, Mr Ward said it was not part of his role to review witness statements, and had annotated a draft statement by Mr Jenkins because he was “trying to be helpful”.

Questioned on why he had taken issue with the words “system failure” in the statement, which he had requested be deleted, Mr Ward said: “I’ve reflected on this an awful lot.

“I just think what I was really looking at was getting a full explanation of what Mr Jenkins was saying in his statement about what a system failure was, because it didn’t appear to me to be terribly clear.

“I would not have said anything along the lines of ‘you can’t say this’ or whatever, I was just trying to get some clarity.

“I appreciate how it looks now, and I’m sorry that it looks that way now, but it was not my intention for that to happen in terms of removing the words ‘system failure’ or whatever.

“I just wanted it to be clear and make sure it was explained properly.”

Mr Beer went on: “You told us in your witness statement that you had little involvement with prosecution witnesses – here you’re making a suggestion as to what prosecution witnesses might say, aren’t you?”

Mr Ward replied: “I don’t know why I got involved in this.

“I think it’s because (Fujitsu employee) Neneh Lowther had asked me, and I was just trying to be helpful.

“It wasn’t the function of the casework manager to get involved in this way.”

Mr Beer then asked: “Why did you get involved?”

“Because I was asked and I tried to be helpful,” Mr Ward said.

More than 700 branch managers were prosecuted by the Post Office after Fujitsu’s faulty accounting software, Horizon, made it look as though money was missing from their shops.

The saga prompted an outcry across the country after it was dramatised in the ITV series Mr Bates vs The Post Office earlier this month.

Hundreds of subpostmasters are awaiting compensation despite the Government announcing that those who have had convictions quashed are eligible for £600,000 payouts.