During her evidence to the Inquiry today Paula Vennells finally admitted there was cover-up at the Post Office on her watch.

Counsel to the Inquiry Jason Beer took her to a letter dated 12 July 2013. It was from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the statutory body which investigates potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The letter was prompted by Second Sight’s Interim Report, which was published on 8 July 2013. It says:

“We’ve read the recent media coverage concerning the Post Office Horizon computer system with interest. Clearly it would be very useful for us to have more information directly from the Post Office, especially accurate information as to the number of criminal convictions that might be impacted by the issue, and what action is proposed or being taken in that respect.”

The CCRC adds: “We see that the AG [Attorney General] was called upon on Tuesday to set up an inquiry. We’re in contact with his office about that.

A Big Deal

Beer noted this letter “arrived at a time when you’d been told by Susan Crichton [Post Office General Counsel] and Lesley Sewell [Post Office CIO] about the concern about the Fujitsu expert witnesses’ evidence to the courts, including in the Seema Misra case?”

This was a reference to the First Clarke Advice about Fujitsu engineer Gareth Jenkins. Vennells was never shown the Advice, but its contents were relayed to her (on separate occasions) by the two above-named execs.

Would Vennells agree, wondered Beer, “that the right and honest thing to do would have been to let the CCRC know about the Post Office’s concerns over Gareth Jenkins?”

Vennells washed her hands of it: “What I did with this letter was to ask Susan [Crichton, the Post Office General Counsel] to reply as the legal expert in the organisation. I don’t believe that I would have given her direction as to how we should reply to it. I wouldn’t have either instructed her to leave things out.”

Beer reframed his question as a statement “The right and honest thing for the Post Office to have done would be to have let the CCRC know, and know promptly, over its concerns about the truthfulness and reliability of the evidence that Gareth Jenkins had given to the courts.”

“Yes, it would”, agreed Vennells.

“That didn’t happen for years and years, did it?” asked Beer.

“I understand that to be the case now”, replied Vennells.

Vennells might think her actions exculpate her. She gave it to her General Counsel to deal with. But did she follow it up? Did she seek a meeting with the CCRC to explain their Gareth Jenkins problem? Did she demand regular updates from her legal team as to their progress with the CCRC? What did her legal team do with the CCRC letter?

Remember on Tuesday this week, the Inquiry saw an email from the Post Office’s Head of Legal, Hugh Flemington, who had been forwarded the CCRC letter by Crichton. Flemington suggested the Post Office “give off the signals that we are proactive, doing all the right things re writing to people to keep the AG and CCRC calm. Hopefully if they see that they may leave us to it.” 

Giving off “signals” evidently did not involve handing over or even divulging the existence of the Clarke Advice. That is not right and honest behaviour. That is wrong and dishonest behaviour. It is a cover-up. 

---

The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.