Paula Vennells, the former head of the Post Office, has been accused of being out of touch with reality by a lawyer representing sub-postmasters.
During the inquiry into the Horizon scandal, Edward Henry questioned Ms Vennells about her knowledge of remote access to sub-postmasters’ computers.
He also queried Ms Vennells about the potential impact of the scandal on the Royal Mail’s stock market flotation in 2013.
She admitted it could have had an effect, but denied involvement in the privatisation strategy.
On the third day of the ongoing Horizon scandal inquiry, Ms Vennells provided evidence.
The room was filled with attendees, including numerous former sub-postmasters.
As the day wore on, the atmosphere became increasingly defiant, culminating in a chorus of boos for Ms Vennells.
Remote access has been a recurring theme in the inquiry.
The Post Office blamed sub-postmasters for missing funds in hundreds of wrongful prosecutions, attributing the discrepancies to the Horizon IT system.
Between 1999 and 2015, these prosecutions led to imprisonment for some, while others faced financial ruin, losing their jobs, businesses, and homes. Some even passed away awaiting justice.
In key cases like Bates vs Post Office in 2019, the organisation maintained that the Horizon software could not be accessed remotely by any third party.
However, Mr Henry claimed that the Post Office’s external lawyers, Cartwright King, were aware of remote access during Ms Vennells’ tenure as CEO from 2012 to 2019.
She denied any knowledge of this and doubted that the board or executive were aware either.
Mr Henry challenged her, saying, “It’s quite remarkable, isn’t it? Cartwright King, your external lawyers, were fully aware, yet you claim ignorance. This is a fantasy, isn’t it?”
She responded, “I have no recollection of this. If our external lawyers were privy to this information and it was shared within the Post Office, that is utterly unacceptable.”
Ms Vennells also admitted that the fallout from Horizon could have disrupted the Royal Mail’s stock market flotation.
Mr Henry suggested, “If it were proven that the Royal Mail group had wrongfully prosecuted numerous sub-postmasters who might then sue, it could have jeopardised the flotation in October 2013, correct?”
“I believe that would have been the case,” Ms Vennells agreed.
He pointed out that this would also have posed a reputational and financial risk to the Royal Mail group, as they were the prosecuting authority until 2012 – “they were accountable for the legacy of prosecutions.”
“Yes, that’s accurate,” she confirmed.
In July 2013, the government announced the privatisation of the Royal Mail, and forensic accountants Second Sight presented their interim report, which Mr Henry described as “quite the revelation” because it highlighted Horizon bugs.
“It must have been glaringly obvious that if the Second Sight report caused an uproar, the potential challenge to criminal convictions would have been politically embarrassing and potentially damaging to the flotation,” Mr Henry suggested.
Ms Vennells replied, “I don’t believe I was part of any such discussions. The two organisations were operating independently by then, and I had no discussions about any strategy around the Royal Mail privatisation.”
Mr Henry pressed Ms Vennells, accusing her of wanting to “keep this under wraps to appease stakeholders – the Post Office board, the government, Whitehall.”
He suggested that Ms Vennells was “eager to please” the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) at the time.
The Post Office is wholly owned by the UK government.”