Fujitsu boss labels editing of witness statements in prosecutions as ‘shameful’
Paul Patterson reiterated his apology to subpostmasters while giving evidence on Friday.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Fujitsu’s European boss has described the editing of witness statements to defend the Horizon IT system that were used in the prosecutions of subpostmasters as “shameful”.
Paul Patterson told the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry that he was “surprised” that details of bugs, errors and defects (BEDs) in the scandal-hit software were not included in witness statements for criminal proceedings against subpostmasters.
He admitted that BEDs had existed in the system for “nearly two decades” and said the “vast majority” had been shared with the Post Office contemporaneously, adding that they were “well known to all parties”.
Mr Patterson said Fujitsu staff had known of bugs in the Horizon system since 1999.
He told the hearing that the technology giant had “clearly let society down and the subpostmasters down” as a result of the Horizon scandal.
The Fujitsu director said some witness statements used in the prosecutions of subpostmasters were “misleading” as they did not mention that the company provided incomplete audit data to the Post Office.
Mr Patterson also told the probe he did not believe Fujitsu “knew at the time” that the Post Office was prosecuting subpostmasters based on the inaccurate data it was providing to them.
On a personal level, I’m surprised that that detail was not included in the witness statements given by Fujitsu staff to the Post Office – and I’ve seen some evidence of editing of witness statements by others
He told the inquiry that trust in technology “has been broken” as a result of the Horizon scandal, and offered to meet subpostmasters whom he said he had a “great deal of respect for”.
Counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC asked him: “When did Fujitsu put two and two together and realise they added up to four – four being ‘we need to tell the Post Office about these bugs, errors and defects – not because there’s a problem with the system we’re selling to them, but because they’re prosecuting subpostmasters on the basis of the evidence we’re providing to them’?”
Mr Patterson replied: “There’s lots of evidence of us informing the Post Office of that data that we’ve just discussed, bugs and errors, and how those bugs and errors did or did not impact the financial position as reported.
“What the Post Office did with that piece of data, Mr Beer, I do not believe Fujitsu knew at the time, but certainly latterly… the company became more aware that it was being used nearly solely for prosecutions.”
Mr Beer continued: “Would you agree that the 29 summaries that we’ve just looked at some examples of, revealing bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system, ought to have been revealed to the Post Office for the purposes of its investigatory and prosecutorial functions?”
Mr Patterson responded: “So I don’t know if they were not.”
Mr Beer interjected: “That’s a different question, I’m asking would you agree that they ought to have been?”
Mr Patterson said: “Yes, I do.”
Mr Beer then asked: “You know, I think, that Fujitsu employees provided witness statements to the Post Office for the purposes of the prosecution of subpostmasters and speaking in general terms, these bugs errors and defects did not find their way into those witness statements. Do you know why?”
The Fujitsu director replied: “I do not know why.
“I have seen examples of the witness statements. On a personal level, I’m surprised that that detail was not included in the witness statements given by Fujitsu staff to the Post Office – and I’ve seen some evidence of editing of witness statements by others.”
Mr Beer added: “Where there was a proposal, I think you’re referring to, to include at least a reference to some of the bugs or some data integrity problems, and they were edited out.”
Mr Patterson said: “Yes, Mr Beer.”
The counsel to the inquiry then said: “No doubt you would regard that as shameful.”
Mr Patterson replied: “Yes, that’s one word I would use.”
Mr Beer continued: “What’s the other one?”
Mr Patterson said: “Shameful, appalling – my understanding of how our laws work in this country, that all of the evidence should have been put in front of the subpostmaster, that the Post Office was relying on to prosecute them.”
The Fujitsu director said he was “amazed” that the company offered a prosecution support service, adding: “We are meant to be an IT company.”
Flora Page, on behalf of a number of subpostmasters, asked: “Would you accept that litigation support was a useful cash cow for Fujitsu?”
Mr Patterson replied: “I was professionally very surprised that that service even existed.
“We are meant to be an IT company, not a prosecution support service and for that to be designed in from the very earliest stages – I was very, very surprised at it.
“In terms of the work associated with doing it, I have no view on it. I am amazed it was even in the contract.”
On the issue of incomplete audit data provided to the Post Office, Mr Beer said: “We’ve heard evidence, this week in fact, that members of the SSC (software support centre) undertook a process of filtering ARQ (audit) data before it was provided to the Post Office, and that filtering of data meant that some relevant data may not have been provided to the Post Office.”
He asked Mr Patterson: “Would you agree the witness statements give the impression that all the raw data that has been obtained within the relevant date ranges has been extracted and provided to the Post Office?”
The Fujitsu director replied: “Yes, it does.”
I think the witness statement generally needed to be more comprehensive and it absolutely missed those points you’ve just alluded to and it would be misleading
Mr Beer continued: “Whereas in fact there’s a step in the process that’s not been revealed to the subpostmaster or the court.”
Mr Patterson replied: “Agreed.”
Mr Beer went on: “So if the evidence that we’ve heard from Fujitsu witnesses this week is correct, then a witness statement that followed the template and didn’t mention the filtering out exercise, would mean that the witness statement was false and misleading by omission, wouldn’t it?”
Mr Patterson said: “I think the witness statement generally needed to be more comprehensive and it absolutely missed those points you’ve just alluded to and it would be misleading.”
At the start of his evidence, the Fujitsu director reiterated his apology to subpostmasters, describing the scandal as an “appalling miscarriage of justice”.
He told the probe the technology giant was determined to “get to the truth wherever it lays” as he faced his second grilling of the week, following the Business and Trade Committee on Tuesday.
The statutory inquiry, which began in 2021, was established to ensure there was a “public summary of the failings which occurred with the Horizon IT system at the Post Office” and which subsequently led to the wrongful convictions of subpostmasters.
The probe is chaired by retired judge Sir Wyn Williams, who has previously looked at the human impact of the scandal, the Horizon system rollout and the operation of the system.