Post Office inquiry: Vennells took advice not to review cases to avoid ‘front page news’

Paula Vennells was answering questions as part of her second day of evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

Paula Vennells leaves the Post Office inquiry after her second day of evidence on Thursday (James Veysey/Shutterstock)

Ex-Post Office boss Paula Vennells followed a “grossly improper” suggestion to not review all subpostmaster prosecutions after a PR adviser said it would end up “front page news”, the Horizon IT inquiry has heard.

The probe was shown an email exchange between Ms Vennells and then director of communications Mark Davies in July 2013 in which she said she would “take your steer” after he said looking at all past cases would be “in media terms… very high profile”.

Ms Vennells agreed that, had the Post Office reviewed all prosecutions of false accounting, it “may well have” avoided the “lost decade” until miscarriages of justice involving subpostmasters were discovered.

The public gallery at the inquiry, made up of mainly subpostmasters, groaned loudly after Ms Vennells said she did not remember if she took the “advice of the PR guy” not to review past prosecutions.

After chair Sir Wyn Williams intervened, Ms Vennells continued: “As I tried to say before, what we were working to at this stage was numbers of cases going through a scheme, and a scheme that was going to be opened up to anybody who wanted to come forward.

“I understand how this reads, but I don’t recall making any conscious decision not to go back and put in place a review of all past criminal cases.”

After Ms Vennells asked him for his thoughts on whether the business should look at cases going over five to 10 years, Mr Davies said: “If we say publicly that we will look at past cases – and whatever we say to JA (Lord Arbuthnot) or JFSA (Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance) will be public – whether from recent history or going further back, we will open this up very significantly, into front page news.

“In media terms it becomes mainstream, very high profile.”

Ms Vennells conceded that the view of Mr Davies was a “grossly improper perspective”.

In her response to Mr Davies’ email, Ms Vennells said: “You are right to call this out. I will take your steer.”

Referring to her initial suggestion of reviewing past cases, the lead counsel for the inquiry, Jason Beer KC, said: “Do you agree your nascent idea here of a review of all prosecutions of false accounting, if it had been carried into effect, may have avoided a lost decade until miscarriages of justice were discovered?”

Ms Vennells paused for a short moment before responding: “It may well have done. It may well have done.”

Mr Beer asked: “Do you think the failure to carry into effect the idea that you posit here was a missed opportunity?”

The former Post Office boss replied: “At the time I and the board and everybody else involved in… what took place after this particular point felt that that was completely the right way to do this. We were concentrating on individual cases.”

The 65-year-old ordained priest was answering questions as part of her second day of evidence to the inquiry after an emotional first day which saw her become visibly upset on a number of occasions and break down in tears twice.

She apologised for her actions during the scandal 23 times during her first day of evidence, according to the inquiry’s official transcript.

During her second day of evidence, she claimed she had no inkling subpostmasters’ convictions were unsafe in 2013 despite a “concerning” email from lead campaigner Alan Bates.

Mr Bates told Ms Vennells that he was “surprised” she had not offered to meet him “bearing in mind what has been discovered so far” – referring to the work of independent forensic accountants Second Sight.

Ms Vennells also said the Post Office did want “reassurance” the Horizon system could be relied upon but denied seeking to persuade Second Sight to come to a conclusion favourable to the company.

She told the probe she was unaware there was a view among the company’s lawyers that reviewing a large number of cases might “open the floodgates” to damages claims by subpostmasters.

The inquiry also heard Ms Vennells in 2011 had set a “goal” that all press “should be scoured for negative comment and refuted”.

It came after she was notified about a Private Eye article on the Horizon IT system and criticism from subpostmasters.

In September 2011, Ms Vennells wrote: “We need to be front foot and counter anything that has a reputational impact. It's a goal of mine that all press even local press (perhaps esp[ecially] local press), should be scoured for negative comment and refuted.”

Giving evidence on Thursday, Ms Vennells said: “This was a general ambition of mine. The Post Office's reputation and its brand was built every single day in Post Offices across the country by the people who worked so hard serving customers, many of whom were particularly vulnerable people, and so it was important to me that where the Post Office was misrepresented that that should be corrected, and especially at a local level because the local post offices were so important to people.”

Asked if that was her “general instruction” to the business to contest all and any negative comments, Ms Vennells said: “It was an ambition, well, only if they were inaccurate.”

More than 700 subpostmasters were prosecuted by the Post Office and handed criminal convictions between 1999 and 2015 as Fujitsu’s faulty Horizon IT system made it appear as though money was missing at their branches.

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