�* recollection, and only when i was my recollection, and only when i stepped into taking on the responsibility for the team that i started to be exposed to what you just described, when i started to be exposed to that. leading on from that, that's why i wanted to get involved in the initial investigations into the cases and scheme. what we haven't seen at that time or anytime _ what we haven't seen at that time or anytime is _ what we haven't seen at that time or anytime is any what we haven't seen at that time or anytime is any documents what we haven't seen at that time or anytime is any documents which what we haven't seen at that time or anytime is any documents which say something _ anytime is any documents which say something along the lines of, gosh, maybe _ something along the lines of, gosh, maybe there's a problem with the horizon _ maybe there's a problem with the horizon system. imagine the harm we are doing. _ horizon system. imagine the harm we are doing. to— horizon system. imagine the harm we are doing, to families, the mental heatth— are doing, to families, the mental health of— are doing, to families, the mental health of our sub—postmasters, the people _ health of our sub—postmasters, the people working those branches. we don't _ people working those branches. we don't anything like that in relation to these _ don't anything like that in relation to these rumblings you are talking about, _ to these rumblings you are talking about, going on at that time. is that because the culture of the post

office _ that because the culture of the post office was _ that because the culture of the post office was all about the post office brand _ office was all about the post office brand and — office was all about the post office brand and damn the sub—postmasters? no. brand and damn the sub—postmasters? no what— brand and damn the sub—postmasters? no. what other explanation is that when _ no. what other explanation is that when we _ no. what other explanation is that when we see a total absence of care about _ when we see a total absence of care about people with families you should — about people with families you should be trying to protect, not prosecute?— should be trying to protect, not rosecute? ., �* , , , ., prosecute? that's why we brought in second side — prosecute? that's why we brought in second side and _ prosecute? that's why we brought in second side and wanted _ prosecute? that's why we brought in second side and wanted to _ second side and wanted to investigate the cases, because at that point it was evident there were a number of people claiming the horizon system was causing their losses. �* , ., horizon system was causing their losses. �*, ., . ,, ., losses. let's go back to the helpline- — losses. let's go back to the helpline. did _ losses. let's go back to the helpline. did the _ losses. let's go back to the helpline. did the message. losses. let's go back to the - helpline. did the message change once these rumblings were getting touder— once these rumblings were getting louder and louder and the crisis was getting _ louder and louder and the crisis was getting ever more obvious and ever more _ getting ever more obvious and ever more serious? did the line from a hetbtine _ more serious? did the line from a helpline change, did you make sure that the _ helpline change, did you make sure that the helpline still wasn't saying — that the helpline still wasn't saying to these poor people in the post office branches they've got to pay up _ post office branches they've got to pay up regardless? did anybody get that any— pay up regardless? did anybody get that any attention? i pay up regardless? did anybody get that any attention?—

that any attention? i did, yes, as art of that any attention? i did, yes, as part of the _ that any attention? i did, yes, as part of the programme. - that any attention? i did, yes, as part of the programme. i - that any attention? i did, yes, as| part of the programme. i brought that any attention? i did, yes, as i part of the programme. i brought in those changes. as part of the interim report, iset those changes. as part of the interim report, i set up a support programme about making improvements to a range of processes and working with sub—postmasters. that to a range of processes and working with sub-postmasters._ to a range of processes and working with sub-postmasters. that must mean ou did with sub-postmasters. that must mean you did checking. _ with sub-postmasters. that must mean you did checking, you _ with sub-postmasters. that must mean you did checking, you must _ with sub-postmasters. that must mean you did checking, you must have - with sub-postmasters. that must mean you did checking, you must have gone l you did checking, you must have gone to them _ you did checking, you must have gone to them and _ you did checking, you must have gone to them and said let's have a look at what _ to them and said let's have a look at what you — to them and said let's have a look at what you are doing. did you do that? _ at what you are doing. did you do that? ~ ., ., ., 4' at what you are doing. did you do that? . ., ., ., ,, ., at what you are doing. did you do that? ~ ., ., .,, at what you are doing. did you do that? ~ ., ., , ., that? what i looked at was providing the su ort that? what i looked at was providing the sopport in _ that? what i looked at was providing the support in nbs _ that? what i looked at was providing the support in nbs sea, _ that? what i looked at was providing the support in nbs sea, meaning - the support in nbs sea, meaning there was more tier to support to deal with the escalations that you talk to me, so that we had better support. around that time, are you telling us you saw there were problems with in the system, people being told to pay up regardless and

she made a correction? it was a broader improvements can she made a correction? it was a broader improvements- she made a correction? it was a broader improvements can you cut the cororate broader improvements can you cut the corporate speech. _ broader improvements can you cut the corporate speech. did _ broader improvements can you cut the corporate speech. did you _ broader improvements can you cut the corporate speech. did you improve - corporate speech. did you improve the problem?— corporate speech. did you improve the problem?_ you - corporate speech. did you improve| the problem?_ you must the problem? yes, i did. you must have recognise _ the problem? yes, i did. you must have recognise there _ the problem? yes, i did. you must have recognise there was - the problem? yes, i did. you must have recognise there was a - have recognise there was a programme. is have recognise there was a programme-— have recognise there was a programme. is that correct? i recognise — programme. is that correct? i recognise postmasters - programme. is that correct? i| recognise postmasters weren't getting, in some cases, the level of support that they should have had in relation to investigating their discrepancies, and that's what i set to correct through the brown support programme, and later when i took on responsibility, i continued with it. ok. what about a message being sent out to— ok. what about a message being sent out to the _ ok. what about a message being sent out to the postmasters and mistresses? was there a message sent out at _ mistresses? was there a message sent out at that— mistresses? was there a message sent out at that time to say, look, we are beginning to think there may be are beginning to think there may be a problem. — are beginning to think there may be a problem, that there could be a

difficulty— a problem, that there could be a difficulty with shortfalls, and you need _ difficulty with shortfalls, and you need to — difficulty with shortfalls, and you need to be on notice? did anybody provide _ need to be on notice? did anybody provide them with a warning to say there _ provide them with a warning to say there is— provide them with a warning to say there is an — provide them with a warning to say there is an issue? no. jacqueline there is an issue? no. jacqueline falcon there is an issue? firm jacqueline falcon worked as a counter clerk for the post— falcon worked as a counter clerk for the post office branch in northumberland between 2000 and 2015. she got blamed by her employer for a shortfall. this so so embedded in the system that sub—postmasters and mistresses were btaming _ sub—postmasters and mistresses were blaming other people for losses. mrs falk blaming other people for losses. mrs fatk and _ blaming other people for losses. mrs falk and was arrested and charged with fraud — falk and was arrested and charged with fraud. she was handed a three—month prison sentence, suspended for three months. shunned by the _ suspended for three months. shunned by the tocat— suspended for three months. shunned by the local community, barely able to leave _ by the local community, barely able to leave her house, it affected her pregnancy — to leave her house, it affected her pregnancy. she was put on antidepressants during that time, and to— antidepressants during that time, and to this day she still does not

io and to this day she still does not go into— and to this day she still does not go into the — and to this day she still does not go into the post office branch. that was happening to her in 2014, and in february— was happening to her in 2014, and in february 2015 that was when she was arrested _ february 2015 that was when she was arrested. why didn't the post office send out _ arrested. why didn't the post office send out a — arrested. why didn't the post office send out a message to make sure that people _ send out a message to make sure that people were _ send out a message to make sure that people were not being unnecessarily btamed _ people were not being unnecessarily blamed for what might be, what could be a problem within the system? no proof— be a problem within the system? no proof of— be a problem within the system? no proof of it— be a problem within the system? no proof of it at that point of mind, but what — proof of it at that point of mind, but what could be a problem. why wasn't it sent _ but what could be a problem. tarry wasn't it sent out? but what could be a problem. “ltd"fg' wasn't it sent out? the but what could be a problem. “ltd“fg' wasn't it sent out? the message but what could be a problem. “ltd“fy wasn't it sent out? the message we always gave then was if you have an issue, please ring and we will help with getting to the bottom of it. that's what i put in place as part of the branch support programme, and in support services. earlier than that, that level of assistance wasn't available. in that, that level of assistance wasn't available.— that, that level of assistance wasn't available. ., wasn't available. in the high court, and regarding _ wasn't available. in the high court, and regarding the _ wasn't available. in the high court, and regarding the high _ wasn't available. in the high court, and regarding the high court - wasn't available. in the high court, | and regarding the high court action, mr bates _ and regarding the high court action, mr bates and others have stated the

post office _ mr bates and others have stated the post office was trying to outspend ctearty _ post office was trying to outspend clearly and outdistance the claimants. was that the post office strategy? — claimants. was that the post office strate: ? ., claimants. was that the post office strate: ? . ., , claimants. was that the post office strate: ? . , claimants. was that the post office strate. ? ., ., , , , ., strategy? that was my understanding of it. three leading _ strategy? that was my understanding of it. three leading counsel— strategy? that was my understanding of it. three leading counsel were - of it. three leading counsel were instructed. _ of it. three leading counsel were instructed, why _ of it. three leading counsel were instructed, why so _ of it. three leading counsel were instructed, why so many? - of it. three leading counsel were instructed, why so many? sorry, j instructed, why so many? sorry, threem — instructed, why so many? sorry, three... three people at the time. | three... three people at the time. i was three... three people at the time. was aware of three... three people at the time. i was aware of two. mr _ three... three people at the time. i was aware of two. mrjustice - three... three people at the time. i was aware of two. mrjustice fraserj was aware of two. mrjustice fraser said this, paragraph _ was aware of two. mrjustice fraser said this, paragraph 58, _ was aware of two. mrjustice fraser said this, paragraph 58, of- was aware of two. mrjustice fraser said this, paragraph 58, of his - said this, paragraph 58, of his judgments in relation to the horizon judgment. _ judgments in relation to the horizon judgment, overthe numerous hearings and two _ judgment, overthe numerous hearings and two trials, i have conducted, i gained _ and two trials, i have conducted, i gained these distinction the post office _ gained these distinction the post office is— gained these distinction the post office is less committed to speedy resolution— office is less committed to speedy resolution of the entire group action— resolution of the entire group action than the complaints. was that action than the complaints. was that a deliberate strategy being employed by the _ a deliberate strategy being employed by the post office to try and outspend the claimant? not

by the post office to try and outspend the claimant? not that i was aware of- _ outspend the claimant? not that i was aware of. mr _ outspend the claimant? not that i was aware of. mrjustice - outspend the claimant? not that i was aware of. mrjustice fraser i outspend the claimant? not that i i was aware of. mrjustice fraser said from his considerable _ was aware of. mrjustice fraser said from his considerable experience, l was aware of. mrjustice fraser said| from his considerable experience, in relation _ from his considerable experience, in relation to— from his considerable experience, in relation to serious and difficult high— relation to serious and difficult high court actions, even as against other— high court actions, even as against other cases — high court actions, even as against other cases of a similar type, the level— other cases of a similar type, the level and — other cases of a similar type, the level and rate of expenditure in the litigation _ level and rate of expenditure in the litigation was very high. that was a deliberate — litigation was very high. that was a deliberate poll strategy, wasn't it? ididn't— deliberate poll strategy, wasn't it? i didn't think so at the time. one last document... can we go to the bottom half of page two, paragraph four, please. we are tooking _ two, paragraph four, please. we are tooking at— two, paragraph four, please. we are looking at paragraph four. this was a soticitors — looking at paragraph four. this was a solicitors documents requesting instructions on the strategy to be

taken _ instructions on the strategy to be taken. let's look at this before i finish _ taken. let's look at this before i finish four _ taken. let's look at this before i finish. four. the better solution is to try— finish. four. the better solution is to try to— finish. four. the better solution is to try to focus the claimant into a collective — to try to focus the claimant into a collective position where they were either _ collective position where they were either abandoned the claims or seek a settlement. it should be remembered the claims that are financially supported, whose fees are partially conditional on winning, _ are partially conditional on winning, third—party funder and insurers. — winning, third—party funder and insurers, without support these proceedings would not have been possible — proceedings would not have been possible. all three entities will have _ possible. all three entities will have the — possible. all three entities will have the power to pull their support if the _ have the power to pull their support if the merits of the case drop below a certain— if the merits of the case drop below a certain level. our targets audience _ a certain level. our targets audience is therefore the funder and insurers _ audience is therefore the funder and insurers who will adopt a logical assessment of whether they will get assessment of whether they will get a bayout _ assessment of whether they will get a payout rather than the claimants, who may _ a payout rather than the claimants, who may wish to fight on principle regardless of merits. this is bond dicidnson— regardless of merits. this is bond dickinson solicitors asking for instructions to agree with a

strategy— instructions to agree with a strategy to drive the complainant away _ strategy to drive the complainant away from the court because they would _ away from the court because they would not — away from the court because they would not be supported by the insurers — would not be supported by the insurers or the third—party funder is. insurers or the third—party funder is that _ insurers or the third—party funder is that was — insurers or the third—party funder is. that was a strategy mr fraser came _ is. that was a strategy mr fraser came to — is. that was a strategy mr fraser came to a — is. that was a strategy mr fraser came to a conclusion that he could see in— came to a conclusion that he could see in operation. couldn't he, mrs van den— see in operation. couldn't he, mrs van den bogerd? that was the poll strategy. _ van den bogerd? that was the poll strategy, wasn't it? that van den bogerd? that was the poll strategy, wasn't it?— van den bogerd? that was the poll strategy, wasn't it? that wasn't my understanding _ strategy, wasn't it? that wasn't my understanding when _ strategy, wasn't it? that wasn't my understanding when we _ strategy, wasn't it? that wasn't my understanding when we started - strategy, wasn't it? that wasn't my understanding when we started in l strategy, wasn't it? that wasn't my i understanding when we started in the litigation. but clearly that is what was being proposed as we got into it. ., , ., . it. you said in your evidence yesterday — it. you said in your evidence yesterday you _ it. you said in your evidence yesterday you are _ it. you said in your evidence yesterday you are always . it. you said in your evidence i yesterday you are always aware of the public— yesterday you are always aware of the public purse as being something in play. _ the public purse as being something in play. in _ the public purse as being something in play, in relation to the post office. — in play, in relation to the post office, mrs van den bogerd. it is hardly— office, mrs van den bogerd. it is hardly the — office, mrs van den bogerd. it is hardly the action of a company worried — hardly the action of a company worried about the public purse, sub—postmasters money being put into the post— sub—postmasters money being put into the post office by hard work. it is hardly— the post office by hard work. it is hardly expressing any concern about

those _ hardly expressing any concern about those worries, about the public purse. — those worries, about the public burse. to— those worries, about the public purse, to use government money, postmaster_ purse, to use government money, postmaster money to drive them out of the _ postmaster money to drive them out of the court. — postmaster money to drive them out of the court, is it? | postmaster money to drive them out of the court, is it?— of the court, is it? i was always concerned _ of the court, is it? i was always concerned about _ of the court, is it? i was always concerned about taxpayers' i of the court, is it? i was always i concerned about taxpayers' money concerned about taxpayers“ money throughout the course of my time, does a said yesterday one of the reasons i decided to leave was because i was disillusioned because there was more money being spent defending or trying to pay out on the historic shortfall scheme, that was one of the reasons.— the historic shortfall scheme, that was one of the reasons. everyday you are at the court. _ was one of the reasons. everyday you are at the court, sitting _ was one of the reasons. everyday you are at the court, sitting there - are at the court, sitting there supporting the action, were you telling — supporting the action, were you telling the legal team, i'm worried about— telling the legal team, i'm worried about the — telling the legal team, i'm worried about the public voice and how we are driving — about the public voice and how we are driving these poor people into the ground? was that your constant refrain? _ the ground? was that your constant refrain? ., ., , the ground? was that your constant refrain? . ., , ., ., refrain? that was a conversation above me _ refrain? that was a conversation above me rrot — refrain? that was a conversation above me not for— refrain? that was a conversation above me not for me _ refrain? that was a conversation above me not for me to - refrain? that was a conversation above me not for me to have. i refrain? that was a conversation | above me not for me to have. no further questions. i think that conctudes _ further questions. i think that concludes the _ further questions. i think that concludes the questioning. i further questions. i think that| concludes the questioning. so further questions. i think that i concludes the questioning. so first of all. _

concludes the questioning. so first of all. thank— concludes the questioning. so first of all, thank you _ concludes the questioning. so first of all, thank you to _ concludes the questioning. so first of all, thank you to all _ concludes the questioning. so first of all, thank you to all the - of all, thank you to all the representatives _ of all, thank you to all the representatives of- of all, thank you to all the representatives of core i of all, thank you to all the - representatives of core participants who have _ representatives of core participants who have so — representatives of core participants who have so stupidly _ representatives of core participants who have so stupidly abided - representatives of core participants who have so stupidly abided by- who have so stupidly abided by directions _ who have so stupidly abided by directions. thank— who have so stupidly abided by directions. thank you, - who have so stupidly abided by directions. thank you, mrs i who have so stupidly abided by directions. thank you, mrs vanj who have so stupidly abided by- directions. thank you, mrs van den bogerd _ directions. thank you, mrs van den bogerd for— directions. thank you, mrs van den bogerd for making _ directions. thank you, mrs van den bogerd for making a _ directions. thank you, mrs van den bogerd for making a detailed - directions. thank you, mrs van den l bogerd for making a detailed witness statement, _ bogerd for making a detailed witness statement, and — bogerd for making a detailed witness statement, and for— bogerd for making a detailed witness statement, and for answering - bogerd for making a detailed witness statement, and for answering very i statement, and for answering very many— statement, and for answering very many questions _ statement, and for answering very many questions over— statement, and for answering very many questions over two - statement, and for answering very many questions over two days. i statement, and for answering very i many questions over two days. right, tuesday— many questions over two days. right, tuesday mock — many questions over two days. right, tuesday mock tuesday— many questions over two days. right, tuesday mock tuesday at _ many questions over two days. right, tuesday mock tuesday at 945. - many questions over two days. right, tuesday mock tuesday at 945. thank| tuesday mock tuesday at 945. thank you, tuesday mock tuesday at 945. thank you. everyone — tuesday mock tuesday at 945. thank you. everyone you _ tuesday mock tuesday at 945. thank you, everyone you have _ tuesday mock tuesday at 945. thank you, everyone you have been - tuesday mock tuesday at 945. thank. you, everyone you have been watching the former— you, everyone you have been watching the former senior _ you, everyone you have been watching the former senior post _ you, everyone you have been watching the former senior post office _ the former senior post office executive _ the former senior post office executive angela _ the former senior post office executive angela van - the former senior post office executive angela van den i the former senior post office i executive angela van den bogerd being _ executive angela van den bogerd being questioned. _ executive angela van den bogerd being questioned. he _ executive angela van den bogerd being questioned.— being questioned. he is a lawyer representing _ being questioned. he is a lawyer representing a — being questioned. he is a lawyer representing a large _ being questioned. he is a lawyer representing a large number- being questioned. he is a lawyer representing a large number of. being questioned. he is a lawyer. representing a large number of the sub—postmasters and mistresses. she, as you will seem, pay some tough questioning from him. at one point he asked her to cut the corporate speak. a few of the former sub—postmasters at the inquiry have told the bbc they see her as a bit of a question dodger, but her evidence has now concluded, she's

been there for three days. my colleague has been there for both days. i wondered colleague has been there for both days. iwondered if colleague has been there for both days. i wondered if you could give your assessment of that turf questioning she has faced in the last half an hour in the inquiry —— tough questioning. irate last half an hour in the inquiry -- tough questioning.— last half an hour in the inquiry -- tough questioning. we knew today was aroin to be tough questioning. we knew today was going to be a — tough questioning. we knew today was going to be a difficult _ tough questioning. we knew today was going to be a difficult day _ tough questioning. we knew today was going to be a difficult day for _ tough questioning. we knew today was going to be a difficult day for her i going to be a difficult day for her because of the fact it wasn't just the inquiry counsel asking questions, it would be lawyers, personal lawyers for the hundreds of victims who had their lives destroyed by the scandal. we have seenin destroyed by the scandal. we have seen in the past few weeks there questioning is less clinical and far more impassioned, and they didn't hold back today. ed henry, the first lawyerfor hold back today. ed henry, the first lawyer for the victims to ask questions today, dealt accusation at the accusation, plainly accusing her of lying under oath, something she denied. he brought up the fact a high court during thatjudgment in 2019 found that during her witness statement, she had misled the court,

and he asked if they could trust her testimony. he asked her if she did the difference between right and wrong. all of these lawyers have really been trying to drill down exactly what she knew about the issue of remote access, the fact fujitsu employs good access branch accounts rabout sub—postmasters nowin, information not given to them during the investigation and also the wrongful prosecutions and convictions. information that should have been disclosed to the defence teams. they wanted to know whether angela van den bogerd in the briefing note she gave to mps, to the media, in statements she has made under oath knowingly made false statements, something she plainly denied. in fact, there was even one moment where ed henry put it to her that you are letting wrongful conviction stand in for knowledge the it system and the accounts could

be manipulated behind the sub—postmasters“ back. it is the orwellian point, troop is light, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, balancing transactions, not remote access —— truth is light. it was very emotional at times, the kc accusing her, saying it was about the brand of the post office, and down the postmasters was one thing that stood out for me.— that stood out for me. angela van den bogerd _ that stood out for me. angela van den bogerd has _ that stood out for me. angela van den bogerd has admitted - that stood out for me. angela van den bogerd has admitted today i that stood out for me. angela van l den bogerd has admitted today that the communications, the pr was always a consideration in the post office's dealings. this was most evident out right when this inquiry session started today, when the case of martin griffiths was brought up, one of the most devastating stories to come out of the scandal. he was a sub—postmaster who took his own life by stepping in front of a bus in

2013 after his family accuse the post office of hounding him for tens of thousands of pounds. you may remember what the inquiry heard todayis remember what the inquiry heard today is the post office then offered the widow £140,000, but in exchange for confidentiality. she had to sign an nda and then dropping their claim that was live current and that mediation scheme which could have eventually cleared his name, given he had mentioned he was having doubts about the horizon system are believed to could be behind some of the shortfalls he was saying. the inquiry counsel called it a drip feeding of money, so that the widow would stay silent and bake could hush all of this up. you the widow would stay silent and bake could hush all of this up.— could hush all of this up. you been talkin: to could hush all of this up. you been talking to some _ could hush all of this up. you been talking to some of— could hush all of this up. you been talking to some of the _ could hush all of this up. you been| talking to some of the postmasters and mysteries who have been here to hear this evidence. what have they

made of what they've heard —— and mistresses. made of what they've heard -- and mistresses-— made of what they've heard -- and mistresses. one of them said it was a non-apology- _ mistresses. one of them said it was a non-apology- they _ mistresses. one of them said it was a non-apology. they found - mistresses. one of them said it was a non-apology. they found it - a non—apology. they found it difficult when they were hearing about martin griffiths. she said it was the hardest part of the day. yesterday she had to step out twice because of the stress, she said she didn't want to disrupt proceedings. even during those sessions, you heard gasps, you heard the shaking of heads and you heard the word disgusting when they were reading some of the communications from angela van den bogerd this morning, when it had to do with the case of martin griffiths. angela van den bogerd handled a lot of these personal complaints about the horizon system, so it is a difficult experience to come and witness these hearings, but one day been waiting a very long time before. they want these former executives they believe

were responsible for what happened to them, for their lives being destroyed, to have to answer questions. destroyed, to have to answer questions-— destroyed, to have to answer ruestions. ., ., ., questions. you mention the former executive. — questions. you mention the former executive, and _ questions. you mention the former executive, and one _ questions. you mention the former executive, and one brought - questions. you mention the former executive, and one brought up i questions. you mention the former| executive, and one brought up over the last couple of the days is the former ceo paula vennells, she still has to give evidence. she former ceo paula vennells, she still has to give evidence.— has to give evidence. she will be drivin has to give evidence. she will be giving evidence _ has to give evidence. she will be giving evidence across _ has to give evidence. she will be giving evidence across four i has to give evidence. she will be giving evidence across four days | has to give evidence. she will be l giving evidence across four days at the end of may, and it does feel a lot of what we've been hearing from her former colleagues the last few weeks is laying the groundwork for her appearance. weeks is laying the groundwork for herappearance. she, of course, like angela van den bogerd, has made statements to mps, she's made statements to mps, she's made statements to mps, she's made statements to the media, and she's made statements to court. what they want to drill down on is it any other statements were false. paula vennells says she is sorry for what has happened to victims and their family, she said she is cooperating with the inquiry and doesn't want to

make any further statement ahead of it. we do know there were certain lines of questioning opened up in terms of a letter she has written to mps, saying the court has always found in their favour when mps, saying the court has always found in theirfavour when it mps, saying the court has always found in their favour when it has come to the issues with horizon it. that seem to be contradicted by some of the documents we“ve that seem to be contradicted by some of the documents we've seen in the past few weeks. we know that when it came to the communications machine at the post office, she turned to her husband to ask for non—emotive ways to describe bugs in horizon system. she has a lot more she will be questioned on, and these victims be questioned on, and these victims be here. ., ., be questioned on, and these victims be here. ., d y., be questioned on, and these victims be here. ., ~' ,. , be questioned on, and these victims be here. ., d y., , . be here. thank you very much indeed. as ou be here. thank you very much indeed. as you heard. — be here. thank you very much indeed. as you heard, angela _ be here. thank you very much indeed. as you heard, angela van _ be here. thank you very much indeed. as you heard, angela van den - be here. thank you very much indeed. as you heard, angela van den bogerd| as you heard, angela van den bogerd has been giving evidence over the past two days. let“s recap what she has said. she admitted that the post office asked gina griffiths, the wife of martin griffiths, to sign a

nondisclosure agreement alongside the settlement of £140,000 after metre grifters killed himself in 2013 -- mr metre grifters killed himself in 2013 —— mr griffiths. he was accused of having a shortfall. the kc asked her to explain the requests. is of having a shortfall. the kc asked her to explain the requests.- her to explain the requests. is the lona and her to explain the requests. is the long and the _ her to explain the requests. is the long and the short _ her to explain the requests. is the long and the short of _ her to explain the requests. is the long and the short of it _ her to explain the requests. is the long and the short of it you - long and the short of it you procured a settlement of £140,000 payment, which applied to a different type of loss? you ensured there was a nondisclosure agreement attached to that settlement. you agree to the staging of payments to act as an incentive, using money as act as an incentive, using money as a tool to keep the matter hushed up. it was never to keep the matter hushed — it was never to keep the matter

hushed up. any settlement agreement was done _ hushed up. any settlement agreement was done with a nondisclosure agreement. why? that was the way they operated. agreement. why? that was the way they operated-— agreement. why? that was the way they operated. take a step back from they operated. take a step back from the answer of — they operated. take a step back from the answer of an _ they operated. take a step back from the answer of an autonomy. - they operated. take a step back from the answer of an autonomy. why i they operated. take a step back from | the answer of an autonomy. why does the answer of an autonomy. why does the post office always assist for nondisclosure?— the post office always assist for nondisclosure? , ., , ., nondisclosure? because that is how the tied nondisclosure? because that is how they tied of — nondisclosure? because that is how they tied of the _ nondisclosure? because that is how they tied of the agreement. - nondisclosure? because that is how they tied of the agreement. why? | nondisclosure? because that is how they tied of the agreement. why? i | they tied of the agreement. why? i 'ust they tied of the agreement. why? i just accepted it was the standard approach. — just accepted it was the standard approach, and that is how they had always— approach, and that is how they had always operated and still do today, i always operated and still do today, i believe _ always operated and still do today, i believe. is always operated and still do today, i believe. , ., always operated and still do today, ibelieve. , ., ,. always operated and still do today, i believe._ they i i believe. is it like secrecy? they wanted to _ i believe. is it like secrecy? they wanted to settle _ i believe. is it like secrecy? they wanted to settle the _ i believe. is it like secrecy? they wanted to settle the claims i i believe. is it like secrecy? they wanted to settle the claims and l i believe. is it like secrecy? they i wanted to settle the claims and draw a tine _ wanted to settle the claims and draw a tine under— wanted to settle the claims and draw a line under that engagement. i'm talking _ a line under that engagement. i'm talking about in general terms, that was how— talking about in general terms, that was how they always proceeded. the inrui was how they always proceeded. inquiry was was how they always proceeded. t“tre inquiry was later shown an e—mail sent from post office litigator roderick williams to mr van den bogerd, showing it was agreed the £140,000 to martin griffiths“s family would be given in staged

payments to maintain confidentiality.- payments to maintain confidentiality. payments to maintain confidentiali . , , confidentiality. did you see an hind confidentiality. did you see anything unsavoury - confidentiality. did you see anything unsavoury in i confidentiality. did you see | anything unsavoury in using confidentiality. did you see - anything unsavoury in using money confidentiality. did you see _ anything unsavoury in using money as anything unsavoury in using money as a way of ensuring mr griffiths“ case was hushed up? it a way of ensuring mr griffiths' case was hushed op?— a way of ensuring mr griffiths' case was hushed up? it wasn't something i discussed with _ was hushed up? it wasn't something i discussed with gina, _ was hushed up? it wasn't something i discussed with gina, it _ was hushed up? it wasn't something i discussed with gina, it didn't - was hushed up? it wasn't something i discussed with gina, it didn't enter. discussed with gina, it didn't enter my head _ discussed with gina, it didn't enter my head we would be going down that road. my head we would be going down that road this _ my head we would be going down that road. this was the first i heard of it from _ road. this was the first i heard of it from roderick, and the fact he said it _ it from roderick, and the fact he said it was — it from roderick, and the fact he said it was accepted, then i allowed it to continue. 50 said it was accepted, then i allowed it to continue.— it to continue. so you agreed with the idea that _ it to continue. so you agreed with the idea that we _ it to continue. so you agreed with the idea that we should _ it to continue. so you agreed with the idea that we should use i it to continue. so you agreed with the idea that we should use the i it to continue. so you agreed with i the idea that we should use the drip feeding of money to the widow as a means of ensuring that she keeps it hushed up? i means of ensuring that she keeps it hushed u - ? means of ensuring that she keeps it hushed op?— hushed up? i went with what he suggested. _ hushed up? i went with what he suggested. yes. _ hushed up? i went with what he suggested. yes. i— hushed up? i went with what he suggested, yes, i did. - hushed up? i went with what he suggested, yes, i did. do i hushed up? i went with what he suggested, yes, i did. do you i hushed up? i went with what he i suggested, yes, i did. do you see

an hind suggested, yes, i did. do you see anything unsavoury _ suggested, yes, i did. do you see anything unsavoury in _ suggested, yes, i did. do you see anything unsavoury in that? i suggested, yes, i did. do you see anything unsavoury in that? my i anything unsavoury in that? my concern at _ anything unsavoury in that? my concern at the time was facilitating that payment to gina, that was my... i that payment to gina, that was my... i had _ that payment to gina, that was my... i had lots _ that payment to gina, that was my... i had lots of— that payment to gina, that was my... i had lots of conversations to get to that _ i had lots of conversations to get to that point and i had structured it, i to that point and i had structured it. ifett, — to that point and i had structured it. ifett, as— to that point and i had structured it, i felt, as best as i could to give — it, i felt, as best as i could to give her— it, i felt, as best as i could to give her the flexibility to be able to transfer the post office, which is what _ to transfer the post office, which is what she and her mother—in—law wanted _ is what she and her mother—in—law wanted to— is what she and her mother—in—law wanted to do. and give her the option— wanted to do. and give her the option to — wanted to do. and give her the option to be able to consider the outcome — option to be able to consider the outcome of the scheme investigation before _ outcome of the scheme investigation before her— outcome of the scheme investigation before her making a decision going forward _ before her making a decision going forward at — before her making a decision going forward. at that time i felt i had done _ forward. at that time i felt i had done as— forward. at that time i felt i had done as much as i could to facilitate _ done as much as i could to facilitate that, and to help the family— facilitate that, and to help the family financially.— facilitate that, and to help the family financially. canceljason via kc also asked _ family financially. canceljason via kc also asked her _ family financially. canceljason via kc also asked her to _ family financially. canceljason via kc also asked her to explain i family financially. canceljason via kc also asked her to explain the l kc also asked her to explain the post office's reaction when they learned martin griffiths had taken his life. ., learned martin griffiths had taken his life. . .. ., ., , his life. immediate reaction was not, his life. immediate reaction was not. what _ his life. immediate reaction was not. what can — his life. immediate reaction was

not, what can we _ his life. immediate reaction was not, what can we do _ his life. immediate reaction was not, what can we do to - his life. immediate reaction was not, what can we do to help i his life. immediate reaction wasj not, what can we do to help this man's family, was it? not at this point. what about his wife and children, what about his elderly parents, about his sister? should we get somebody down to the hospital, that didn't happen, did it? fiat that didn't happen, did it? not raettin that didn't happen, did it? not getting someone to the hospital. that didn't happen, did it? not i getting someone to the hospital. the first getting someone to the hospital. first thing getting someone to the hospital. t“tre first thing was, let's get a lawyer. that is what is said. is that what it was like, all the bad brand image and reputation? so it was like, all the bad brand image and reputation?— it was like, all the bad brand image and reputation? so my concern here, the first i knew _ and reputation? so my concern here, the first i knew of _ and reputation? so my concern here, the first i knew of this. .. _ and reputation? so my concern here, the first i knew of this. .. it _ and reputation? so my concern here, the first i knew of this. .. it came i the first i knew of this... it came in separately, i think, from the first i knew of this... it came in separately, ithink, from i the first i knew of this... it came in separately, i think, from i think martin's_ in separately, i think, from i think martin's sister. there was a separate _ martin's sister. there was a separate report to glenn of what i heard _ separate report to glenn of what i heard as — separate report to glenn of what i heard as a —

separate report to glenn of what i heard as a traffic incident. we didn't— heard as a traffic incident. we didn't know he had actually deliberately walked in front of the bus at— deliberately walked in front of the bus at that time. there is some more correspondence obviously, because i have said~~~ — correspondence obviously, because i have said... rogerwas correspondence obviously, because i have said... roger was running the crown— have said... roger was running the crown network. the have said. .. roger was running the crown network.— have said... roger was running the crown network. the e-mail says he walked in front _ crown network. the e-mail says he walked in front of _ crown network. the e-mail says he walked in front of a _ crown network. the e-mail says he walked in front of a bus. _ crown network. the e-mail says he walked in front of a bus. sorry, i walked in front of a bus. sorry, something _ walked in front of a bus. sorry, something that _ walked in front of a bus. sorry, something that came _ walked in front of a bus. sorry, something that came in - walked in front of a bus. sorry, i something that came in separately, parallel— something that came in separately, parallel notifications. when i saw this, _ parallel notifications. when i saw this, and — parallel notifications. when i saw this, and i— parallel notifications. when i saw this, and i didn't know martin, this was my— this, and i didn't know martin, this was my first — this, and i didn't know martin, this was my first involvement in it. i was _ was my first involvement in it. i was generally concerned for the family — was generally concerned for the family. which is why i got involved going _ family. which is why i got involved going forward. you family. which is why i got involved going forward-— family. which is why i got involved going forward. you are talking about later, i'm going forward. you are talking about later. i'm asking _ going forward. you are talking about later, i'm asking about _ going forward. you are talking about later, i'm asking about on _ going forward. you are talking about later, i'm asking about on the - going forward. you are talking about later, i'm asking about on the face l later, i'm asking about on the face of the document, the immediate reaction of the post office is. that is the immediate reaction. help us, is the immediate reaction. help us, is that what it was like working in the post office at this time, that the post office at this time, that the first thought was, we need a

media lawyer here? i the first thought was, we need a media lawyer here?— the first thought was, we need a media lawyer here? i don't think it is the first thought. _ media lawyer here? i don't think it is the first thought. it _ media lawyer here? i don't think it is the first thought. it was - is the first thought. it was definitely a consideration in everything we did around the pr and the communications element. counsel edward henry — the communications element. counsel edward henry questioned _ the communications element. counsel edward henry questioned her - the communications element. counsel edward henry questioned her and - edward henry questioned her and asked whether she had been told about a back door into the horizon it system. about a back door into the horizon it s stem. , about a back door into the horizon its stem. , ., ., about a back door into the horizon it s stem. , ., ., ., , it system. they are doing some heavy liftin: , it system. they are doing some heavy lifting. aren't — it system. they are doing some heavy lifting, aren't they? _ it system. they are doing some heavy lifting, aren't they? that _ it system. they are doing some heavy lifting, aren't they? that is _ it system. they are doing some heavy lifting, aren't they? that is my - lifting, aren't they? that is my recollection. are you being dishonest about this now, or where you inexcusably negligent at the time? �* ., , you inexcusably negligent at the time? ., , , ., , time? i'm not being dishonest about it, and had time? i'm not being dishonest about it. and had i — time? i'm not being dishonest about it, and had i seen _ time? i'm not being dishonest about it, and had i seen it, _ time? i'm not being dishonest about it, and had i seen it, i— time? i'm not being dishonest about it, and had i seen it, i would - time? i'm not being dishonest about it, and had i seen it, i would have i it, and had i seen it, iwould have had a _ it, and had i seen it, iwould have had a different outlook on what has come _ had a different outlook on what has come next — had a different outlook on what has come next. but i clearly didn't because — come next. but i clearly didn't because i_ come next. but i clearly didn't because i hadn't read it at the

time — because i hadn't read it at the time. , ., , because i hadn't read it at the time. ,., , .. , because i hadn't read it at the time. , , ., time. right, so let us carry on, lease. time. right, so let us carry on, please- are _ time. right, so let us carry on, please. are you _ time. right, so let us carry on, please. are you accepting - time. right, so let us carry on, please. are you accepting now| time. right, so let us carry on, - please. are you accepting now that you are grossly incompetent to have failed to have either read it or failed to have either read it or fail to appreciate its significance at the time? i fail to appreciate its significance at the time?— fail to appreciate its significance at the time? ., ,, �* ,, at the time? i am saying i've messed thins at the time? i am saying i've messed things over — at the time? i am saying i've messed things over my _ at the time? i am saying i've messed things over my time. _ at the time? i am saying i've messed things over my time. but _ at the time? i am saying i've messed things over my time. but in - at the time? i am saying i've messed things over my time. but in this, - at the time? i am saying i've messed things over my time. but in this, i i things over my time. but in this, i didn't— things over my time. but in this, i didn't see — things over my time. but in this, i didn't see this, and therefore i can't _ didn't see this, and therefore i can't be — didn't see this, and therefore i can't be incompetent if i didn't read _ can't be incompetent if i didn't read it— can't be incompetent if i didn't read it because i wasn't aware of the contents of it.— read it because i wasn't aware of the contents of it. sam steen also questioned _ the contents of it. sam steen also questioned her, _ the contents of it. sam steen also questioned her, about _ the contents of it. sam steen also questioned her, about the - the contents of it. sam steen also | questioned her, about the helpline set up by the post office for the sub—postmasters and mistresses. in sub—postmasters and mistresses. in 2011, the legal team people told you that it 2011, the legal team people told you thatitis 2011, the legal team people told you that it is ok, you can blame postmasters for anything, because they had to pay. is that what you are trying to say? no. what was the

advice from the illegals? what are trying to say? no. what was the advice from the illegals?— advice from the illegals? what i am sa in: is advice from the illegals? what i am saying is the _ advice from the illegals? what i am saying is the policy _ advice from the illegals? what i am saying is the policy approach - advice from the illegals? what i am saying is the policy approach was i saying is the policy approach was approved — saying is the policy approach was approved by the legal team, which was that— approved by the legal team, which was that postmasters were liable under _ was that postmasters were liable under the — was that postmasters were liable under the terms of the contract for errors— under the terms of the contract for errors due — under the terms of the contract for errors due to their negligence... it's errors due to their negligence... it's been — errors due to their negligence... it's been quite some time, but it was set — it's been quite some time, but it was set out _ it's been quite some time, but it was set out in the contract. any dispute — was set out in the contract. any dispute around whether a contract should _ dispute around whether a contract should be — dispute around whether a contract should be terminated on the basis of that or— should be terminated on the basis of that or not _ should be terminated on the basis of that or not would be with the policy advice _ that or not would be with the policy advice from legal team. that is how the policy— advice from legal team. that is how the policy was set out. and notjust in 2011, _ the policy was set out. and notjust in 2011, that's my understanding of how things — in 2011, that's my understanding of how things operated over the years. well, _ how things operated over the years. well, the _ how things operated over the years. well, the term of the contract you referred to yesterday was this, the sub—postmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error. so i've helped you with the wording. that wasn't what was happening at

the post office, was it? you know sub—postmasters who were told to pay up sub—postmasters who were told to pay up irrespective, you know that? it would have been in line of the contract, _ would have been in line of the contract, that was my expectation. hetptine _ contract, that was my expectation. helpline were saying they were tiabte _ helpline were saying they were liable for losses, but that would have _ liable for losses, but that would have been referred to the contract advisor— have been referred to the contract advisor if— have been referred to the contract advisor if it — have been referred to the contract advisor if it needed a further conversation.— advisor if it needed a further conversation. �* ., �* ., conversation. i'm van den bogerd bein: conversation. i'm van den bogerd being questioned _ conversation. i'm van den bogerd being questioned at _ conversation. i'm van den bogerd being questioned at the - conversation. i'm van den bogerd being questioned at the inquiry. l conversation. i'm van den bogerd i being questioned at the inquiry. she has finished giving evidence —— angela van den bogerd. the inquiry is back setting on tuesday. if you want to recap on all the evidence here today, you can do that on the bbc news website. we have a special live page up and running, so you can go back through to read all the evidence given today. stay with us on bbc news.

live from london. this is bbc news. america's top diplomat tells the bbc he's prepared to take steps against china if it continues to support russia's war effort. for china, if it wants to have better relations but only with us, but with countries in europe, it can't do that while at the same time helping to fuel the biggest threat to european security since the end of the cold war. the world's first personalised vaccine for melanoma skin cancer is being tested on british patients — it's been hailed as a potential "gamechanger" for treatment. a former senior post office executive faces questions about the suicide of a sub postmaster who was being pursued for apparent losses at his branch. scotland's first minister humza yousaf weighs up his future — as he faces a vote of no confidence after his power—sharing deal with the greens collapsed and two of the most valuable items ever to be

salvaged from the titanic — which go under the