An expert witness instructed by Post Office lawyers for a civil claim reported back that he found significant discrepancies with the Horizon IT system, the public inquiry into the scandal heard today.

Jason Coyne was asked to analyse data from the Cleveleys branch in Lancashire and told the Post Office there were defects with the hardware, software and interface of the system showing balance shortages.

Fujitsu, which had designed the system, disputed Coyne’s report at the time and said he had misunderstood and taken a ‘very one-sided view’ based on incomplete figures.

The statutory inquiry into the Horizon scandal heard today that Post Office pressed ahead despite Coyne’s concerns with a civil claim against sub-postmistress Julie Wolstenholme. The inquiry was not told the outcome of this claim.

Asked for his response to dismissals of his analysis at the time, Coyne said: ‘It is delusional to look at evidence and simply say "that is not correct". I looked at the evidence and said what my opinion was and still remains which was that the system was absolutely flawed.’

Coyne was instructed by Weightman Vizards (now Weightmans) in one of the first civil cases brought by the Post Office against an employee accused of misappropriating money.

The inquiry heard that retail network manager Elaine Tagg reported in October 2003 that problems in the Cleveleys branch were from the ‘misuse and operation’ of the system by Wolstenholme and not problems with Horizon itself.

But Coyne’s analysis of the call logs from the time was that the vast majority of calls to the Horizon helpdesk were about the system itself. He said at the time that it would be difficult to give an opinion without a comparative list of calls from across the Post Office estate, but was told this was not available.

Coyne told the Post Office and Fujitsu that the technology installed was ‘clearly defective’ and the majority of errors could not be attributed to Wolstenholme.

Tagg reported in 2003 that other Post Office branches were not experiencing these types of problems, a statement Coyne reflected now was ‘not fair or accurate’.

‘She clearly would have had knowledge of that particular call and was keeping abreast of what was going on so was fully aware there were technology problems [elsewhere],’ added Coyne.

The inquiry saw an internal email between Post Office managers which discussed Coyne’s evidence but which described errors as ‘normal business’ and said that 17,000 other sub-postmasters and post-mistresses were not having the same problems as at Cleveleys.

Coyne was told by Fujitsu that call logs could not be disclosed to him but the company continued to insist that system errors at Cleveleys were broadly no better or worse than the rest of the Post Office estate. ‘I thought that was quite a bizarre statement,’ he told the inquiry. ‘It appears that the whole estate was suffering huge numbers of problems.’

Coyne added that at one point he was asked by Post Office lawyers if he would be likely to alter his opinion and he replied ‘no’.

The inquiry is due to continue with evidence from Susanne Helliwell, who was a solicitor with Weightman Vizards.

 

This article is now closed for comment.

Topics