Post Office lawyer ‘takes no pride’ in working for company following scandal

A lawyer who continues to be employed by the Post Office has told the Horizon IT inquiry he “takes no pride, comfort or confidence” in having worked for the organisation.

Rodric Williams was quizzed for a second day at the probe, where he was pressed on what he knew about the Post Office’s ex-head of security John Scott allegedly shredding minutes from a meeting concerning Horizon bugs.

Mr Williams told the probe he was “truly sorry” for being associated with the “greatest miscarriage of justice we’ve seen”.

I take no pride, comfort or confidence in having worked for an employer that has engaged in conducting the greatest miscarriage of justice that we've seen, or however it has been described

The inquiry also heard the Post Office feared subpostmasters who had been convicted of offences jumping on a “bandwagon” and challenging their convictions if damaging documents surfaced as part of the mediation process.

The words came as part of a 2013 meeting between the Post Office’s in-house and external lawyers, which read: “It was widely agreed that there was likely to be a ‘bandwagon’ approach in relation to defendants challenging their previous convictions.”

Mr Williams, who joined the company in 2012, was also accused of knowing “perfectly well” that the Post Office had “relied on a liar and a perjurer to convict innocent people” following expert evidence provided by leading Horizon engineer Gareth Jenkins in the trial of subpostmistress Seema Misra.

Mrs Misra, who began running a branch in West Byfleet, Surrey, in 2005, was handed a 15-month prison sentence while eight weeks pregnant in November 2010 after being accused of stealing £74,000.

The Post Office received advice from external barrister Simon Clarke in 2013 suggesting an expert witness, Mr Jenkins, and the Post Office had “breached their duties” to the court, and subsequent advice suggested meeting minutes talking about Horizon bugs had been shredded.

Questioned on his views on the wrongful conviction of Mrs Misra, Mr Williams told the inquiry: “I take no pride, comfort or confidence in having worked for an employer that has engaged in conducting the greatest miscarriage of justice that we’ve seen, or however it has been described.

“I don’t know where to go with this – it’s awful that people with convictions had them, and had them for the length of time that they did.

“And for my part in that, I’m truly sorry that I’ve been associated with this. I’m truly sorry for that.”

Chairman Sir Wyn Williams interjected: “I think the point, Mr Williams, is at a moment in time, namely 2014, when on any sensible reading of Mr Clarke’s advice from July 2013, there was a problem about Mr Jenkins’s evidence, the Post Office and you personally appeared to still be asserting to the world that the conviction was safe, amongst other things, because expert evidence had been called and the jury, by inference, must have accepted it.

“Those two things don’t sit very easily together, do they?”

Mr Williams replied: “No, they don’t, sir. No, they don’t.”

Addressing the destruction of meeting minutes in advice given to the organisation, Mr Clarke had written: “An instruction was then given that those emails and minutes should be, and have been, destroyed: the word ‘shredded’ was conveyed to me.”

Counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC asked: “What did you think when you read (it)?”

Mr Williams said: “It’s an extremely serious allegation.”

Mr Beer continued: “Presumably you were quite shocked to read it?”

The Post Office lawyer replied: “Yes.”

Mr Beer later asked: “What steps did you take to ensure that it was investigated in any way whatsoever?”

After the witness said he did not recall, the counsel to the inquiry continued: “Is the answer none?”

Mr Williams said: “I don’t recall, the answer is I don’t recall.”

Mr Beer then said: “Do you think you ought to have taken steps to ensure that the allegations made in Mr Clarke’s advice were investigated in any way whatsoever?”

Mr Williams replied: “I can’t remember what happened at that time 11 years ago – so what I felt needed to be done or should be done I can’t recall now.”

Following an interjection by chairman Sir Wyn Williams urging him to answer the question, Mr Beer continued: “Should the serious or very serious matters raised in Mr Clarke’s advice have been investigated by the Post Office?”

The witness said: “Yes.”

Asked if consideration was given to reporting the matter to the police, Mr Williams said: “I don’t believe so, no.”

Mr Beer continued: “Would you have been concerned if you found out that it was said to be the head of security that had given an instruction to shred documents?”

Mr Williams said: “Yes.”

The Post Office has come under fire since the broadcast of ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office, which put the Horizon scandal under the spotlight.

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

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