Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
A former Post Office executive has denied misleading the High Court over the extent to which she knew about remote access in the Horizon scandal, despite receiving multiple briefings about the issue over five years.
Angela Van Den Bogerd on Thursday told a public inquiry she had not deliberately given false testimony to the court in March 2019 about her knowledge that Horizon software provider Fujitsu could remotely alter Post Office branch transactions data.
She had told the court she had only been made aware of the Japanese company’s remote access powers in the “last year or so”. But Jason Beer KC, counsel to the inquiry, presented Van Den Bogerd with emails dated between 2010 and 2014 that showed she had been informed this was possible.
“At the time I didn’t think so,” Van Den Bogerd said when asked whether she had given false statements in court. “I don’t actually remember receiving these emails . . . I wish I had remembered that information.”
More than 900 sub-postmasters were convicted in cases involving data from Fujitsu’s faulty Horizon IT system following its introduction in 1999, including 700 brought by the Post Office itself.
Van Den Bogerd, who worked at the Post Office between 1985 and 2020 in various roles, apologised to the victims of the scandal. “I am truly sorry for the devastation caused to you, your family and friends,” she said.
The public inquiry is taking evidence from Post Office executives before concluding this summer, while MPs are considering unprecedented legislation to exonerate affected sub-postmasters in England and Wales en masse.
Post Office branch managers successfully argued in the 2019 High Court case that they could not be held solely responsible for any shortfalls because third-party access had been possible, a claim previously denied by the Post Office.
The High Court ruled in the landmark case that several “bugs, errors and defects” had meant there was a “material risk” that Horizon was to blame for the faulty data used in the Post Office prosecutions.
Recent evidence to the inquiry has shown that Post Office executives had multiple opportunities to concede faults existed within the Horizon system, but prioritised preserving the state-owned company’s reputation.
Lord Justice Fraser, the judge in the 2019 case, was critical in his judgment of Van Den Bogerd over her testimony. He found in two instances “she did not give me frank evidence and sought to obfuscate matters, and mislead me”.
Van Den Bogerd was involved in overseeing a “spot-review” of Post Office branches conducted by forensic accountants Second Sight between 2012 and 2013 following complaints by MPs and the campaign group Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance.
The Second Sight review looked into a number of bugs and defects in the Horizon system and concluded in 2013 that some of the faults could be responsible for accounting losses.
Investigators were critical of the Post Office’s handling of sub-postmasters’ complaints, while executives accused them of reaching biased conclusions.
Earlier this week, the inquiry heard that former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells complained that her general counsel had put professional obligations above the company’s interests by failing to control the investigation.
Vennells wrote in a meeting note that Susan Crichton, who served as an in-house lawyer between 2010 and 2013, was “possibly more loyal to her professional conduct requirements”.
Crichton, giving evidence on Tuesday, said Vennells and other executives did not appreciate the nature of the investigation. “I don’t think she understood my point about this having to be an independent review, we can’t manage it or manipulate it,” she said.
