Post Office’s Ex-Accounting Chief Under Scrutiny for Failure to Highlight Inaccuracies in Report
Rod Ismay, the former accounting chief for the Post Office, was questioned at the inquiry about his decision not to address discrepancies in his report after it was published. Ismay’s report, released in August 2010, concluded that the accounting system Horizon, provided by Fujitsu, was reliable. However, it was later discovered that hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongfully convicted between 1999 and 2015 due to flaws within the system.
In a December 2010 email exchange, a few months after Ismay’s report was published, evidence was discussed regarding Fujitsu’s ability to remotely access branch accounts. The email also mentioned a problem generated by the system that affected 60 branches and caused a loss or gain to disappear from the system. This information was crucial in undermining the convictions of sub-postmasters.
At the inquiry into the Post Office scandal, Ismay was confronted with the email and told that it contradicted his report. He admitted, “Looking at it now, yes, I can see that undermines my report.” However, he explained that his report was written before this evidence came to light and that he had “other competing priorities” at the time. He also stated that it did not occur to him to revisit the report, given everything else he was dealing with.
Jason Beer KC, a barrister for the inquiry, pointed out that the email was more than just helpful, it was essential. Ismay agreed with this statement. He was also described as the “gatekeeper of the remote access secret” during the inquiry. When asked about this by barrister Flora Page, Ismay rejected the description. He stated that his team was one of the groups approached by Fujitsu when seeking approval for remote access to Post Office branch accounts. However, when pressed further about whether his team specifically gave approval for routine tampering by Fujitsu, Ismay responded, “No, I don’t think so.”
Later in the inquiry, Ismay was asked if he considered his report to be a “feather in his Post Office cap.” He replied that it had been a matter of pride for him to be able to explain why Horizon was reliable at the time.
It was revealed during the inquiry that the “Ismay Report” was put together in just two weeks and did not include an independent investigation. Ismay clarified that his report was not an investigation. Three years later, in July 2013, forensic accountants Second Sight released their first interim report, which highlighted flaws in the Horizon system that caused cash shortfalls. Despite this evidence, four months later, Ismay still maintained that his report “still holds good.”
When asked why he continued to stand by his report despite evidence to the contrary, Ismay cited the numerous things he had going on at the time. He explained, “I hesitate to keep saying I forget things, but even a couple of years onwards, there are so many things going on you don’t remember everything that happened.” He was then asked if he knowingly regarded his report as a “guiding star” despite information emerging that directly undermined it. Ismay responded that he recognized his response sounded bad.
The inquiry will continue on Tuesday with Mark Davies, the former group communications and corporate affairs director at the Post Office, giving his testimony.
