The Post Office’s former chief executive, Paula Vennells, suggested to her colleagues to refer to computer bugs as “exceptions” in an attempt to address mounting complaints from sub-postmasters about the faulty Horizon IT system, according to evidence heard at the inquiry into the Post Office scandal. Vennells had sought advice from her husband on a “non-emotive” way to describe computer problems amidst concerns within the company about negative publicity surrounding the prosecution of sub-postmasters accused of theft.
Between 1999 and 2015, over 700 Post Office managers were prosecuted after the accounting software provided by Fujitsu falsely indicated missing money. At the time, the company maintained that its systems were reliable. However, on Tuesday, evidence was presented from the Post Office’s former lead in-house lawyer, Susan Crichton, who was questioned about a series of emails exchanged among senior figures.
One such email, sent by Vennells in July 2013, read: “My engineer/computer literate husband sent the following reply to the question: ‘What is a non-emotive word for computer bugs, glitches, defects that happen as a matter of course?’ Answer: ‘Exception or anomaly. You can also say conditional exception/anomaly which only manifests itself under unforeseen circumstances xx'”. The Post Office’s director of communications at the time, Mark Davies, responded by saying, “I like exception v much. Very helpful”. This exchange led to a shift in the Post Office’s language, with emails and documents now referring to computer problems as “exceptions” and “anomalies”. This terminology was also used in a briefing document written by Crichton and a briefing note to Members of Parliament.
During her questioning, Crichton was asked by Julian Blake, counsel to the inquiry, if there was an element of “smoke and mirrors” behind the use of “exception” instead of “bug”. She responded by saying, “It certainly reads that way”. Blake further described the use of “exception” as “absolutely Orwellian”.
The inquiry also revealed correspondence between senior figures discussing the launch of a review into alleged cases of theft. An email from Crichton in June 2012 showed her opposition to a full independent investigation into sub-postmasters who had already been convicted. She wrote, “I do not think that we want to be seen as re-opening cases but rather position this as a review of the existing evidence to enable an understanding of the outstanding concerns and the facts… For those who have not been prosecuted we can offer a full independent investigation”.
Upon being questioned by Blake, Crichton admitted that her stance had been a “mistake on her part”. She also acknowledged that she had “tried to stop prosecutions reliant on Horizon evidence”. However, she left her role as the company’s general counsel in late 2013 after former Post Office chair Alice Perkins had lost confidence in her.
At the start of her testimony, Crichton offered an apology to those affected by the scandal. “I am truly sorry for the suffering caused to you and your families. I wish that things had been resolved more quickly and again, I’m very sorry that they haven’t been,” she said.
The inquiry into the Post Office scandal continues.
