thomas to is an e—mail from penny thomas to her colleagues, including gareth jenkins. it says, tom, gareth, we have two cases running at the moment where expert witnesses required. then she read fares at the bottom to the case you were just talking about. did you have involvement in particular case?— particular case? again from the additional documents _ particular case? again from the additional documents i - particular case? again from the additional documents i was - particular case? again from the - additional documents i was assisting at the first interview, back in 2006 i think come around that time. sol sat in on an interview to assist the lead investigator. find sat in on an interview to assist the lead investigator.— lead investigator. and that lead investigator— lead investigator. and that lead investigator was _ lead investigator. and that lead investigator was lisa _ lead investigator. and that lead investigator was lisa alan? - lead investigator. and that lead| investigator was lisa alan? yes. lead investigator. and that lead - investigator was lisa alan? yes. did ou seak investigator was lisa alan? yes. did you speak to — investigator was lisa alan? yes. did you speak to her— investigator was lisa alan? 1313 did you speak to her about investigator was lisa alan? jazz did you speak to her about similar issues in your two cases, allegations about the horizon

system? obviously, she knew that i had the west byfleet case and we would have just dealt with our own cases, really. i don't think that would have been much cross about where you work with your case, so to speak. but, yes, from this e—mail, you can see that the expert witness bubbly was going to be needed, but you tended to just focus on your own case and you would not really have time or get into too much detail discussing other cases with other investigators. flan discussing other cases with other investigators-_ discussing other cases with other investigators. discussing other cases with other investiuators. ., , ., , ., investigators. can we please look at oll investigators. can we please look at poll 00167138. _ investigators. can we please look at poll 00167138, please? _ investigators. can we please look at poll 00167138, please? around - investigators. can we please look at poll 00167138, please? around the | poll 00167138, please? around the similar time a few days later, if we could scroll down to the bottom, please? the 1st of february. and

thatis please? the 1st of february. and that is an e—mail that is sent to yourself, i think from the fraud risk manager. was he your manager? he was my line manager at some stage. before moving on... he had other roles within the investigation department. iiii other roles within the investigation department-— department. if we scroll down, we can see that _ department. if we scroll down, we can see that at _ department. if we scroll down, we can see that at this _ department. if we scroll down, we can see that at this time, - department. if we scroll down, we can see that at this time, the - department. if we scroll down, we can see that at this time, the 1st l can see that at this time, the 1st of february, 2010, he was the fraud risk manager. with that have been your line manager? ha. risk manager. with that have been your line manager?— risk manager. with that have been your line manager? no. it would have been security — your line manager? no. it would have been security team _ your line manager? no. it would have been security team leader _ your line manager? no. it would have been security team leader if - your line manager? no. it would have been security team leader if he - your line manager? no. it would have been security team leader if he was . been security team leader if he was my manager. that is the title they had. , , ., had. he says in this e-mail, if we could scroll _ had. he says in this e-mail, if we could scroll abbas _ had. he says in this e-mail, if we could scroll abbas likely, - had. he says in this e-mail, if we could scroll abbas likely, we - had. he says in this e-mail, if we could scroll abbas likely, we canl could scroll abbas likely, we can see the title of the e—mail is, another article from the gross out

regarding horizon. i believe that the grocer is a trade journal. it says, this ties in with previous correspondence in that defence teams can and do challenge fujitsu —— horizon in prosecution cases. do you remember that article in the grocer? no, i don't. remember that article in the grocer? no, i don't-— no, i don't. were you aware at this state that no, i don't. were you aware at this stage that defence _ no, i don't. were you aware at this stage that defence teams - no, i don't. were you aware at this stage that defence teams can - stage that defence teams can challenge horizon in prosecution cases other than the case that at that time you were involved in? i think when seema misra's defence team came on the first occasion, they brought an article, i think it was computer weekly, and that sort of alerted me that there was more

challenges to horizon. i don't remember the grocer article. i think it was a computer weekly article. that was 2009, computer weekly. it says, i have been assured previously, david smith, and it seems that is the it director, that our criminal law team are being kept updated regarding questions surrounding horizon integrity. were you aware from conversations with dave smith or from conversations with somebody else that there was a growing number of cases by this stage? growing number of cases by this state? ~ ~ ., , stage? well, i knew there was... i knew that — stage? well, i knew there was... i knew that there _ stage? well, i knew there was... i knew that there was _ stage? well, i knew there was... i knew that there was more - stage? well, i knew there was... i i knew that there was more challenges to horizon but i don't think i spoke

to horizon but i don't think i spoke to dave smith regarding this. as i say, the article in computer weekly had come out, i think, the year before, and later, when i helped the civil litigation, i started before, and later, when i helped the civil litigation, istarted putting a schedule together and that is when i became aware that other investigators also had potential challenges to horizon being mentioned at interview. irate challenges to horizon being mentioned at interview. we will look at that in due _ mentioned at interview. we will look at that in due course, _ mentioned at interview. we will look at that in due course, but _ mentioned at interview. we will look at that in due course, but i - mentioned at interview. we will look at that in due course, but i think- at that in due course, but i think thatis at that in due course, but i think that is at least 2011 at the earliest. as at early 2010, it seems to have been brought to your attention here that there are, it seems, a growing number of cases challenging horizon. what did you do with this information? i

challenging horizon. what did you do with this information?— with this information? i don't recall. if we _ with this information? i don't recall. if we scroll— with this information? i don't recall. if we scroll up, - with this information? i don't recall. if we scroll up, we - with this information? i don't| recall. if we scroll up, we can with this information? i don't - recall. if we scroll up, we can see, ou sent recall. if we scroll up, we can see, you sent it — recall. if we scroll up, we can see, you sent it to _ recall. if we scroll up, we can see, you sent it to counsel— recall. if we scroll up, we can see, you sent it to counsel in _ recall. if we scroll up, we can see, you sent it to counsel in the - recall. if we scroll up, we can see, | you sent it to counsel in the seema misra case, prosecution counsel. what was your understanding of the purpose of that e—mail below? if what was your understanding of the purpose of that e—mail below? iii purpose of that e—mail below? ifi received the article, which i did, i thought that the barrister and solicitor is should be made aware of it. to see whether it should be disclosed or what advice should be fed back to me regarding it. that disclosed or what advice should be fed back to me regarding it. at this state, did fed back to me regarding it. at this stage. did you _ fed back to me regarding it. at this stage, did you have _ fed back to me regarding it. at this stage, did you have any _ fed back to me regarding it. at this stage, did you have any concerns i stage, did you have any concerns about a growing number of cases challenging horizon? ha.

about a growing number of cases challenging horizon?— about a growing number of cases challenging horizon? no. we were alwa s challenging horizon? no. we were always told — challenging horizon? no. we were always told horizon _ challenging horizon? no. we were always told horizon was _ challenging horizon? no. we were always told horizon was robust - challenging horizon? no. we were| always told horizon was robust and fit for purpose, so, no, i didn't. moving to the 11th of march, 2010, can we look at page three, please? at the bottom of page three, we have an e—mailfrom at the bottom of page three, we have an e—mail from yourself to a number of people and you say, following a lengthy hearing yesterday where the defence are claiming abuse of process because they say are not all disclosure has been provided to them, theyjudge has ruled that the trial will not go ahead next week. he is going to review arguments made ljy he is going to review arguments made by the defence and will make a ruling on friday afternoon as to whether a new trial date will be set. if you scroll up, there is an e—mail from yourself to mandy

tolbert, saying, carol cross has asked me to keep you informed in this case. are you able to assist us who carroll cross was? h0. this case. are you able to assist us who carroll cross was?— who carroll cross was? no, i'm sor ,i who carroll cross was? no, i'm sorry. i can't— who carroll cross was? no, i'm sorry, i can't recall— who carroll cross was? no, i'm sorry, i can't recall who - who carroll cross was? no, i'm sorry, i can't recall who she - who carroll cross was? no, i'm i sorry, i can't recall who she was. and mandy tolbert? i sorry, i can't recall who she was. and mandy tolbert?_ sorry, i can't recall who she was. and mandy tolbert? i can't remember. i thou~ht and mandy tolbert? i can't remember. i thought she — and mandy tolbert? i can't remember. i thought she was _ and mandy tolbert? i can't remember. i thought she was something _ and mandy tolbert? i can't remember. i thought she was something to - and mandy tolbert? i can't remember. i thought she was something to do - i thought she was something to do with legal. i i thought she was something to do with le . al. ., i thought she was something to do with leual. . u, i thought she was something to do with le . al. . . ., , with legal. i mean, we can see her sin off. with legal. i mean, we can see her sign off- she _ with legal. i mean, we can see her sign off. she has _ with legal. i mean, we can see her sign off. she has been _ with legal. i mean, we can see her sign off. she has been a _ with legal. i mean, we can see her sign off. she has been a witness i with legal. i mean, we can see her sign off. she has been a witness in this inquiry. a member of the dispute resolution team. i am going to read the e—mail that she sent to you in response. can we pleasejust scroll abbott slightly? she says, thank you for the update, i presume that rob g wilson and janelle singh have also been notified. do you or they have an opinion on the inference that will be drawn if a charge of theft is withdrawn because

of the alleged failure in disclosure? just posing there, what did you understand that to mean? —— just pausing there. was there a concern that dropping theft might look bad? ~ , w, look bad? well, in this case, initiall , look bad? well, in this case, initially, false _ look bad? well, in this case, initially, false accounting - look bad? well, in this case, i initially, false accounting were going to be the charges, and then theft was added to the charge. i was contentjust theft was added to the charge. i was content just to theft was added to the charge. i was contentjust to go with theft was added to the charge. i was content just to go with false accounting in this particular case. what the evidence suggested. and i thought the defendant was going to plead to false accounting. but i don't really know what to say. i don't really know what to say. i don't think i had an opinion. it

don't think i had an opinion. it continues, the only information which the prosecution barrister showed me was a copy of a magazine page which named the number of usual suspects in terms of postmasters with a grievance. did you understand that sentence? i am not sure mr longman has answered yet. i that sentence? i am not sure mr longman has answered yet. i can't remember — longman has answered yet. i can't remember the _ longman has answered yet. i can't remember the grocer _ longman has answered yet. i can't remember the grocer magazine i longman has answered yet. i can't - remember the grocer magazine article in detail, but... that remember the grocer magazine article in detail, but...— in detail, but... that may be the computer _ in detail, but... that may be the computer weekly _ in detail, but... that may be the computer weekly article, - in detail, but... that may be the computer weekly article, it - in detail, but... that may be the computer weekly article, it may| in detail, but... that may be the i computer weekly article, it may be the grocer article, but the usual suspects with a grievance, where you aware who they were? h0. suspects with a grievance, where you aware who they were?— aware who they were? no, i wasn't. were ou aware who they were? no, i wasn't. were you aware _ aware who they were? no, i wasn't. were you aware of _ aware who they were? no, i wasn't. were you aware of a _ aware who they were? no, i wasn't. were you aware of a belief- aware who they were? no, i wasn't. were you aware of a belief within i were you aware of a belief within the business that they were a number

of usual suspects with a grievance? no. i of usual suspects with a grievance? no. . ., ., . of usual suspects with a grievance? no. ., �*, no. i contacted the chairman's office to retrieve _ no. i contacted the chairman's office to retrieve everything i no. i contacted the chairman's| office to retrieve everything we no. i contacted the chairman's - office to retrieve everything we had on these cases. as such, i cannot believe how it can be sustained. your response is above that. it is you responding to mandy tolbert. you say as follows, janelle singh was present at the hearing so he will no doubt inform rob of events. in relation to the disclosure issue, the defence are suggesting we have not reacted quickly enough to providing them fujitsu transaction log data, and it was not until february 2010 that an expert from fujitsu agreed to talk to the defence expert. we will be looking at that in a bit more detail shortly. one of the sticking points in all this was the defence indicated they needed five years of transaction log data, but this would

cost the post office over £15,000. we ask them to be more precise with what transactions specifically they were looking for on horizon and to consider a smaller period of a couple of months. communication from this point on seems to have been misinterpreted by both sides. just stopping there, do you recall costa being an issue with regards to disclosure? —— costs. being an issue with regards to disclosure? -- costs.- disclosure? -- costs. with a transaction _ disclosure? -- costs. with a transaction of _ disclosure? -- costs. with a transaction of data, - disclosure? -- costs. with a transaction of data, i - disclosure? -- costs. with a transaction of data, i think l disclosure? -- costs. with a| transaction of data, i think it disclosure? -- costs. with a - transaction of data, i think it was three years that the defence requested and it was rejected and then i fed it back to the solicitor dealing with this case and i think he spoke to the barrister about trying to get a smaller period of transaction data. the data was refused because it would take up a

lot of our arq quest, we could only have so many per month, and if we needed additional ones, they would be a cost. ., ., ., ., needed additional ones, they would beacost. ., ., ., ., be a cost. you then go on to say, as for the inference _ be a cost. you then go on to say, as for the inference that _ be a cost. you then go on to say, as for the inference that may _ be a cost. you then go on to say, as for the inference that may be - be a cost. you then go on to say, as for the inference that may be drawn | for the inference that may be drawn if the theft charge is staid, i suspect —— suggest you speak directly, although i'm sure the defenceless that will obviously notify the various publications of this and it may well encourage further challenges as to the integrity of horizon, something that my colleagues and i are experiencing in a number of other cases. so it is clear from that stage that you were aware that horizon was being challenged in a number of cases. yes, there were challenges. but i can't recall how many challenges when i sent this e—mail that i was

aware of. when i sent this e-mail that i was aware of. �* , ., , when i sent this e-mail that i was aware of. �* , . , ., aware of. and why was there a concern that _ aware of. and why was there a concern that more _ aware of. and why was there a concern that more challengesl aware of. and why was there a - concern that more challenges would be encouraged if a theft charge was stayed? be encouraged if a theft charge was sta ed? , .., be encouraged if a theft charge was sta ed? , ,., be encouraged if a theft charge was sta ed? , , ., ., stayed? sorry, could you repeat that cuestion? stayed? sorry, could you repeat that question? you _ stayed? sorry, could you repeat that question? you seem _ stayed? sorry, could you repeat that question? you seem in _ stayed? sorry, could you repeat that question? you seem in your- stayed? sorry, could you repeat thatl question? you seem in your response to have been — question? you seem in your response to have been concerned _ question? you seem in your response to have been concerned about - to have been concerned about encouraging further challenges. why is it that dropping a theft charge or staying a theft charge would encourage further challenges? and why would you be concerned about that? i don't know if that is actually my comment or if i have got it from somewhere else. it comment or if i have got it from somewhere else.— comment or if i have got it from somewhere else. it has your name at the bottom- — somewhere else. it has your name at the bottom. yes, _ somewhere else. it has your name at the bottom. yes, i _ somewhere else. it has your name at the bottom. yes, i know... _ somewhere else. it has your name at the bottom. yes, i know... but... - the bottom. yes, i know... but... were you — the bottom. yes, i know... but... were you concerned _ the bottom. yes, i know... but... were you concerned about - the bottom. yes, i know... but... were you concerned about further challenges to the integrity of horizon? ~ , ,

horizon? well... i suppose the answer is _ horizon? well... i suppose the answer is yes. _ horizon? well... i suppose the answer is yes. if... _ horizon? well... i suppose the answer is yes. if... really, - horizon? well... i suppose the answer is yes. if... really, i. horizon? well... i suppose the i answer is yes. if... really, ithink answer is yes. if... really, i think what i was saying there is, it needs to go up to the solicitor for his opinion. to go up to the solicitor for his oinion. ., �* ., ., opinion. you didn't hold back on ”rovidin opinion. you didn't hold back on providing your— opinion. you didn't hold back on providing your own _ opinion. you didn't hold back on providing your own opinion - opinion. you didn't hold back on i providing your own opinion though, did you? providing your own opinion though, did ou? ~ ., providing your own opinion though, did ou? ~ . ., did you? well, i have said that... i 'ust can't did you? well, i have said that... i just can't remember— did you? well, i have said that... i just can't remember writing i did you? well, i have said that... i just can't remember writing that i just can't remember writing that paragraph. what my thinking was when writing that... i'm sorry, i can't... i can't really answer that. just to recap as to where we are by march, by spring 2010, we have seen

that you knew about an issue at callendar sqare branch, you knew about an article in at least the grocer and probably computer weekly as well. , ., , . grocer and probably computer weekly as well-_ you - as well. yes, that is correct. you knew that _ as well. yes, that is correct. you knew that dave _ as well. yes, that is correct. you knew that dave smith _ as well. yes, that is correct. you knew that dave smith and i as well. yes, that is correct. you knew that dave smith and the i knew that dave smith and the criminal law team were aware of questions being raised surrounding horizon integrity. and you and your colleagues seemed to be experiencing challenges to the integrity of horizon. , ., �*, challenges to the integrity of. horizon.— can challenges to the integrity of i horizon.— can we horizon. yes, that's right. can we lease horizon. yes, that's right. can we please look _ horizon. yes, that's right. can we please look at _ horizon. yes, that's right. can we please look at the _ horizon. yes, that's right. can we please look at the next _ horizon. yes, that's right. can we please look at the next poll. i horizon. yes, that's right. can we please look at the next poll. this | please look at the next poll. this is not long after. it is the 14th of june, 2010, and you are dealing with another case. this is the case of miss odl. that is the case you mentioned in your clarification earlier this morning. can we please

look at the bottom of page two. we can see at the bottom, she says that your report says, throughout the interview, she blamed horizon for the losses and refused to make good the losses and refused to make good the audit shortage. if we turn to page five, the bottom of page five, please. you say, in my view, there is nothing —— sufficient evidence to prove that she, her son daniel or her husband have stolen any monies from the post office, although there are admissions that she has been failing to make losses good in the post office since the end of may 2009 and has inflated the monthly branch training account to show a balance. she was unable to offer an

explanation that made any sense as to why multiple cash declarations were made in december 2009. she is adamant that the losses are as a result of discrepancies on horizon but could not suggest exactly what kind of transactions have caused the errors. she has contacted the post office helpline on a number of occasions and inform them of the accumulating losses and that she is inflating the cash on hand to cover the losses. she said that she was very disappointed by the lack of assistance she received. two weeks before the audit was carried out, she had written to her contracts manager and further expressed her concerns over the balancing within the post office. the fact that she raised her difficulties with the post office helpline will, in my view, provide a strong mitigation on her behalf and may lead to some damning questions as to why and audit of the post office was

deferred for nine months after she first raised concerns in early august 2009. and then you say, if charges of false accounting are to be considered, section one of the fraud act would seem most appropriate. and that is the 14th of june, 2010. you say that it would provide strong mitigation. it may also provide a defence, mightn't it? that is correct, yes. find also provide a defence, mightn't it? that is correct, yes.— that is correct, yes. and it is ri . ht to that is correct, yes. and it is right to say. _ that is correct, yes. and it is right to say, in _ that is correct, yes. and it is right to say, in your- that is correct, yes. and it is| right to say, in your analysis, that is correct, yes. and it is i right to say, in your analysis, you could not show that many had actually been stolen from the post office, could you? h0. actually been stolen from the post office, could you?— actually been stolen from the post office, could you? no, and she had not been provided _ office, could you? no, and she had not been provided with _ office, could you? no, and she had| not been provided with transactional data either, which she had requested. data either, which she had requested-_ data either, which she had reuuested. �* , ., , requested. and she had been re ”ortin requested. and she had been reporting to _ requested. and she had been reporting to the _ requested. and she had been reporting to the helpline i requested. and she had been i reporting to the helpline problems with the horizon system.— with the horizon system. that's riuht. so with the horizon system. that's right- so a _ with the horizon system. that's right. so a question _ with the horizon system. that's right. so a question that i with the horizon system. that'sj right. so a question that former lord justice _ right. so a question that former lord justice hooper _ right. so a question that former lord justice hooper raised i

right. so a question that former lord justice hooper raised in i right. so a question that former| lord justice hooper raised in his evidence last week was, why would a victim of a crime... why would somebody tell the victim of a crime, somebody tell the victim of a crime, so the post office in this case, that they were committing criminality and knowing that they would ultimately be liable for that money? was that a consideration that went through your head at all? yes. went through your head at all? yes, it was. i went through your head at all? yes, it was- i seem _ went through your head at all? yes, it was. i seem to _ went through your head at all? yes, it was. i seem to recall— went through your head at all? yes, it was. i seem to recall that - went through your head at all? yes it was. i seem to recall that this was a case where i asked why has it been sent over to the investigation department because 95% of the investigation had already been carried out by the retail line, so the retail line, most of this information, in my report i already knew before i went to interview her, and i don't think this should have ever been an investigation case. i

agree with you, if you are ringing up agree with you, if you are ringing up the helpline as she was and saying, i am up the helpline as she was and saying, iam incurring up the helpline as she was and saying, i am incurring losses, and all the helpline was saying, you have just got to make it good, and she said, i am not going to make it good because i haven't taken the money, there was not much assistance there. but, yes, it was the one case that was allocated to me where i think i did speak to a manager or someone and say, why has this been passed over to us? i can't be 100% sure, but i did have reservations with this case.— sure, but i did have reservations with this case. and that is because there is a real _ with this case. and that is because there is a real possibility _ with this case. and that is because there is a real possibility in i with this case. and that is because there is a real possibility in this i there is a real possibility in this case that it might have been a fault with horizon that was causing the losses. ~ ., , �* with horizon that was causing the losses. ~ . , �* , losses. well, it wasn't tested. transactional _ losses. well, it wasn't tested. transactional data _ losses. well, it wasn't tested. transactional data are - losses. well, it wasn't tested. transactional data are being i losses. well, it wasn't tested. i transactional data are being refused on cost grounds, but looking back on it, yes, this was a case that should

have gone through a process of seeing if there was a fault. most probably it should have gone up to fujitsu for review. i think i said in my statement that i consider fujitsu would be the ones to be able to identify a problem or a fault more than an investigator. you were still at the investigation _ more than an investigator. you were still at the investigation stage, i still at the investigation stage, though. it would have been possible to have carried out more of an investigation at this stage. the suggestion in this paragraph we have been looking at is that it is going to be a difficult case because she has evidence of reporting problems with horizon. is that a fair summary of that paragraph?— of that paragraph? yes. as i say, i was never — of that paragraph? yes. as i say, i was never comfortable _ of that paragraph? yes. as i say, i was never comfortable with i of that paragraph? yes. as i say, i was never comfortable with this i was never comfortable with this case. : , , , was never comfortable with this case. ~ , , , , was never comfortable with this case. , case. and is it because there is a possibility _ case. and is it because there is a possibility that _ case. and is it because there is a possibility that this _ case. and is it because there is a possibility that this may - case. and is it because there is a possibility that this may have i case. and is it because there is a i possibility that this may have been because of a problem with horizon?

well... we will never know because it was never tested. the reason that she... she raised it with the help desk on many occasions and told them what she was doing, obviously created problems going forward. and created problems going forward. and would it have created problems because it is suggestive of a problem with the horizon system? yes. as i say, it should have been... this, to me, is a clear case where there is anything else going on. some of the other cases, some sub—postmasters said they had losses but other things were going on as well. this one is out and out, it is the system. so it should have been

investigated and it would have... it should have been either proven one way or the other whether they were false or bugs with the horizon system at this office. i false or bugs with the horizon system at this office.- false or bugs with the horizon system at this office. i will ask that question _ system at this office. i will ask that question once _ system at this office. i will ask that question once more i system at this office. i will askj that question once more about system at this office. i will ask i that question once more about what this is suggestive of. does it suggest to you that it may have been a problem with horizon?— a problem with horizon? sorry, yes. this is the same _ a problem with horizon? sorry, yes. this is the same case, _ a problem with horizon? sorry, yes. this is the same case, the _ a problem with horizon? sorry, yes. this is the same case, the 6th i a problem with horizon? sorry, yes. this is the same case, the 6th of i this is the same case, the 6th of july, 2010. this is a memo. he says, having read the papers and also having read the papers and also having spoken to yourself, the evidence gives rise to an offence of slowed —— fraud slash false accounting, and he summarises the issues and then he says it is well documented that she had contacted the helpline on a number of

occasions informing them of the losses and also that she had been inflating the cash on hand figure to cover those losses. the defendant had been notifying the helpline of her concerns since august 2000 nine, five months before she was audited in december 2009. five months before she was audited in december2009. i five months before she was audited in december 2009. i understand that two weeks before the audit she had written to a contracts manager highlighting her concerns. the circumstances of the facts will cause difficulties in prosecuting this case and the business will come under great criticism which the defence will exploit, as can be seen in recent prosecution cases. was that a concern that you shared? yes. that a concern that you shared? yes, i would that a concern that you shared? yes, i would say — that a concern that you shared? yes, i would say so- _ that a concern that you shared? yes, i would say so. if _ that a concern that you shared? yes, i would say so. if we _ that a concern that you shared? yes, i would say so. if we go _ that a concern that you shared? yes, i would say so. if we go over- that a concern that you shared? yes, i would say so. if we go over the i i would say so. if we go over the nae, i would say so. if we go over the page. please- — i would say so. if we go over the page, please. fall— i would say so. if we go over the page, please. fall short- i would say so. if we go over the page, please. fall short of- i would say so. if we go over the page, please. fall short of the l page, please. fall short of the £15,000 threshold and therefore this case will not be recovered through

means of compensation. were you aware —— confiscation. were you aware —— confiscation. were you aware whether that was a matter that could be taken into account on whether to prosecute?- whether to prosecute? yes, i think- -- _ whether to prosecute? yes, i think- -- l— whether to prosecute? yes, i think... i think— whether to prosecute? yes, i think... i think it _ whether to prosecute? yes, i think... i think it may- whether to prosecute? yes, i think... i think it may have i whether to prosecute? yes, i i think... i think it may have been that i was asked to investigate this case despite my concerns because she wasn't paying back the money. maybe to have it... have an investigation interview, they would have been more, i don't know, it could have gone through... recovery process. if there was a prosecution. but gone through... recovery process. if there was a prosecution.— there was a prosecution. but was where that _ there was a prosecution. but was where that money _ there was a prosecution. but was where that money could - there was a prosecution. but was where that money could be i where that money could be confiscated relevant to the decision to whether to prosecute or not? h0. to whether to prosecute or not? no, i don't

to whether to prosecute or not? no, i don't think— to whether to prosecute or not? no, i don't think so. _ to whether to prosecute or not? no, i don't think so. he _ to whether to prosecute or not? no, i don't think so. he then _ to whether to prosecute or not? no, i don't think so. he then says, i to whether to prosecute or not? no, i don't think so. he then says, in i i don't think so. he then says, in these circumstances, _ i don't think so. he then says, in these circumstances, my - i don't think so. he then says, in these circumstances, my view i i don't think so. he then says, in these circumstances, my view is| i don't think so. he then says, in i these circumstances, my view is that a caution should be administered in this case and he sets out the terms of the caution. were you aware of whether or not the post office had the ability to issue a caution? yes. the ability to issue a caution? yes, i think it was... — the ability to issue a caution? yes, i think it was... i— the ability to issue a caution? yes, i think it was... i think _ the ability to issue a caution? yes, i think it was... i think i _ the ability to issue a caution? yes, i think it was... i think i was i i think it was... i think i was away. i i think it was... i think i was awa . :, i think it was... i think i was awa . ., ., i think it was... i think i was awa , :, :, :," i think it was... i think i was awa. ., ., ., away. i want to take you back to our away. i want to take you back to your witness _ away. i want to take you back to your witness statement. - away. i want to take you back to your witness statement. am i i away. i want to take you back to i your witness statement. am i right in saying this case therefore did not proceed? abs, in saying this case therefore did not proceed?— in saying this case therefore did not roceed? ~ ., ., , ., in saying this case therefore did not roceed? : ., ., , ., , not proceed? a caution was drawn up and i telephoned _ not proceed? a caution was drawn up and i telephoned her _ not proceed? a caution was drawn up and i telephoned her to _ not proceed? a caution was drawn up and i telephoned her to say _ not proceed? a caution was drawn up and i telephoned her to say i - not proceed? a caution was drawn up and i telephoned her to say i had i and i telephoned her to say i had the caution. she said she wasn't going to sign it and it was just left on file. 50 going to sign it and it was 'ust left on mafi left on file. so the matter proceeded _ left on file. so the matter proceeded no _ left on file. so the matter proceeded no further? i left on file. so the matter. proceeded no further? that's correct. proceeded no further? that's correct- if — proceeded no further? that's correct. if we _ proceeded no further? that's correct. if we go _ proceeded no further? that's correct. if we go back- proceeded no further? that's correct. if we go back to i proceeded no further? that's| correct. if we go back to page proceeded no further? that's i correct. if we go back to page 46 of our correct. if we go back to page 46 of your statement, _

correct. if we go back to page 46 of your statement, paragraph - correct. if we go back to page 46 of your statement, paragraph 97, - correct. if we go back to page 46 of your statement, paragraph 97, it i correct. if we go back to page 46 of your statement, paragraph 97, it is| your statement, paragraph 97, it is a paragraph we have looked at already this morning. hearing from former investigatorjon longman. jon longman was involved in the case of seema misra, who you just saw on your screen. she was wrongly convicted and jailed while pregnant in 2010. he was asked whether he had concerns over challenges to the system. he said he was always told horizon was robust. he also told the inquiry his training did not focus on the horizon it system. you can continue to keep up—to—date with that story. if you want to continue following that story we're streaming the post office inquiry non—stop today on the bbc iplayer. just navigate to the news channel page to see all our available live streams and catch up with the best of bbc news content. watch on your tv, online

or on the iplayer app. you are watching bbc news. live from london, this is bbc news. lord cameron has urges israel to do "as little as possible to escalate" tensions in the middle east — lord cameron has urges israel to do "as little the real need is to refocus back on hamas, back on the hostages, back on getting the aid in, back on getting a pause in the conflict in gaza. meanwhile the un launches a $2.8 billion appealfor aid for the palestinian population

in the gaza strip and occupied west bank. russia's military death toll in ukraine has now passed the 50,000 mark — we have more from a bbc investigation coming up. and heavy rain batters the united arab emirates causing flash flooding, some places recording a year's worth of rain in a single day. welcome to the programme. the uk foreign secretary lord cameron has arrived injerusalem a for talks with israel's leaders about their response to iran's drone and missile attack over the weekend. he's also expected to discuss the continuing humanitarian crisis in gaza. 0ur chief international correspondent lyse doucetjoined us live earlier from jerusalem with the latest. day when ever saw intensifying in

capitals around the world