Post Office WhatsApp messages ‘irrelevant’ to Horizon IT inquiry, probe told

The Post Office has not disclosed any staff WhatsApp messages to the Horizon IT inquiry because they have not been deemed to be relevant, the probe has heard.

Chris Jackson, a partner at law firm Burges Salmon which represents the Post Office, told the inquiry it was his understanding that “nobody in the Post Office used WhatsApp to discuss issues of substance”.

In communications with the inquiry’s legal team on Tuesday, Mr Jackson’s firm said the Post Office had not identified any collection of WhatsApp messages “reasonably anticipated to be responsive as substantive” to the inquiry.

When questioned on the approach taken to WhatsApp messages on Friday, Mr Jackson said: “That is our understanding but we are keeping it under test.”

In his witness statement submitted to the probe, Mr Jackson said he understands the “profound mistrust in many quarters” of the Post Office following a litany of disclosure failings throughout the Horizon IT inquiry.

A further disclosure setback in November, in which about 363,000 emails were found on a “legacy” mailing system, resulted in witnesses being delayed.

Mr Jackson apologised on behalf of the Post Office for the latest delay.

In Tuesday’s communications with the inquiry’s legal team about disclosure, the correspondence read: “Post Office wants to ensure that the inquiry is aware of decision Post Office has made relating to the collection of data.

“Accordingly, by way of update, Post Office has not identified … repositories of WhatsApp messages reasonably anticipated to be responsive as substantive evidence to the inquiry’s terms of reference and completed list of issues so has not collected WhatsApp messages from custodians’ eMedia devices.

“Post Office will continue to investigate custodians’ WhatsApp usage and will keep decisions relating to the collection of WhatsApp messages under assessment when considering future requests for documents from the inquiry and in light of knowledge acquired through disclosure and structural review processes.”

Asked to explain what the passage meant, Mr Jackson said: “We have tested whether it would be needed to be done by asking them questions as to … do they use WhatsApp and (what) do they use it for?

“The responses, as I understand it, came back effectively that it is administrative … so not the situation … where people would be having substantive discussions of the kind that are being canvassed in other inquiries at the moment.

“But if that changes, or if we have a reason to believe it changes, then we would revert.”

Jason Beer KC, counsel to the inquiry, asked: “So, if Paula Vennells was intending to attend a meeting and was going to discuss with Angela van den Bogerd beforehand what to say and what not to say, she wouldn’t have used, on your understanding, WhatsApp to do so?”

Mr Jackson said: “Based on the information we’ve had, no she wouldn’t.

“There may have been liaison in terms of who is free on … what date but, as we understand it, not substantively.”

Mr Beer added: “It may be a surprise to a member of the public that nobody in the Post Office used WhatsApp to discuss issues of substance relating to the Horizon system.”

Mr Jackson replied: “That is our understanding but we are keeping it under test.”

In November, Mr Beer said the latest disclosure failing added to a long list of further failings which are “etched” in the minds of the inquiry’s counsel.

Before the latest disclosure failings, the inquiry had been delayed by hard copy documents being found in new Post Office locations and the misuse of search terms in the disclosure exercise.

Another failing which previously delayed the probe was an improper “de-duplication” exercise – meaning relevant emails were not disclosed to the probe.

Other failings have included a failure to consider “families” of documents, not disclosing the names of those blind copied into emails, and the failure to disclose documents held on back-up tapes.

Addressing the disclosure issues in his statement, Mr Jackson said: “The current situation is not one that anyone would wish to see continue.”

He continued: “I am conscious that emerging problems with, and frank updates to the inquiry on, Post Office’s disclosure have been deeply and understandably frustrating to the inquiry, to postmasters and their families … and to those witnesses who have been affected.

“I understand fully the reasons for those reactions and for the profound mistrust in many quarters, which is the starting point for any exchanges on disclosure given the underlying earlier events relating to Horizon that the inquiry is charged to investigate.

“However, I confirm that all my experience acting for Post Office since May 2023 indicates to me that all the professional advisers working for Post Office on the inquiry … are behaving properly and professionally, working intensively and with significant resource, to provide all requested evidence to the inquiry.

“Were it ever to be suggested otherwise, that would be a matter of profound professional concern.”

Mr Beer previously told the inquiry it was “the conduct” of the Post Office that was “standing in our way” of calling witnesses.

He told the probe in November: “This is, of course, the latest in a series of disclosure failings by the Post Office – they may be forgotten to many, they are etched in the memory of those who sit on this side of the room.”

The statutory inquiry, which began in 2021 and is chaired by retired judge Sir Wyn Williams, has previously looked at the human impact of the scandal, the Horizon system rollout and the operating of the system, and is now probing the action taken against subpostmasters.

The inquiry was established to ensure there is a “public summary of the failings which occurred with the Horizon IT system at the Post Office” and subsequently led to the wrongful convictions of subpostmasters.