A former Post Office chief executive has said he was not “clever” enough to ask what challenges were made to the Horizon IT system during a civil case against a subpostmistress – despite being aware of the potential loss of £1 million.
Speaking at the Horizon IT inquiry on Tuesday, David Mills said he had seen a Post Office “IT risk register” suggesting that the organisation could suffer £1 million worth of financial and reputational damage if it lost a civil case against subpostmistress Julie Wolstenholme.
Ms Wolstenholme ran a branch in Cleveleys, Lancashire, and was pursued for £25,000 through the civil court by the Post Office.
The register, shown to the inquiry on Tuesday, read: “Damage to reputation of Post Office and potential future financial losses if the Post Office loses the court case relating to reliability of Horizon accounting data at Cleveleys Branch Office.”
When asked by the counsel to the inquiry, Sam Stevens, what this statement meant to Mr Mills at the time, the former chief executive responded: “Actually, that meant nothing to me at the time.
“What did catch my eye was that the potential financial loss was £1 million.”
The company later settled the case for around £180,000.
During Ms Wolstenholme’s case, IT expert Jason Coyne was instructed to assess whether the subpostmistress was responsible for the losses at her branch and produced a report in 2003 which said the Horizon system was “clearly defective”.
Mr Stevens asked Mr Mills whether he had asked what the challenge regarding the Horizon system was.
Mr Mills responded: “No.”
Asked why not, the former chief executive said: “I wasn’t that clever. I’m sorry, I didn’t ask about it.”
Mr Mills said he had not “properly assimilated” that reliability of Horizon was in doubt when the organisation settled Ms Wolstenholme’s case.
Mr Stevens continued: “Did it not concern you that an offer of settlement had been made in a case where the reliability of the Horizon IT system was an issue?”
Mr Mills replied: “No because I hadn’t properly assimilated the fact that the reliability of Horizon was in doubt – I hadn’t got that in my mind.
“What I’d got in my mind was £1 million and looking at this email it looked pretty certain to me that we were going to settle for three months’ notice and at the level I was operating at, that seemed the end to that issue.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here