Post Office inquiry live updates: Angela van den Bogerd 'does not recall' being told IT firm could access accounts - BBC News
Do You Have A TV Licence?
To view live TV on any channel or device and access BBC programmes on iPlayer, it is necessary to have a television license. This is a legal requirement.
Rewritten by Alex Therrien and Fiona Nimoni Blog Post: As you all know, the advent of the internet has revolutionized many aspects of our daily lives, including how we communicate, shop, and access information. However, with all these conveniences come risks, particularly in terms of our privacy and security. Cybercriminals are constantly finding new ways to steal our personal information and use it for fraudulent purposes. Therefore, it is essential to take steps to protect ourselves online. One of the most effective ways to safeguard your online privacy is by using a virtual private network (VPN). VPNs work by encrypting all the data that passes between your device and the internet, helping to prevent hackers and other malicious actors from intercepting and reading your communications. Additionally, many VPNs allow you to surf the internet anonymously by masking your IP address, further increasing your privacy and security. Another important step you can take to protect your online privacy is to be vigilant about the types of information you share online. Avoid sharing personal details such as your name, address, and phone number on social media and other public forums. Furthermore, be wary of any unsolicited emails or messages that ask for your personal information, as these could be phishing attempts designed to steal your data. Ultimately, safeguarding our online privacy requires a combination of technology and common sense. By taking the necessary precautions and staying informed about the latest cyber threats, we can enjoy the benefits of the internet without compromising our security or exposing ourselves to unnecessary risks. Let's take control of our digital lives and protect our privacy.
time, which is based on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) +1 in the summer and UTC +0 in the winter. This is equivalent to British Summer Time (BST) and Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), respectively. The schedule mentioned in this section follows time standards in the United Kingdom. It operates on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) with a difference of one hour during the summer and no difference during the winter. These correspond to what is known as British Summer Time (BST) and Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), respectively.
"Thank You For Joining Our Blog"
We are currently suspending our live reporting on the Post Office probe. Thank you for tuning in.
You have the option to peruse our article on the proceedings of today's trial.
We shall return tomorrow for the second round of Angela van den Bogerd's testimony.
Today's Takeaways
We will soon halt our live reportage of the Post Office investigation. Nevertheless, before we conclude, let us summarise what we learned from today's testimony by Angela van den Bogerd. She had a long career with the Post Office, spanning 35 years and occupying a high-ranking position during the Horizon controversy.
Van Den Bogerd Faces Tough Questioning Day Ahead
We knew that Angela van den Bogerd, a former top executive at the Post Office, would face challenging questions today, and that's exactly what happened.
Amidst the statements of "I cannot remember," certain crucial insights emerged:
During the inquiry, Jason Beer KC, who was an advisor, expressed his disbelief on several occasions when she repeatedly claimed that she had "no involvement" in various aspects. He went as far as asking, "Can you clarify what actions you took?"
It is highly probable that tomorrow will become more challenging as the attorneys representing the sub-postmasters have the opportunity to pose inquiries.
Van Den Bogerd Not Finished Yet
The individual who covers news related to job opportunities is giving an account of the investigation.
Jason Beer, who is the principal lawyer, does not use sarcasm in his questioning; rather, he poses it in a direct manner.
However, later in the day, his tone started to become teasing, which may have been unintentional on his part.
"You didn't have much involvement in various aspects," he stated while Angela van den Bogerd reiterated her lack of participation in a crucial decision made by the Post Office concerning the handling of the Horizon scandal.
He inquired about her activity during that particular moment.
During their breaks, the sub-postmasters have been pondering about the woman whom they hold responsible for their numerous hardships and how she will be brought to justice. They discuss this over cups of tea.
The inquiry has accused her of providing dishonest information concerning her awareness of the remote access problem (which involved Fujitsu accessing sub-postmasters' accounts without their consent).
Jason Beer is still constructing his case. Tomorrow, there may be more clarity regarding the degree of accountability she holds concerning the scandal.
No More Proof Today
Today's presentation of proof has concluded, but Angela van den Bogerd is scheduled to return tomorrow to provide additional testimony.
We will return as well and keep you updated with the important information as it occurs.
Stay tuned as we will provide an examination of her initial day of testimony soon.
"Beer Inquires About Shredding Instructions"
The blog post wonders whether van den Bogerd was informed by someone at the Post Office to get rid of evidence by shredding it and to avoid writing any notes so as to avoid having to reveal information to the court.
Just a quick note, the Post Office has been charged with destroying crucial records that could have challenged its stance that there were no issues with the Horizon IT system.
Van den Bogerd acknowledges that she knew about the "shredding situation" and had previously come across the instructions in the disclosure pack.
"Do you have any information about the shredding issue?" Beer inquires.
According to her, Gail Peacock, her co-worker, had stated that John Scott, who was in charge of security at the Post Office at the time, had issued this directive. She felt a strong sense of doubt upon hearing this information.
She also mentioned that Susan Crichton had stepped in and corrected the situation.
Bogerd Inquires About Tainted Evidence
We've been informed that van den Bogerd and Andrew Parsons have had significant business interactions over the span of several years, and Parsons was the person who received the document we just viewed.
According to her, she didn't talk to him about stopping the use of Jenkins as a witness. Instead, she found out about the problem with Jenkins' proof from the chief lawyer of Post Office, Rodric Williams.
When questioned if she was informed about Jenkins's evidence being questionable, she replied saying she couldn't recall having been told.
Did Van Den Bogerd Seek Advice On Ex-witness?
Beer switches to a different topic and inquires about Gareth Jenkins from Fujitsu, who was removed from Post Office prosecutions.
The written record indicates that Jenkins is not considered a reliable expert witness, and that multiple defendants who have been found guilty should have been informed about the presence of glitches in the Horizon system.
Van den Bogerd wasn't informed about this guidance concerning Jenkins back then.
She is questioned about whether she should have been informed about this guidance and she answers affirmatively.
Additionally, she mentions that safety considerations regarding prosecutions were brought up during the working group's discussions, although she did not receive any thorough information on the matter.
Beer Asks: What Were You Up To?
Beer enquires with van den Bogerd if she had any knowledge of the fact that the Post Office had taken legal action against numerous individuals in the past, referring to the evidence provided by Horizon.
“I wouldn't say a lot, just a few,” she responds, causing Beer to inquire about her perception of the number of individuals that the Post Office had brought to trial during the past thirteen and a half years.
According to her, the only memory she has is that she wasn't paying attention to the number of cases on a national level. She clarified that she was only focused on the cases she personally handled.
In the blog post, Beer notes that van den Bogerd stated multiple times during the day that she wasn't "connected to a lot of things".
He asks, "What were you busy with during that period? You weren't engaged in giving updates, managing technology, or giving details about Horizon to Second Sight. You also weren't working on the investigation of those initial grievances regarding Horizon."
"I was occupied with my regular work responsibilities and was collaborating closely with Second Sight on instant assessments," she stated.
Postmaster's Temptation Accusation Defended By Van Den Bogerd
Beforehand, Beer inquired van den Bogerd regarding three allegations put forth by Vennells in her speech to Members of Parliament:
Beer raised questions with Van den Bogerd regarding her involvement in the creation of the briefing pack. Van den Bogerd was asked why the pack did not include the three claims made by Vennells, which were highlighted by Beer.
Did Vennells and Alice Perkins ever agree to pass on these messages to MPs, Beer inquired.
When asked, she said she could only recall the planned appointments, but was uncertain whether Vennells and Perkins had arranged to converse privately regarding the three propositions.
If anyone had mentioned those issues during the meetings that she attended, van den Bogerd asserted that she would have spoken up in defense of the postmasters and postmistresses. She always viewed them as individuals of high integrity, diligence, and decency who did not intend to deceive or cheat the company.
Van Den Bogerd Quizzed On Work With Simon Baker Over Beer
According to Beer, Van den Bogerd had collaborated "intimately" with Simon Baker, the IT expert of the Post Office, for roughly twelve months on the Second Sight initiative.
"He inquired as to Baker's belief that the priority was to regain control of things under the Post Office's authority and eliminate Second Sight, all without disclosing this plan to you," the speaker questions.
Van den Bogerd claims that she is not aware of the conversation, and emphasizes that it was never discussed with her.
Beer mentions that Second Sight was eventually removed by the Post Office. He questions whether this action was not related to the earlier plan mentioned.
In my opinion, she answered affirmatively.
Denial: Van Den Bogerd Didn't Phase Out Second Sight
The investigation is examining a paper that details a proposal for van den Bogerd to lead the probes, instead of Second Sight.
The document accentuates a statement that assigns the responsibility of leading the investigations to Angela alone. The strategy heavily relies on her.
She claims that she was not involved in the discussions regarding this matter.
It was suggested that the Post Office aimed to manage the procedures and ultimately dominate the results of the inquiry.
According to Van den Bogerd, she did not hold that perspective.
Under pressure, she explains that there were talks about Second Sight's expenses and productivity but the aim was to introduce more support.
She refutes being instructed to gradually cease the use of Second Sight and claims that she was not given any tasks related to it.
Post Office Unable To Investigate Alone, Says Van Den Bogerd
The blog post displays an electronic conversation that took place in August 2013. Simon Baker and Paula Vennells engaged in a discussion regarding the Post Office having the freedom to conduct its own investigations.
When questioned about whether or not the Post Office had the ability to investigate cases against itself, van den Bogerd admits that it does not have that capability.
In simpler terms, Beer mentions Baker's statement about the Post Office taking charge of investigating cases. Beer questions if this was their original plan.
"I didn't see it that way," she states.
She reiterates her earlier statement that she thinks there was a motive to understand the situation in the branches more deeply.
"Van Den Bogerd Inquires About Reviews"
In the blog post, it gives an explanation of how the Second Sight investigation process went down and how the Post Office was involved in it. Van den Bogerd is questioned about whether the Post Office solely examined the transaction logs.
"I don't believe we only focused on spot reviews. Instead, we expanded our reach, particularly when it came to the situation in Lepton," she stated.
Beer inquires if she knew to what extent Fujitsu scrutinized the audit information through spot reviews.
She expresses: "I am unable to declare that I was."
Why Did Susan Crichton Leave? Van Den Bogerd Questioned
Van den Bogerd expressed that he was taken aback by Susan Crichton's departure.
"Why do you reckon she departed?" Beer inquires, highlighting that she had brought Second Sight to the business.
Van den Bogerd believes that Crichton did not feel ashamed for bringing in the forensic accountants at the Post Office. However, she believes that he was conscious of the fact that they were not achieving the desired results as quickly as they had anticipated.
Beer Critic Says Second Sight Is Too Independent
Van den Bogerd is questioned as to why Second Sight was utilized by the Post Office to perform the inquiries.
According to her, she got the feeling that it was cheaper compared to one of the major accounting firms known as the "Big Four."
"Why did the Post Office contemplate replacing Second Sight following its interim report?" Beer inquires.
Van den Bogerd thinks that the reason for it was related to the cost and absence of results.
She was presented with the proposition that the cause was due to Second Sight being "excessively self-governing".
According to her, that wasn't her perspective.
Regarding Susan Crichton, the legal advisor who chose Second Sight and departed from her position in 2013, van den Bogerd clarifies that nobody was holding Crichton responsible for Second Sight and her job was not in jeopardy for being too autonomous, as Beer expressed it.
"Is Damage Control A Top Priority?" Van Den Bogerd Inquired
When questioned about whether the main focus was reducing harm and maintaining a positive image, she responds by saying that she believes the situation isn't quite as dire as that.
"Is safeguarding the brand more important than anything else?" Beer inquires.
Van den Bogerd recounts that she did not have that feeling at that particular moment.
Van Den Bogerd: Briefing Pack Created Collaboratively
The article discusses how Beer presented a memo to Vennells and inquired about van den Bogerd's level of participation in its creation.
"She mentioned not recalling exactly," she stated, including that the briefing's substance was regularly a "team effort."
The blog section later explains about the 'Forward Strategy' that is specified in the record. This plan comprises of a 'Plan A' and a 'Plan B' for implementation.
One strategy, named 'Plan A', proposes convincing James Arbuthnot to delay his scheduled appointment with Second Sight. Alternatively, 'Plan B' advises creating a detailed plan for communication and utilizing various strategies, such as refuting claims and tactics, in order to reduce any potential damage to reputation, if the first plan fails.
Van den Bogerd is questioned by Beer if she was the one who initiated this plan.
She acknowledges being familiar with the plan, but clarifies that she did not lead the effort.
Bogerd Inquires About 'temptation' Again
The proceedings continue following a brief intermission and the subject of discussion remains centered on the gathering with Members of Parliament from 2012.
The investigation is presented with a set of documents called a briefing pack, that outlines certain discussion points for the upcoming gathering.
Beside this, the advisor brings up the transcript of the conversation that took place during the meeting. In the transcript, Vennells comments about the concern of not creating situations that could tempt people.
The briefing pack does not mention anything about temptation. As a result, van den Bogerd is questioned about its origin.
According to her, the briefing material is not supposed to be used as an exact set of instructions, and there could have been conversations she was not included in before the gathering.
She mentions that it was common for someone to deviate from the briefing pack, though.
Postmasters Unaware Of Red Flags, Admits Van Den Bogerd
In the past, the former senior Post Office director was asked if she agrees with the fact that it is not feasible to recognize Horizon system errors just by relying on logs. This was in consideration of the information she has now.
She acknowledged that the postmaster probably didn't have the knowledge to recognize it, and also mentioned that even she wouldn't have been able to identify it back in 2004.
She stated that she depended on a different team to offer the necessary skills, but acknowledged that she was uncertain about their capability to do so.
