Post Office prosecutor ‘advised witness to change testimony’

Barrister told Fujitsu engineer to rephrase parts of a report used to testify against pregnant postmistress

A Post Office prosecutor has been accused of advising a witness to change their testimony in a trial which saw a pregnant postmistress wrongfully jailed.
Seema Misra spent four-and-a-half months in prison after faulty Horizon software incorrectly recorded a £70,000 shortfall at her West Byfleet branch.
Her conviction would not be overturned until 2021.
Yet documents seen by the BBC allegedly show how a Post Office barrister advised a Fujitsu engineer to rephrase parts of a report used to testify against her in the 2010 case.
Draft versions of the report written by Gareth Jenkins, a former chief IT architect at the Japanese firm, appear to show how barrister Warwick Tatford advised him to take a stronger position on certain technical issues raised by an expert witness for Mrs Misra’s defence.
The Metropolitan Police are currently investigating Mr Jenkins for potential perjury.
In his initial draft, dated October 6 2010, Mr Jenkins reportedly wrote that he could not “10 per cent [sic] rule out” “screen calibration issues” causing some problems.
During an earlier hearing of the public inquiry, it was agreed that Mr Jenkins meant to write “100 per cent”.
However, a note by Mr Tatford below this part of the statement read: “Please rephrase. This will be taken as a damaging concession.”
In the final written testimony, Mr Jenkins wrote “no scenario has been presented” that could explain losses because of poorly calibrated touch screens, according to the broadcaster.
The Telegraph understands that the different versions of the statement were first shown when Mr Tatford was questioned on them at the public inquiry in November last year.
Expert witnesses who produce reports for use in trials must be independent and unbiased, according to Criminal Procedural Rules, which set out how courts in England and Wales operate.
The BBC also reported that Mr Tatford had advised Mr Jenkins to use “stronger wording” when Mr Jenkins said elsewhere in his draft that “there doesn’t appear to be a thorough justification” for a list of “hypothetical” Horizon issues raised by the defence team’s IT expert.
Mr Tatford wrote: “There doesn’t appear to be any evidential bases for the hypotheses at all.”
In his final report, Mr Jenkins added a line to say: “I can see no evidence to support these hypotheses.”
When giving evidence about some of the changes at the Post Office inquiry last year, Mr Tatford apologised for mistakes in his approach.
The inquiry heard that the changes to Mr Jenkins’ expert report were not disclosed to the defence.
When asked at the inquiry whether he felt it was unfair that Mrs Misra’s defence team was denied the opportunity to “explore with Mr Jenkins how it was written”, Mr Tatford told the inquiry: “No, I think it is unfair and I’m sorry for that. I can – I think what I was doing was just trying to clarify matters and make things clear but I do agree that I’ve overstepped the mark there.”
However, he told the inquiry that he had not been trying to “materially” alter the content of Mr Jenkins’ evidence.
In a statement to The Telegraph, Mr Tatford said how he had said he was sorry Mrs Misra had not received a fair trial and that he had played an “unwitting role in [the trial]”.
“I offered an unreserved apology to her when I gave evidence [at the inquiry],” he added.
He described how he had submitted a 61-page witness statement to the Inquiry and had answered “in good faith all the questions” put to him.
He added: “It is important my evidence is considered in its entirety and not quoted selectively or taken out of context.
“It would clearly be inappropriate for me to comment further whilst the inquiry is ongoing and witnesses are still to be questioned.”
A statement released the Bar Standards Board, who regulate barristers, two months after Mr Tatford gave evidence, read: “We do not consider the evidence presented at the inquiry so far, or the evidence we have received direct, indicates that any members of the bar present an ongoing risk to the public that requires the BSB to act immediately.
“However, should such evidence emerge then we would consider taking more immediate regulatory action.”
When approached by The Telegraph, a lawyer from the firm representing Mr Jenkins said that as their client would be giving evidence to the inquiry in June, it would be inappropriate for him or his lawyers to comment at this time.
A Post Office spokesman said: “The Horizon IT Inquiry is a statutory, judge-led inquiry set up to establish what happened and to question witnesses under oath. It’s for the inquiry to reach its own independent conclusions after consideration of all the evidence on the issues it is examining.
“[The] Post Office fully supports this process and it would be inappropriate to comment on related issues outside of the inquiry.”A Post Office prosecutor has been accused of advising a witness to change their testimony in a trial which saw a pregnant postmistress wrongfully jailed.
Seema Misra spent four-and-a-half months in prison after faulty Horizon software incorrectly recorded a £70,000 shortfall at her West Byfleet branch.
Her conviction would not be overturned until 2021.
Yet documents seen by the BBC allegedly show how a Post Office barrister advised a Fujitsu engineer to rephrase parts of a report used to testify against her in the 2010 case.
Draft versions of the report written by Gareth Jenkins, a former chief IT architect at the Japanese firm, appear to show how barrister Warwick Tatford advised him to take a stronger position on certain technical issues raised by an expert witness for Mrs Misra’s defence.
The Metropolitan Police are currently investigating Mr Jenkins for potential perjury.
In his initial draft, dated October 6 2010, Mr Jenkins reportedly wrote that he could not “10 per cent [sic] rule out” “screen calibration issues” causing some problems.
During an earlier hearing of the public inquiry, it was agreed that Mr Jenkins meant to write “100 per cent”.
However, a note by Mr Tatford below this part of the statement read: “Please rephrase. This will be taken as a damaging concession.”
In the final written testimony, Mr Jenkins wrote “no scenario has been presented” that could explain losses because of poorly calibrated touch screens, according to the broadcaster.
The Telegraph understands that the different versions of the statement were first shown when Mr Tatford was questioned on them at the public inquiry in November last year.
Expert witnesses who produce reports for use in trials must be independent and unbiased, according to Criminal Procedural Rules, which set out how courts in England and Wales operate.
The BBC also reported that Mr Tatford had advised Mr Jenkins to use “stronger wording” when Mr Jenkins said elsewhere in his draft that “there doesn’t appear to be a thorough justification” for a list of “hypothetical” Horizon issues raised by the defence team’s IT expert.
Mr Tatford wrote: “There doesn’t appear to be any evidential bases for the hypotheses at all.”
In his final report, Mr Jenkins added a line to say: “I can see no evidence to support these hypotheses.”
When giving evidence about some of the changes at the Post Office inquiry last year, Mr Tatford apologised for mistakes in his approach.
The inquiry heard that the changes to Mr Jenkins’ expert report were not disclosed to the defence.
When asked at the inquiry whether he felt it was unfair that Mrs Misra’s defence team was denied the opportunity to “explore with Mr Jenkins how it was written”, Mr Tatford told the inquiry: “No, I think it is unfair and I’m sorry for that. I can – I think what I was doing was just trying to clarify matters and make things clear but I do agree that I’ve overstepped the mark there.”
However, he told the inquiry that he had been trying to “materially” alter the content of Mr Jenkins’ evidence.
In a statement to The Telegraph, Mr Tatford said how he had said he was sorry Mrs Misra had not received a fair trial and that he had played an “unwitting role in [the trial]”.
“I offered an unreserved apology to her when I gave evidence [at the inquiry],” he added.
He described how he had submitted a 61-page witness statement to the Inquiry and had answered “in good faith all the questions” put to him.
He added: “It is important my evidence is considered in its entirety and not quoted selectively or taken out of context.
“It would clearly be inappropriate for me to comment further whilst the inquiry is ongoing and witnesses are still to be questioned.”
Seema Misra pleaded guilty to six counts of false accounting and was found guilty of theft following a Crown Court trial.
Speaking of how she felt watching Mr Tatford give evidence to the inquiry, she told The Telegraph: “Of course it was wrong what he did, he was putting words in Mr Jenkins’ mouth.
“Had he not done that, maybe there could have been a different outcome.”
However, she said she accepted Mr Tatford’s apology, adding: “I was there and I could tell he meant what he said, I believe he has a good heart.”
A statement released the Bar Standards Board, which regulate barristers, two months after Mr Tatford gave evidence, read: “We do not consider the evidence presented at the inquiry so far, or the evidence we have received direct, indicates that any members of the bar present an ongoing risk to the public that requires the BSB to act immediately.
“However, should such evidence emerge then we would consider taking more immediate regulatory action.”
When approached by The Telegraph, a lawyer from the firm representing Mr Jenkins said that as their client would be giving evidence to the inquiry in June, it would be inappropriate for him or his lawyers to comment at this time.
A Post Office spokesman said: “The Horizon IT Inquiry is a statutory, judge-led inquiry set up to establish what happened and to question witnesses under oath. It’s for the inquiry to reach its own independent conclusions after consideration of all the evidence on the issues it is examining.
“[The] Post Office fully supports this process and it would be inappropriate to comment on related issues outside of the inquiry.”