This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68875828

The article has changed 32 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 21 Version 22
Post Office latest: Lawyer deeply sorry for sub-postmasters' 'suffering', inquiry hears - BBC News Post Office latest: Lawyer deeply sorry for sub-postmasters' 'suffering', inquiry hears - BBC News
(32 minutes later)
Simon Jack Peter Ruddick
Business editor Business reporter
During questioning of Post Office former general counsel Chris Aujard, the inquiry was shown advice from Post Office barrister Brian Altman KC. When there is a handover in a job there is always a risk that things fall between the cracks. A risk that increases when someone is replacing a person leaving abruptly or under a cloud.
Altman said that even if the Post Office ditched Fujitsu's Gareth Jenkins from future prosecutions as his evidence was "tainted" - there was still a "Jenkins problem" as there was a risk that Jenkins could still influence any new Fujitsu employee evidence. Is that what happened to the so-called Clarke advice? An external legal opinion that the former expert evidence from Gareth Jenkins was "fatally undermined".
This was due to Jenkins not only being senior but he also one of the principal architects of Horizon which was vital to Fujitsu. This morning, we heard Susan Crichton admit she should have done more to raise this advice to the Post Office board. However, there was "a lot going on" with her departure from the organisation.
Horizon was Jenkins' baby and he would defend it either directly - or via a Fujitsu proxy. Her successor Chris Aujard knew about the 'Jenkins problem' from day two in the job. The closest he got to telling the board was a document referring to "associated issues".
Why did he not raise it more strongly? He says he assumed issues pre-dating him were already being resolved.
Is that credible? That is for the inquiry to decide. But it is a reminder that the very everyday issue of job handovers can have a big impact in a scandal like this.
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
ShareView more share optionsShare this postCopy this linkRead more about these links.ShareView more share optionsShare this postCopy this linkRead more about these links.
Copy this linkCopy this link