professionally very surprised that service professionally very surprised that service even existed. we are meant to be service even existed. we are meant to be an service even existed. we are meant to be an it service even existed. we are meant to be an it company, not a prosecution support service and for that to prosecution support service and for that to be prosecution support service and for that to be designed from the very earliest that to be designed from the very earliest stages, i was very, very surprised earliest stages, i was very, very surprised at it. in terms of the work surprised at it. in terms of the work associated with doing it, i have work associated with doing it, i have no work associated with doing it, i have no view on it. i am amazed that it was have no view on it. i am amazed that it was even have no view on it. i am amazed that it was even in have no view on it. i am amazed that it was even in the contract. are have no view on
means before day ten. i have no knowledge as to whether this occurred in this case or not. this confirms that there were indeed communications issues between horizon and the data centre at this time. however, it should have had no impact on data recorded locally within the branch, provided all operational processes are followed correctly. all historical data should have been sent back to the branch from the data centre as normal. i have not had the opportunity to examine the detailed logs from the period to see whether there were any issues or any justification in the claim that this resulted in a apparent system losses of £3000, as claimed. those final words in that final sentence, i have not had the opportunity to examine the detailed logs, do you consider that to be a fair and accurate summary of the position we have seen in those e mails? it accurate summary of the position we have seen in those e-mails?- have seen in those e-mails? it looks that wa , have seen in thos
bottom half of paragraph 182 and into 183. nevertheless, as the post office concedes this was a horizon 0ffice concedes this was a horizon case and the prosecution case was relying on data generated by horizon and yet there was nothing to indicate that any fidgets you audit data was obtained at the time of the criminal proceedings and there was no evidence to cooperate the horizon evidence, issues raised by miss mcdonald were not investigated and there was no proof of actual loss as approved to horizon generated shortage. the post office concedes that her prosecution was unfair but we conclude that the prosecution was an upfront to justice. i would like to look at her interview that can be found at uk gi 0001489. in this case, you were the interviewing officer. are we to assume that the
recall being informed that there might be issues with the transaction i am sure that the ar 0 data was obtained. and the issue is that where it is obtained, there may be a problem with the actual data itself. the data would with the actual data itself. the data would have with the actual data itself. tue: data would have been looked with the actual data itself. tue data would have been looked at to see whether there was duplicate data in there, because the transaction which showed the same, you would have two perfectly. sort of cash withdrawal with the same number and the same number at the same time. and knowing. this is 2010, so quite a bit of time before that plea was accepted. knowing these kinds of issues can arise with even audit data, in her case in the no thomas s case, do you think it was appropriate for the post office to be insisting on conditional pleas on the basis that there was nothing wrong with the system?