by The architect of Horizon’s flawed IT system, who gave evidence used to convict postmasters, claimed immunity before agreeing to appear at the public inquiry.
Gareth Jenkins, who is understood to have been involved in the development of the software as a senior computer engineer at Fujitsu, is under police investigation over his role in the Post Office scandal.
His evidence given in court cases that Fujitsu’s IT system was working properly was central to convictions and was repeatedly used by Post Office lawyers.
When The Telegraph tracked him down to his home in Berkshire, Mr Jenkins, 69, when asked if he was sorry for what happened, said: “I don’t want to talk. I have nothing to say to you.”
It cannot be used against him
Mr Jenkins has twice sought a guarantee that any evidence he gives to the inquiry cannot be used against him in any possible prosecution and his evidence has also been delayed twice.
On Tuesday, Paula Vennells, the former Post Office chief executive who presided over the scandal, said she was handing back her CBE and was “deeply saddened by the devastation” of under-postmasters who were prosecuted. wrongly and convicted. It also emerged that in 2017 she was considered for the role of Bishop of London.
Mrs Vennells said in a statement: “I have remained silent until now because I considered it inappropriate to comment publicly while the inquiry is ongoing and before I have given my oral evidence.
“However, I am aware of the calls from sub-postmasters and others to return my CBE. I have listened and confirm that I return my CBE immediately.”
Adam Crozier, Chief Executive of Royal Mail between 2003 and 2010 when he held the Post Office, also issued a statement saying he felt “very sorry for the people whose lives have been ruined by what happened” but declined to comment. to have anything to do with it.
Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader who was the Post Office minister at the time, is now under pressure to hand back his knighthood.
Prosecutions brought by the CPS
The Telegraph can also reveal that the Crown Prosecution service has brought at least 27 prosecutions – apart from the Post Office – raising serious questions about whether Sir Keir Starmer, the Labor leader, oversaw a number of wrongful convictions during his period of five years. as director of public prosecutions between 2008 and 2013.
Mr Jenkins was due to give evidence to the public inquiry twice. But he was adjourned each time including as recently as November 2023, when the Post Office disclosed 3,045 documents the evening before he was due to give evidence. Sources have speculated that the release of the documents was timed to prevent Mr Jenkins from testifying.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed last week that they were investigating “matters relating to Fujitsu Horizon and the Post Office… for possible perjury and perverting the course of justice”.
The Met also announced it was investigating “possible fraud offenses” as a result of the wrongful prosecutions of the sub-postmasters. This includes an allegation that the Post Office supported its profits by recovering money from sub-postmasters who were falsely drawn through the criminal or civil courts.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Jenkins, who was Fujitsu’s chief Horizon architect, told investigators as early as 2012 that Fujitsu could remotely access the IT system designed for the Post Office at its headquarters in Bracknell, Berks. But it would take until 2019 for the Post Office to admit that sub-postmasters’ computer systems could be accessed remotely, blowing a hole in the prosecution’s main argument that the system could not be hacked and that he was safe and sound.
Ian Henderson, director of Second Sight, a forensic accounting firm that first drew attention to the unsafe convictions, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We were able to identify that there were bugs and flaws in the Horizon system. Fujitsu itself revealed this to the Post Office.
“I visited Fujitsu in September 2012 and met the senior technical engineer and had a very detailed meeting looking at how they performed, what the problems were. It was at that meeting that Fujitsu revealed to me that they regularly used remote branch access for troubleshooting purposes.”
The Telegraph was told that Mr Jenkins was the senior engineer who briefed the Second Sight team. Prosecutions were not stopped until 2015.
Forced postponement of documents
Mr Jenkins was due to give evidence to the inquiry on 6 July 2023 but on the eve of his evidence the Post Office produced 5,000 documents which they said had just come to light. The appearance was rescheduled for November 2023 but again the Post Office found more than 3,000 documents, this time days before, forcing the postponement.
Mr Jenkins has twice called for Sir Wyn Williams, the inquiry’s chairman, to ask the Attorney-General to grant him immunity from any comments he makes during evidence to the inquiry being used against him in court law in any future criminal proceedings.
Both times, Sir Wyn refused his request. In October 2023, Sir Wyn said he would not seek a commitment from the Attorney-General “to restrict the use of evidence given to the inquiry in criminal proceedings, as requested by former Fujitsu engineer Gareth Jenkins”.
He added: “I am satisfied that Mr Jenkins has not yet become a victim of injustice and I am determined that he should not be a victim of injustice as the work of the inquiry progresses.”
Politicians demanded that Mr Jenkins be made to testify.
Kevan Jones, Labor MP and member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board said; “Gareth Jenkins should face a public inquiry. The inquiry sees him as a key witness and therefore he should testify. If it is not visible then it should be given to be present. What was remarkable this week was the deafening silence from Fujitsu as a company. They need to come forward and explain what role they played in all of this.”
David Davis, a former Tory cabinet minister who pushed for justice for the sub-postmasters, said: “He should appear and give evidence. I can’t imagine in what world he imagines that he should get immunity since we have to investigate what happened.
“We cannot grant immunity just because people are going to give evidence to the public inquiry. Evidence of his involvement in this case is a necessity.”
