Ex-Post Office Boss Regrets Saying Subpostmasters Had 'Hands In Till'
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 17 years ago on the 12th of April 2007 you were the managing director of the
00:05 post office weren't you? I was. And you probably have no idea what you were
00:10 doing that day I suppose? No, I'm sure not. But Mrs. Janet Skinner who sits to my
00:16 right whom you can see here knows exactly what was happening to her that
00:22 day because on the 12th of April 2007 she was being released from prison
00:28 having served a nine-month sentence for false accounting. She'd been jailed on
00:35 the lie Mr. Cook that Horizon was infallible. But you say you had no idea
00:43 that these prosecutions were being instituted in your name is that right? No
00:48 well I I knew there were there were prosecutions. She pleaded guilty to false
00:53 accounting only because she'd been told that if she did not the post office
00:58 would prosecute and pursue her for theft. She hadn't stolen a penny Mr. Cook. All
01:05 of this was being done in your name and yet you claim you didn't know. I just
01:11 can't be more apologetic. Mrs. Skinner was the mother of two young children
01:18 wrongly accused of theft she was told that if she pleaded to false accounting
01:22 as an alternative to that baseless theft charge she wouldn't go to prison. Now
01:29 this was common practice by the post office charge theft and accept a plea to
01:34 false accounting. Were you aware of that stratagem Mr. Cook? No and in fact worse
01:42 than that I when I had reports about them and the individual had pleaded
01:49 guilty then then I thought we must have been in the right. I did not appreciate
01:54 that what what was going on. So this stratagem was reinforcing your ignorance
02:00 and the general prejudice that these sub postmasters had their hand in the till
02:06 is that right? In the particular cases where the individual pleaded guilty I
02:12 had assumed that that they believed they were guilty. It it didn't occur to me at
02:17 the time that that was a recommended to them by their lawyers. It was the most
02:24 profound structural injustice. I agree. A meritorious charge of theft was being
02:32 used as a jemmy or sledgehammer to force a plea or to crush sub postmasters into
02:39 submission. I don't know if that was a deliberate strategy by the post office
02:43 but that's how it manifested itself and it's unacceptable. It was a strategy and
02:48 you ought to have been aware of that strategy. Do you accept that now not with
02:53 hindsight but what you ought to have known at the time? I did not know that at
02:57 the time. But you ought to have known it at the time Mr. Cook. Yes I do accept I
03:02 ought to have known it. I didn't know it. It would be nothing that I would ever
03:06 willingly want to do. Yes now of course it didn't do Mrs. Skinner any good
03:11 because she was sent to custody all the same. Nine months imprisonment. But before
03:17 she was imprisoned like so many sub postmasters she'd suffered fictional
03:23 horizon shortfalls and had made a hundred and sixteen calls to the National
03:29 Business Support Centre helpline complaining about balancing faults in
03:34 the 18 months before she was dismissed. Wrongly dismissed Mr. Cook. Yeah. Because
03:42 your auditors thought she'd had her hand in the till. Are you proud of presiding
03:50 over that culture? Definitely not. Do you accept that the ultimate responsibility
03:55 for her torment lay with you as managing director of the post office? It did. I was
04:02 I was the managing director so I was ultimately accountable. Whether I was
04:05 aware is another matter and if I wasn't aware I should have been aware. Right.
04:11 But as you have claimed you maintain that you had no idea that these
04:16 prosecutions were actually being instituted in your name. I'd know I well
04:25 nearly correct what I was saying was that I had no idea that the post up until
04:31 the Computer Weekly article that the post office could initiate those without
04:37 having to seek approval from any other party or body. So there was no
04:41 moderating influence. That is what I was not aware of. Now those prosecutions the
04:48 Court of Appeal criminal division stated should never have been brought because
04:52 they were an affront to the conscience of the court. What do you have to say for
04:59 yourself about that sir? Well all I can do is repeat what I said at the beginning
05:04 is I just apologize unreservedly. I I'm not the sort of guy that is malicious or
05:12 would want to do harm to anyone but it was and I was not aware but it that is
05:17 not an excuse. It's an explanation. There's no excuse for the fact that this
05:22 happened and it was on my watch and you know this this is what this inquiry is
05:28 about is to establish how that how that could have happened and I've tried my
05:33 honest best to portray exactly what I recall happening many many years ago and
05:39 but it's not acceptable. It's not acceptable. Finally do you have anything
05:44 by way of a personal direct apology that you would like to say to Mrs. Skinner? I
05:50 would I would love to talk to her afterwards but you may not want to but I
05:55 I I can only apologize on behalf of the whole organization for the way that you
06:02 were treated. It was disgraceful. I can only apologize personally that whilst I
06:10 had not heard of your case I'm I'm nevertheless I I have an accountability
06:16 that I should have been on top of it and I wasn't.
06:21 [BLANK_AUDIO]