Jarnail Singh’s second appearance before the Post Office Inquiry. Well, what was that?
I am not sure.
He avoided questions, answered different questions, anticipated questions with denials, waffled, said, it was Hugh Flemington, or the other one after he left, or Chris Aujard, or Ms Crichton, or Simon Clarke or the Company Secretary or sometimes simply a mysterious figure.
The Decision Maker.
And whoever the Decision Maker was, it wasn’t Jarnail Singh.
Most often it was Rob Wilson, who, “reassured me “I’m there in the background as and when you need me, I’m the decision maker, as and when you need something, come to me and I will deal with it”. So that’s nice. A caring boss, who’s got your back.
But whatever it was it was extraordinary. Gold. Fools Gold. Hilarious but also enraging. This man had a hand in ruining lives. This man sent the email crowing about destroying the defence in Seema Misra’s case. The destruction that sent her to jail, eight weeks pregnant. It was a session full of blundering misery.
There was a tiny hint of despair in Susan Crichton’s saying, when she gave evidence, that Royal Mail Group just told them who was transferring across when Post office split from RMG. They got Jarnail Singh. This despair was magnified a million times whenever Jason Beer tried to get Mr Singh to focus on the actual words of his actual questions. It was crazy. Pathetic. And, occasionally, it was revelatory.
It’s worth saying that the most widely reported bit of his testimony was probably not as revelatory as it appeared.
It was about the killer document he wanted to deny ever having clapped eyes on. To prove he had dealt with it, it was suggested he might have saved it to his own hard drive. More likely it saved automatically when it was printed. Mr Singh denied knowing how to save that document because he did not know how to save documents or, more pertinently, print them.
Or, one might reasonably speculate, read them with any accuracy or insight.
To understand this bit of the story we must step back a little. He did not know about two of the three bugs that Second Sight had mentioned in their interim report in July 2013. He had said then it was news to him. He denied covering them up.
He is taken to an email he wrote in January 2015 which shows he understood the problems they had faced quite well (notice how central Gareth Jenkins is) but that he had (said he) never knew about the bugs:
These were certainly not known to me at [Post Office] Legal until day or so prior to the publication of the Second Sight Interim Report. The difficulty here is made worse by the fact that Gareth Jenkins, an employee of Fujitsu has been making statements for use in criminal proceedings which made no reference to the very bugs which he it is understood he told Second Sight about. People were prosecuted and pleaded guilty following the receipt of his statement which implied no bugs had been found. Of course it would be highly embarrassing for [the Post Office] were it to be suggested that Fujitsu had informed some part [the Post Office] and that information never reached the Security Team. Equally it is embarrassing were it to be suggested [that the Post Office] were kept in the dark by such an important supplier such as Fujitsu. It follows [that] these are very difficult topics from a criminal law perspective.”
Mr Singh, apparently more confident on embarrassment than on criminal law, said he wasn’t part of any cover up, all the work which Counsel wanted to cast aspersion on seemed to be,
dealt with by Head of Legal, General Counsel and working groups. A lot of this information is obtained from the advices and also discussions with the expert criminal agents, Cartwright King. This isn’t something I formulated myself because I wouldn’t have the experience or the knowledge of dealing with it. Even my experience at the Royal Mail Group Criminal Law Team was very, very limited.
When things got particularly tricky, he said they would not have relied on him for advice. He implies he told his employers, “I can’t deal with it because you really need somebody who was on the ball in this matter.”
If I can be both sarcastic and straightforward in the same breath: It was hard not to disagree.
When he was asked whether he investigated how early Post Office had become aware of the two unknown bugs Second Sight revealed. He says he was told “Look, we’ve got people on to it already”. A chink of truth amidst all the bilge? Who knows, but he recalls a little later:
I was told, “Let’s have a look, Jarnail, what you need to do is we’ve got people who have got a lot of information who are involved in it who are dealing with it and, as and when we need you to do something, you provide that”, and that is to update Cartwright King via the Company Secretary and also to provide information with regard to the Misra case, which I did.
Later on he mentions, “my role, as far as my line manager was concerned, was to keep an eye on things and, as and when he required any information, input or specific advice, he will come to me.”
I mentioned here, although they may not be linked, a suggestion in other evidence that Mr Singh may have been short of things to do.
But of course, the information that he said would embarrass Post Office in 2013 had been sent to him in 2010. In the lead up to his being confronted with this, Counsel toys with him.
“Therefore it would have been embarrassing?” he teases.
“Well, it’s embarrassing being here,” replies Mr Singh.
Of the crucial email, alerting Post Office of an undisclosed bug, on the Friday before Seema Misra’s Monday trial in 2010 Mr Singh says initially, he can’t recall it. Rob Wilson forwarded it to him by email having apparently discussed it with him at a meeting. “FYI”, the email says.
Strangely, saying he can’t recall the email, he avoids the question of whether he disclosed the bugs which were not disclosed.
Q. You must know –
A. The –
Q. — there was no disclosure.
A. Well, as I said to you, the — my knowledge in this area is very limited.
The report in that email refers, amongst other things, to money, “disappearing at branch level and balances are shown that are incorrect”. It also says, “It appears that when posting discrepancies to the local suspense, these amounts simply disappear at branch level and a balance is shown.”
He says, “If I even received it, I wouldn’t understand it, to be honest, it would be something I would expect somebody with knowledge and expertise, like Mr Wilson, who is the contact within the business, to not send it the way he has, “FYI”, because it doesn’t mean anything to me because he knew my knowledge about these things was very limited.”
And at the end of that particular section, Mr Beer says,
Q. You’re not really a details man, are you?
A. Well, I don’t know what you mean…
To be fair to Mr Singh, the fact that the incriminating document was printed nine minutes after it was sent to him looks really bad, but we can’t be totally sure he printed it or read it. By way of exculpation he suggests if he had read it he would have dealt with it,
every single document in that case was new to me and I was very careful and very cautious. I had Mr Longman, Mr Tatford, even Mr Jenkins onto it, Mr Wilson, because I didn’t feel comfortable. And, “I think there was a number of occasions when I said to Mr Wilson, “Rob, you need to take this case on. I just can’t cope with it”, because, you know, it was — everything was so new and I was so careful and methodical with it because I knew, you know, that somebody’s — somebody’s — you know, I didn’t want to get anything wrong on it.
And looking back on it this does look rather strange. The first full frontal attack on Horizon and they give it to Mr Singh. If his competence was anything like it is now, this was a decision of reckless something or other. Reckless FYIing perhaps.
Beer: “All of this, “If I received it, if I read it”, is a big fat lie, isn’t it?
A. No, sir —
Q. And you know it, Mr Singh.
A. Sir, I didn’t come here to lie. I’m at an age where I’ve come to assist the Inquiry and that’s all.
Helpful or not (mainly not, let’s be frank) I can’t be sure he didn’t actually come as an elaborate piece of performance art. It was crazy, crazy, crazy strange. There was the Dadaesque,
“You called me a letterbox. That’s a compliment to me because that’s the way I work.”
And the Jarnail Singh equivalent of everyone else’s I cannot specifically recall:
A. What’s the — I don’t — I don’t know. I mean, I’m not involved in — I’m not a decision maker. I don’t make the decisions as to what goes on. I don’t know what you’re suggesting or what you want me to answer. What is your question? I mean, I don’t understand it.
Suddenly all those other lawyers irritating the hell out of counsel were beautifully concise.
On bugs, and the instruction of Mr Jenkins, and all the stuff he was apparently involved in covering up (according to Mr Beer), he could remember nothing of but he did remember more on the shredding episode.
He said Dave Posnett said John Scott had instructed him that minutes of the weekly calls should be scrapped and/or shredded. And he did something positive. I know! He told Dave Posnett “very clearly that he must not do that and he should tell John Scott the same”. He, “recognised that this was a serious issue and I called Martin Smith” at Cartwright King. And he believes Martin recorded “an accurate note.”
He didn’t write it down himself. He passed a message on. Post box thinking, post box acting.
And he believes he also “spoke with Hugh Flemington about this but this might not have been on the same day.” Of Mr Posnett he says. “I don’t know, I probably swore at him.” Crikey. “I was thinking about leaving, it was that serious.”
I am trying not to think about what the leaving party would have been like.
But then we return to the mire. The instruction might have come from or been influenced by Bond Dickinson. Andrew Parsons. He doesn’t, “know whether Mr Scott was confronted.” Interestingly, he says he was asked, “Why didn’t you come to us first?” He suggests this may have been Susan Crichton. His memory becomes clearer, “Susan spoke to me and said, “Well, look why didn’t you come to us first, rather than going to Cartwright King”?”
And Beer sees a little opportunity:
Q. Was it so scary that, to your knowledge, the CCRC were told about it?
A. I think they were involved in it.
…
Q. So, to your knowledge, this issue was not raised with the CCRC?
A. I — not to my knowledge, no
Towards the end of the hearing Mr Singh is taken to his reasons for resisting the disclosure of an investigators report on Jo Hamilton’s case during the mediation. That report refers to having been “unable to find any evidence of theft or cash in hand figures being deliberately inflated.” Yet Jo Hamilton was charged with theft and false accounting.
When taken to this he appears to deny having read the report even though has quoted sentences from it in an email explaining why he thinks it should not be disclosed.
Genius.
It is put to him:
Q. You knew that Investigating Officer’s report contained that sentence, didn’t you?
A. I don’t recall.
The Chair intervenes.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Singh you couldn’t have written that unless you knew about it, could you?
A. Oh, no, I knew about it —
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I think that’s all Mr Beer was asking you to confirm –
…
Mr Beer: You’re giving that as a reason not to disclose Investigating Officer’s reports, aren’t you? That’s the way you’re deploying that.
….
Q. You’re saying “We can’t [dis]close these reports, if we did, Jo Hamilton might ask, ‘Why was I prosecuted?'”
A. Not at all. No, I disagree. That’s not the case.
Q. What about the sentence “This would give the applicant every opportunity to ask why, in fact, Hamilton was prosecuted”?
A. No, I — No. That wasn’t the intention no.
Q. Why did you type those words?
A. I can’t explain that now.
And a little later….
A. Okay, I accept, maybe my mistake, I shouldn’t have gone in there but that wasn’t what this is about.
Q. This is part of a cover-up –
A. No.
Q. — isn’t it?
A. There is no cover-up.
There’s also a section on Post Office trying to find an expert to replace, where we have this little exchange:
Paragraph 2, you say: “It is intended to instruct the expert to prepare the report in accordance with the scope … with the proviso that they immediately notify [Cartwright King] of anything which will cause [the Post Office] concern. It will enable the process to be terminated without full costs being incurred.”
Was it your intention that, if the expert discovered something of concern, about Horizon, their appointment would be terminated?
A. No, no, no. I think there was a concern about cost and scope, and –
Q. This isn’t about scope.
…
Q. Is the true answer to that because the words that you used disclosed your true approach at the time, namely the Post Office does not wish to discover anything wrong with Horizon?
A. No, no.
Q. If anyone starts to find things wrong with Horizon we’ll terminate their appointment?
A. No.
Also interestingly was his view as to why they did not proceed to instruct an expert, “I mean, in the end of the day, I think we just basically gave up because the Post Office didn’t want — they wanted it, they didn’t want it.”
Mr Singh was given the self- incrimination warning at the start of this hearing. And for all the unravelled nonsense of many of his answers, for all the absence of apparent professional competence or the absence of any sense of proper professional responsibility, for all that his evidence may indicate, as Jason Beer claimed, that he was lying (I really do not claim or offer an opinion on it), there is one sentence I think bears dwelling on as much as many of the others. It is Jarnail Singh saying this:
They are now but they weren’t calling me Head of Criminal Law at that time.
And whilst the way he blames anyone is sublimely ridiculous in its total lack of subtlety it is also deflated by moments like this:
Q. You were the solicitor with conduct of Misra, weren’t you?
A. Yes, I was, yes.
As a solicitor, he Jarnailed it.
