A former engineer for the company responsible for developing the Post Office’s faulty Horizon IT system has said he knew the computer system could in theory be accessed remotely by its staff for nearly two decades before realising it was happening in practice.
The former Fujitsu engineer Gareth Jenkins was giving his second day of evidence to the Post Office inquiry which is looking at why the state-owned institution prosecuted 900 operatives on the basis of alleged financial shortfalls in their branches when many of the discrepancies were caused by bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon IT system.
Jenkins told the inquiry he knew that remote access to the Horizon IT system by Fujitsu staff was technically possible from about 2000, shortly after its introduction across branches, but said he believed at the time it was “controlled, recorded and visible” to post office operators. He did not realise it was being used in practice until 2018.
Jason Beer KC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Jenkins when he first became aware that staff at the support service centre in Fujitsu’s offices in Bracknell, Berkshire, were able to remotely access branch accounts and insert transactions.
“I always knew it was theoretically possible … until 2018 I did not realise [they] were actually doing it,” Jenkins replied, adding that he understood any interventions were not done “very frequently”.
Beer proposed: “If they were doing it in the hours of business when a sub-postmaster was logged on, their work might be attributed to him or her?”
“I accept that, yes,” Jenkins replied.
Jenkins joined International Computers, which later became Fujitsu, in 1973 and retired in 2015 but was kept on as a consultant until 2022.
He helped the Post Office in its defence in a high court case brought by Sir Alan Bates and 554 others that ultimately paved the way for the criminal convictions to be overturned.
Jenkins said in his witness statement: “As a result of the civil proceedings in 2018-2019, and now this inquiry, I have also learned that there were rare occasions when Post Office were not told, and did not approve, Fujitsu’s use of substantive remote access, and that this was contrary to Fujitsu’s procedures.
“This was inconsistent with my previous understanding that Post Office always approved each incidence of substantive remote access.”
Jenkins, who gave evidence in the criminal prosecutions of more than a dozen Post Office operatives, was also questioned about whether he had understood his duties as an expert witness.
On his second day of evidence, Jenkins was shown a letter sent by the law firm Bond Pearce, acting for the Post Office, in November 2005 which he had received and which set out in clear language the main duties of an expert witness.
However, he said: “I have no recollection of being briefed in this way. I had forgotten all about seeing this letter. I know I acted honestly at all times and therefore the only way I can explain that is that I had no recollection of this letter.”
On Tuesday, his first day of giving evidence, Jenkins admitted he changed crucial expert court testimony at the request of the Post Office during wrongful prosecutions of branch operators.
Jenkins was questioned about changes made to his draft witness statement in the criminal prosecution of the post office operator Noel Thomas when a Post Office investigator had struck out words which Jenkins had written about the system failures being “normal occurrences”.
Jenkins accepted that the Post Office had “applied pressure” on him and was asked whether he thought it appropriate his language was “haggled over” and replied he was “happy with the wording we ended up with”.
Jenkins, who is testifying all week, is part of a Metropolitan police investigation into possible perjury and perverting the course of justice. Before his testimony started this week, he was reminded of his privilege against self-incrimination by the judge leading the inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams.
