Continuing to query Miller over about sub-postmistress Wolstenholme's case, Price looks at a 2004 meeting between Miller and former head of security Tony Marsh.

In the meeting, Miller recalls Marsh saying there was an "issue with the expert advice" but that they should "cut our losses and pay up".

Miller also recalls asking Marsh if he was saying there were issues with Horizon, but Marsh said no.

"I got the impression it was a one-off case," Miller says in his evidence.

He signed off on the settlement at this meeting, without reading the counsel's advice or requesting the expert's opinion.

When asked why he didn't ask to see this advice, after discussing it with Marsh, he says: "This came to me as an on-the-day issue," and he trusted the senior person who brought him the case.

"I regret, obviously, very much not having said stop let's review what's actually going on here, but I didn't."

Miller's being shown a 2004 document that's referred to as "counsel's advice" about Julie Wolstenholme's case.

This is advice from Post Office lawyers about how to proceed, and the case itself.

Within that document, we're shown a line that says the Post Office is "anxious for the negative computer experts' report to be given as little publicity as possible."

Lawyer Emma Price asks him where that advice came from, to which Miller says he can't recall - but that it wasn't him.

Image source, Crown copyright - Post Office inquiry

Jacqueline Howard
Reporting from the inquiry

Looking at the case of sub-postmistress Julie Wolstenholme, we see from emails that because finance director Peter Corbett was on holiday, information about the case was escalated to Miller.

Miller interrupts Price as she reads out the word "escalate" from the email - he argues that Corbett was employed at the same level as he and so, actually, this should have gone above him and he should have queried it at the time.

He is asked why he didn't.

"Because I was dealing with it at speed and I signed it off," he replies.

In his witness statement, Miller says he did not read legal advice relating to the case and says "I very much regret" not giving it closer attention.

In the statement, Miller says of a meeting with ex-head of security Tony Marsh: "He told me there was an issue with the expert advice which had led our counsel to say the [Post Office] case was unlikely to succeed. It was clear that he did not think much of the expert.

"The view was that we should cut our losses and pay up."

The statement goes on: "Knowing what I now know about Horizon and the way it was used to wrongly prosecute and bring civil claims against sub-postmasters, I very much regret not reading the expert's report and counsel's advice.

"Had I done so I would have taken action to address the issues raised. I acknowledge that by not reading them there was a missed opportunity."

Inquiry lawyer Emma Price and David Miller are discussing the case of Julie Wolstenholme - a former sub-postmistress whose life was turned upside down when her PO branch was closed in 2000.

It led to her staff being laid off and the breakdown of her family - she and her children ended up sleeping in a caravan in her parent’s garden.

The Post Office eventually settled out of court with her and paid her compensation, but she never got her business back.

Miller's being shown various internal communications about Wolstenholme's case, including an email chain in which legal advice to do with her case was attached.

Within that email chain, there's advice that a report by computer experts Best Practice is based on "available call logs" that are "unfavourable and unflattering to Fujitsu, if not actually hostile".

According to the Department for Business and Trade there have been 983 UK-wide convictions, with 700 being Post Office prosecutions and 283 prosecutions brought by other groups, including the Crown Prosecution Service, since the Horizon System was installed in 1999.

So far just 95 have had their convictions overturned.

A draft report uncovered by the BBC shows the Post Office spent £100m fighting the group in court despite knowing its defence was untrue.

The Post Office said it would be "inappropriate" to comment.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission said the scandal was "the most widespread miscarriage of justice" it had seen.

The Post Office prosecutions include some in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where separate action will have to be taken to clear those affected.

Scotland’s First Minister Humza Yousaf said he was also keen to work with UK ministers on the issue.

Jacqueline Howard
Reporting from the inquiry

After a short break, we've started off by looking at the case of Lee Andrews, a sub-postmaster in Ramsgate who challenged accounting shortfalls in the Horizon software in 2004.

There was a shortage in his account of £76,916 in June 2003. Andrews refused to accept responsibility of this loss and wanted to prove the Horizon system was at fault - but says he was not given the chance.

Documentation shows that David Miller - giving evidence today - reviewed the paperwork relating to the case, and responded: "I can find no evidence to support your allegations of unfairness".

Miller says he has "read and reread" the case and cannot recall it, so questioning turns to hypotheticals of sorts.

He is asked to think back to the time, and, imagining the case was put in front of him, whether he would have had the same concerns then that he has now (again, with the benefit of hindsight).

He says no and that issues with Horizon were "bubbling up" within the Post Office business, but the extent to which these were being properly surfaced was "really quite small".

Jacqueline Howard
Reporting from the inquiry

The theme of Miller’s evidence so far this morning has largely been acceptance that he should have flagged what he knew about potential issues with Horizon, and a deep regret that he didn’t.

Each time he was challenged by lawyer Emma Price about opportunities for him to speak up or act, he simply agreed that yes, looking back and knowing what he knows now, he should have done more.

Questioning is set to continue along the time of prosecutions as the inquiry resumes after a short break.

Inquiry lawyer Emma Price finishes this section of evidence by asking Miller how regularly he and Tony Marsh - the former head of security at the Post Office - to which Miller says either monthly or every three months.

He says the meetings lasted around an hour, but he cannot recall when they first discussed Post Office criminal investigations and prosecutions - something Marsh's team was involved with.

Miller says he also doesn't remember discussing "any detail of those" with Marsh, or discussing issues relating to inaccurate cash accounts with Horizon.

Asked if that would have been relative information for Marsh to have had given his role in relation to investigations and prosecutions, Miller says:

Price and Miller are going back and forth now about whether Tony Marsh, the former head of security for the Post Office, ever reported to Miller.

She says that in previous evidence Marsh gave to the inquiry, he says he reported to Miller "at least at one point", but Miller says he has no recollection of this.

"He [Marsh] was in a line working to somebody who worked to me", Miller says.

In board meeting notes shown to the inquiry from 2003, it says Marsh presented a "security paper on behalf of David Miller".

Price asks if Miller can help with understanding why Marsh would present this on Millers behalf, if he did not report directly to him.

Miller says: "I can't, I'm sorry".

Price seems to be trying to draw a direct line between Miller and the teams who were responsible for privately prosecuting sub-postmasters.

Jacqueline Howard
Reporting from the inquiry

Price has been walking Miller through early evidence that he was aware of faults with the Horizon system.

He has agreed that he was aware of some of the problems - not all - but says it was his belief that the issues would caught by control procedures.

Price puts it to him that, knowing there were some issues with how Horizon processed transactions, wouldn't there be a risk that unreliable data might be used in prosecuting postmasters.

Miller: Yes, with what I know now.

Price: Did you recognise that at the time?

Miller: I didn’t.

Price: Should you?

Miller: Looking back, yes.

Miller's now being asked about Horizon data and its role in the prosecution of hundreds of sub-postmasters.

He's asked if - knowing what he did about the potential for incomplete transactions to be recorded by Horizon - there was a further risk that unreliable data might be used in prosecutions.

He says he wishes it was that clear at the time, and that he'd recognised it.

Image source, Crown Copyright, Post Office inquiry

Emma Price asks Miller when he first became aware that the Post Office would criminally investigate and prosecute its own sub-postmasters for alleged shortfalls in branch accounts.

He replies he found out that these prosecutions were "something that the company did," when he joined in 1970.

Last week, former chief executive of the Royal Mail, Adam Crozier, and former managing director of the Post Office, Alan Cook, said they were not aware that the Post Office did this.

Miller is now being shown a lengthy internal Post Office document from Feb 2000, in which Horizon's performance is reviewed.

Technical and communication "failures" are flagged - including the company ICL Pathway's "ability to detect and manage certain failures in the system" being described as "somewhat unproven".

ICL Pathway was later renamed Fujitsu, the Japanese-owned company which developed the Horizon software at the heart of the affair. It was introduced by the Post Office in 1999.

Asked what he did with the document, Miller says what he'd "liked to have done" is organise a wider team meeting with specialists. But he says due to "changes" at the company, that didn't happen.

Image source, Crown Copyright - Post Office inquiry

Problems were raised from the start - why was Miller not more concerned?published at 11:11 British Summer Time 16 April

11:11 BST 16 April

Peter Ruddick
Reporting from the inquiry

This morning's evidence is from someone who served in similar job roles to the bosses who appeared at the inquiry last week.

However, the fact the first 30 minutes of David Miller's testimony was focused on his Post Office CV is telling.

He joined the business in 1970, was heavily involved in the rollout of flawed IT system Horizon and ended up on the board in charge before his retirement.

On paper at least, it is harder for him to say 'I didn't know" or '"I wasn't told".

We have been hearing a lot about the issues with Horizon from the very beginning - issues David Miller says he was aware of.

The problem is, in 1999 he reportedly told a board meeting the system was "robust".

He says he can't remember saying that but must have done if the meeting minutes say he did. Should he have said that? Today, he admitted he shouldn't have. A big admission.

The question is: why was he not more concerned about possible issues when he rose up the career ladder away from the coal face?

A public inquiry began in February 2021 and has heard evidence from Post Office and Fujitsu employees.

It resumed last Tuesday for phases five and six, with campaigner and former sub-postmaster Alan Bates being the first to appear.

The inquiry has already heard from Lord Arbuthnot, who is a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, and Adam Crozier, a former Post Office chief executive, as well as several politicians who have overseen the work of the Post Office.

Bates was the inspiration for ITV's series Mr Bates vs The Post Office, which was broadcast in January 2024. Days later, the government announced new plans to clear and compensate those affected.

A public inquiry is not legally binding. Instead, the chair - in this case Sir Wyn Williams - delivers a report with a summary of the evidence and a list of recommendations.

Image source, PA Media

Image source, Horizon Inquiry

Lawyer Emma Price has just read out an excerpt from a letter sent to Miller in 1999 by auditors Ernst & Young.

Various issues with the Horizon system are outlined throughout - including missing data.

One point highlights that "transnational data committed to the counter [of a branch] has been lost by the Pathway system during the creation of the outlet cash account."

It also says there is a "fundamental" need that any accounting system provides an accurate record of all transactions, but that the system is "currently not supporting this".

The letter also says that the "integrity" of the system is uncertain, and it is not functioning as it should.

Miller confirms he has seen this letter - and that he wrote an annotation on his that says: "Please ensure that these issues are fully addressed... keep me in touch."

Jacqueline Howard
Reporting from the inquiry

Image source, Crown Copyright - Post Office inquiry

Miller has just admitted that he should not have described the Horizon system as “robust and fit for purpose” following testing as it was rolled out in 1999.

He didn't recall saying it during a board meeting in that year, but it’s on the minutes, so he accepts it as true.

His admission was met with head shakes from former Post Office staff who have come to watch the proceedings today.

The seats allocated for the public stretch across the room, but they have all sat in an L shape - along the front row and up the aisle on the left-hand-side - giving each of them a direct line of sight to Miller as he delivers his evidence.

Lawyer Emma Price now questions David Miller over his work as chief operating officer - which meant he was an executive member of the board.

Price outlines what she calls the "fundamental importance" of managing risk, a key part of his role.

She asks him: "Would you agree that the identification, analysis and management of risk is central to running a company?"

"I would," he says - agreeing that this is important to his role in particular.

Price also asks if he thinks the culture at the Post Office was supportive of "executives reporting risks to the CEO and the board."

Miller says yes.

It is expected he will be questioned about his involvement in the rollout of Horizon in 1999 - so establishing his understanding of his responsibilities could end up becoming important later.

You can follow today's hearing live by heading to the top of this page and tapping play on the small video to the right-hand side called "Post Office Inquiry".

That should bring up a full-size video at the top.

We'll also be bringing you the key news lines in text format.

Jacqueline Howard
Reporting from the inquiry

I'm sitting alongside colleagues from our BBC business team.

They're regulars in the inquiry room, and have remarked that the audience is looking a little sparse today.

It’s not entirely surprising given Miller and Mills aren’t the headline acts of Alan Bates or Adam Crozier, who gave evidence last week.

However, both men were incredibly central figures during key moments of the Horizon scandal, so we are expecting to hear some unique insights today.