Crichton is now being shown another document and Blake asks her if she was aware the Second Sight review planned to put greater weight on sub-postmasters' version of events.

"No I don't think I was," Crichton answers. "I can't remember being aware of that view," she tells the inquiry.

"I don't recall a view it was irreconcilable. I thought it was them stating their case."

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

In July 2013, Crichton had a meeting with chief executive Paula Vennells. Blake asks Crichton if she finds it surprising that there were no concerns raised at the meeting about the safety of convictions.

"I think it is surprising, yes, in retrospect," she says.

And when asked if she lacked a sense of urgency over the matter, Crichton tells the inquiry "probably yes," but that she had asked for prosecutions to be ceased and reviewed.

Inquiry counsel Julian Blake turns to a comment from the Justice For Subpostmaster Alliance (JFSA), who regarded Susan Crichton "initially frosty in her manner".

Blake asks her if that was an accurate description.

"Yes," Crichton accepts in her answer. But, she disagrees with comments about her not being organised, structured or a leader.

Although, Crichton adds, she thinks the JFSA comments are "not entirely surprising".

Susan Crichton, the former head lawyer for the Post Office during some of the Horizon prosecutions of sub-postmasters, is shown a note from a meeting between herself and then Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells back in July 2013.

Julian Blake, counsel for the inquiry, asks if this was the first time Crichton had discussed the board meeting she had not been invited to with Vennells.

To which Crichton says that was her recollection and that in their meeting, Vennells said "she felt the Second Sight report could have been very damaging for the business".

The inquiry has resumed after lunch and we will continue hearing from Susan Crichton, who worked at the Post Office as company secretary and general counsel until 2013.

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

The inquiry will soon be back from their lunch break, but before we hear from them again, let's have a quick recap on what we've heard so far today:

• The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry reconvened this morning to hear evidence from Susan Crichton, who was the Post Office's general counsel - top in-house lawyer - until 2013, as the Horizon scandal developed

• Crichton, who said she was no expert in criminal law, accepted she reported directly to chief executive Paula Vennells at the time
• She told the inquiry that back in 2012 Post Office bosses kept insisting their systems were robust
• When Crichton left the Post Office, she said she made it clear that no further prosecutions reliant on Horizon evidence should be taking place
• The independent forensic accountants Second Sight played a key role in exposing the scandal and the inquiry was shown notes from meetings, which showed the Post Office's board was not happy with the contents of an interim report in July 2013
• The board appeared to debate language referring to "bugs" with the Horizon system
• Crichton said she would use the word "defects", but Vennells said her "computer-literate husband" suggested "exception or anomaly" were better options
• Inquiry counsel Julian Blake described the use of "exception" instead of "bug" as "absolutely Orwellian"

The Post Office inquiry is now breaking for lunch and we'll be bringing you a recap of what has been said so far today shortly.

In the meantime, we have plenty of stories and explainers for you to work your way through on our website during the break.

We're expecting the Post Office inquiry to resume at 14:05.

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

The inquiry is now shown evidence of sub-postmasters who were still being prosecuted while the investigations team was still investigating.

"Is it surprising that there isn't more discussion at board level of the link between the Second Sight report and all these prosecutions and convictions that were still continuing?" Blake asks.

"I do find it surprising, certainly with hindsight," Crichton says.

"But even at the time I found it surprising," she adds.

Continuing with the minutes from the board meeting, Susan Crichton is shown a note that asks if she was implicated in the prosecutions - to which she tells the inquiry she was not.

She says it was her understanding the board wanted to know if it was her who was bringing the prosecutions against the sub-postmasters.

The minutes show the board "expressed strong views" about the management of the Second Sight review.

But notes show it was accepted that the process was made "complicated" by the review being independent, along with input from MPs and the Justice For Sub-postmasters Alliance (JFSA).

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

Minutes of a board meeting held on 16 July 2013 are being shown, with Alex Perkins and Paula Vennells among the attendees listed in the document.

Crichton did not attend this meeting and inquiry counsel Julian Blake asks why she was absent from the meeting.

“Because I was waiting outside to be called in,” Crichton says, prompting Blake to ask who had asked her to stand outside.

The process for the board meeting was you waited outside and the company secretary would come and get you when you should appear in the agenda, she explains.

Crichton says the company secretary did not come and get her to join the meeting.

Blake asks her why, to which Crichton responds: “I think she said they had completed the discussion and that I wasn’t required.”

We're now looking at details of the Criminal Cases Review in the same document Crichton prepared for the board.

Blake refers to a previous document that said 5% to 10% of criminal cases may be "successfully overturned". But the document he is showing us now says around 5% of cases will simply "need to disclose additional evidence".

Crichton says she "must have" made that change herself. Blake asks her if it was "intentionally watered down".

"No, I don't think so," she replies.

Two documents are shown side-by-side on the screen, which set out an update on the response to the draft of an interim report.

One draft shows "two options" - a "reactive approach" versus a "pro-active approach", and also touches on paying out compensation.

Details from the document say: "If we are found to be in the wrong these claims could be considerable."

It sets out examples of "criminal cases, loss of business, home and marriage breakdowns and ill health".

Crichton says it had been her intention to attend the board meeting but she was not invited, so did not give any thoughts.

"I wanted to flag there were options for the board to consider, rather than verbally, from my memory," she says.

More on July 2013, and Susan Crichton's actions around then. At the time she was the Post Office's general counsel, the company's top in-house lawyer.

Blake says there we real concerns at the time over tensions between Crichton, the chair and the chief executive. He asks if she faced pressure in relation to the Second Sight report.

She says her recollection wasn't necessarily of pressure, but "I did feel there was a view... that I hadn't managed the process well".

The letter notes there was an “overall defensive air and the board are also feeling bruised”.

It also mentions tensions between Alice Perkins, Paula Vennells and Susan Crichton.

Counsel to the inquiry Julian Blake asks Crichton to clarify what these tensions were.

She says she felt that she was trying to ensure that Second Sight's review "was independent and by that I meant that they had been given an appropriate level of support to enable them to deliver the report".

Crichton continues by saying "I felt that I was being accused of not managing the process properly and not controlling the process enough".

Blake proceeds to ask whether there were also tensions with the minister.

“That’s as I understood it, yes," Crichton says.

The same document raises a point about a "real worry" around the Fujitsu expert that appeared to have known about some of the problems, but not referred to them in his report or statement.

It says there are "non-disclosure issues here" and that they are looking to replace him with somebody else.

This is a reference to Gareth Jenkins, who was a former chief IT architect at Fujitsu.

Crichton says she wanted to make quick progress reviewing the file, so information could be passed on to defence solicitors.

Blake says the worry seemed to be about the reliability of Jenkins' evidence.

When asked if she passed that up the chain, Crichton says "I think I flagged it to Paula and also to the board".

Crichton is shown a briefing note from 10 July 2013 with UK law firm Bond Dickinson. The note says: "The board want to sack Second Sight and are now not coping well with the fact they are independent."

Crichton is asked to arrange a meeting with them, according to the note.

Inquiry counsel Julian Blake asks Crichton to clarify who said they wanted to sack Second Sight?

"I can't remember who said it," she answers.

Crichton adds she suspects she only got a "blended view". "It is my understanding they were very unhappy with the tenure of the report," she adds.

After a short break, the inquiry is shown a document of notes from a meeting between Second Sight, Paula Vennells and Susan Crichton in July 2013, following a meeting with Lord Arbuthnot.

It raises a point that Lord Arbuthnot was concerned about "a risk that people had been prosecuted based on the system" that wasn't operating correctly, leading to miscarriages of justice.

Also in the meeting, they discussed a need to be clear about the definition of the Horizon IT system. They mentioned that Second Sight were looking into the wider system and going forwards the Post Office cannot "misrepresent" what it means.

They also mentioned "anomalies", which would lead to sub-postmasters doubting the system, but argued "this was normal in a system of this size".

Before pausing for the second break of the day, the inquiry is shown an email from Martin Edward who flags some clarity.

"Just to be clear, anomalies - these were not undiscovered issues. We brought them to Second Sight's attention for completeness," the email says.

In the email, Edwards says they need to be careful in communications.

Crichton accepts she must be mistaken in her recollection.

Inquiry counsel Julian Blake asks if the wording being used shows there is an element of "smoke and mirrors" about the whole thing.

Crichton says it "certainly seems that way".

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

We're now back to the debate around the term "bugs".

A July 2013 email from Martin Edwards includes a briefing note for a meeting with Lord Arbuthnot. Blake asks Crichton if she recalls being part of the group responsible for drafting the briefing note. She says she doesn't remember it, but "obviously I was".

Scrolling through the note, Blake points to a paragraph that says, "we know of two system exceptions (anomalies)" under the current Horizon IT system.

"Can you see everything's now being called an 'exception' rather than a 'bug'?" Blake asks. He recalls that this is the language suggested by Paula Vennells' husband.

Blake describes the use of the word "exception" instead of "bug" as "absolutely Orwellian".

Crichton says she can't remember being part of a conversation about wording.

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

Evidence shown now to the inquiry is a briefing note for a meeting with Lord Arbuthnot in July 2013.

Crichton says she does not recall being part of the group who drafted this note, but that looking at the evidence makes it clear she was.

In the note, it says from what they have been told by Second Sight report, there is "no evidence... of systemic failures with the Horizon system".

The note goes on to say "this is not to belittle the importance of the overall use experience for sub-postmasters" and that it is essential they improve their wider systems.

When asked about this by Blake, Crichton tells the inquiry that because of delays in the report, they were trying to say Second Sight had looked at the four best cases which had no evidence on systemic failures.