Former public relations boss Mark Davies is giving evidence at the inquiry into the Post Office Horizon IT scandal
He says that, in hindsight, a series of emails denying problems with Horizon "look ludicrous"
He is asked if he ever considered the possibility that the Post Office were "the baddies" - he says he "deeply regrets" not asking more questions
But the ex-director of communications insists the Post Office "did our best to be open and transparent" and that "I have never lied in entire career"
Davies presided over an aggressive media strategy, especially when it came to the BBC and a 2015 Panorama programme
Between 1999 and 2015, hundreds of sub-postmasters were prosecuted because of incorrect data from the Horizon IT system
You can watch live coverage from the inquiry by clicking the Play button above
'Had you ever asked yourself, might we be the baddies?' Ex-Post Office PR boss grilled at inquiry
We're finishing our coverage of the Post Office inquiry for today, but if you want to get caught up on key lines from today, you can read that here.
This page was written by Ali Abbas Ahmadi, Seher Asaf, Ruth Comerford, James Gregory, and Lana Lam and was edited by Nathan Williams, Andrew Humphrey and myself.
Thank you for joining us and we'll see you back here soon.
Ali Abbas Ahmadi
Reporting from the inquiry
My impression from today is that Mark Davies has appeared a little more forthright than most other Post Office executives who have come before this inquiry.
Many others who gave testimony often repeated that they simply "couldn't recall" the things the inquiry lawyers put to them (Angela van den Bogerd springs to mind).
That hasn't been the case as much with Davies. He answered questions more confidently and straightforwardly than others, even pushing back a few times – or at least he did in the morning.
By the afternoon, he was relying much more on the "I don't recall" mantra and toed the party line, to the point where it seemed the chair Sir Wyn Williams was a bit fed-up with him and called a premature halt to proceedings.
The room has been largely quiet, and I only caught a few scoffs and a couple of shakes of the head. There were lots of empty chairs, and only a few sub-postmasters were here.
That won't likely be the case next week, as there's sure to be crowds filing in when former Post Office CEO Paula Vennells gives evidence to the inquiry over the course of three days.
That’s all from me at Aldwych House today. Thank you.
The Post Office's ex-director of communications Mark Davies has finished giving evidence to the inquiry for the day.
Before we head off, let's take a moment to look back at the key lines from the afternoon session:
Emma Simpson
Business correspondent
Image source, PA MediaMark Davies knows how to deliver a message.
Over and over again, he said he'd acted in good faith, doing his best, based on the information he had at the time.
Of course, we've long known some of those lines he'd served up to journalists weren't true. In his role as the top PR man, he defended the Post Office to the end.
What's striking, perhaps, is how he continues to stand up for the senior leadership today. In his witness statement he heaps praise on his then CEO Paula Vennells and describes Angela van den Bogerd (a director at the Post Office for years) as detailed, thorough and empathetic.
Davies believes any group of executives and board members would make the same decisions as those made during his time at the Post Office.
"I did not, as been alleged, seek to 'cover up' issues with Horizon. Indeed quite the opposite."
Many will disagree with that even though he did acknowledge playing a part in prolonging the pain and injustice for many wronged sub-postmasters.
Ali Abbas Ahmadi
Reporting from the inquiry
I just a spoke to another sub-postmaster (who asked not to be named) on my way out of the room who highlighted the impact of the scandal on his family and his career.
He says he was away in the United States training to be a pilot when his father – who was a postmaster back home – was prosecuted over the Horizon scandal.
He was forced to come back and help with the business, before the same thing happened to him, he says.
“I’m going to completely take them to the cleaners.”
He says he had completed more than 700 hours of flight training in the US before being forced to come back. “They have completely destroyed my aspirations,” he says.
Blake then asks Davies how "right" it was to try to remove the spotlight from Horizon, when "that spotlight is being shone by the company's sole shareholder, the government"."As a comms team responsible for managing reputational risk, it was understandable that I and the team reduce the way it was perceived in the headlines," he responds.
Inquiry counsel Blake then says that those are the only questions he's going to ask, but that others have a few, before Chair Sir Wyn Williams interrupts to say "I've run out of steam".
With that we're adjourned till tomorrow.
There's a short discussion about Davies not being happy about Lord Arbuthnot referring to Second Sight being "sacked", before Blake asks if by this stage, was there was a feeling within the Post Office that "they were all up against you?", in reference to Second Sight and Lord Arbuthnot as well as Davies' own emails about conspiracies.
Davies responds by saying that while he didn't think they were all against him, the fact that Second Sight had been interviewed by BBC's Panorama, "didn't feel like they were acting independently".
Image source, Post Office inquiryThe relationship between the Post Office and the government is being examined more broadly.
An email about the BBC online report about Horizon is pulled up in which Davies discusses how they will continue to monitor coverage on the broadcaster's Horizon stories.
Blake notes that Davies was working with UK Government Investment (UKGI) to produce a brief for a former minister Jo Swinson.
"Is that something that regularly took place," he asks Davies.
Davies says yes, if a minister asked for a brief, we would obviously provide one.
We're now turning back to Davies' witness statement, where Blake highlights a section where Davies describes his close working relationship with Shareholder Executive and UK Government Investments.
Did you believe there were appropriate boundaries between these two bodies, Blake asks?
Yes, Davies says, saying it was understandable they wanted to be close to what was going on at the Post Office because it was a publicly owned business.
"Which colleagues did it frustrate," Blake probes.
"Some of my more commercial colleagues wanted distance from the government, Davies replies, not naming anyone, before quickly adding this was not Paula Vennells.
The inquiry is shown a document discussing the need to hire a new external communications group in January 2019.
Blake focuses on one particular line which details some of the reasoning behind finding a new external comms provider.
In the run up to the Horizon trial, a new external communications company with "less background knowledge" would be a "benefit", the document says.
Blake asks Davies why would less expertise be of benefit?
Because an outside team can bring a "fresh perspective", Davies says, but Blake follows up by asking if there a risk with messages being developed by people without the requisite knowldege?
Blake responds by saying the external team are there to "assist and support, not to direct".
An email correspondence is shown to the inquiry between Davies to members of his team.
In one of the emails, Davies asks how Brunswick, an external PR firm, “pitched” certain information. It shows that one of the points in the PR firm’s pitch was that the initial Second Sight investigation found no issues with the Horizon system.
Blake asks whether Brunswick would have sufficient knowledge about the years of complaints from sub-postmasters.
No, Davies says, adding that they were brought in as an extra pair of eyes.
Blake then asks him if there was there a danger to that, as they were not privy to the conversations he was having.
Davies says there’s no-one from Brunswick on these emails.
"Exactly,” Blake says.
Davies says he doesn't know what this email chain was for and does not recall it but acknowledges that there was a danger on bringing in an organisation "that's not fully steeped in the issue".
KC Julian Blake returns from break, and we're turning to Simon Clarke's advice on former Fujitsu employee Gareth Jenkins statement.
When did you first know about that advice, asks Blake.
"I couldn't be certain," Davies replies.
Was it referred to at board level, Blake pushes.
"Undoubtedly referred to at board level, he replies, adding he "wasn't at any of those meetings."
"August 2013, Clarke's advice on shredding documents, what about that?"
Davies says he "can't help out with that, sorry".
Ali Abbas Ahmadi
Reporting from the inquiry
I just had a chat with Jo Hamilton, a former sub-postmistress who is at the inquiry hearing today.
She's been to several of these, and reports that Mark Davies' testimony is just more of the same.
"Nothing's changed," she says with a wry smile, adding that the other senior Post Office executives she's listened to say they would have done something had they known what was going on at the time.
And Davies is "showing even less emotion than the rest," she says.
She confirms she will be at subsequent hearings later this week and the next. "You just hope there's a chink in the armour and someone will spill the beans," she says.
"We hope and we fight," she smiles, raising a fist.
Before the inquiry pauses for a break, Blake shows an email to Davies from 2016 from Melanie Corfield in which she uses the word "ridiculousness" when referring to “claims” about remote access.
"Was that the view shared in your team at that time?" he asks.
"No, I wouldn't use the words that she used," Davies says.
Blake then goes on to ask how it is, that far down the line after confirmation in emails from Fujitsu and various discussions, that the team that you led is describing those claims as ridiculous.
“Did you still think in November 2016 that the claims about remote access were ridiculous?"
“Not ridiculous,” Davies says, but they needed to assess the weight of the accusations made against the Post Office.
Inquiry councel Blake then points to his witness statement in which he states that the press team was a “high-quality team” and asks if the team were, in his opinion, still viewed as a high-quality team?
"I do" says Davies.
Blake now asks Davies if he thinks it was important to create a clear media strategy before admitting to claimants that there were errors.
Davies says yes, and points out that this would be consistent with any organisation creating a media strategy.
In a series of documents and emails, Blake asks if Davies' tone could be described as "defensive" when discussing how the Post Office goes about admitting to errors about the remote access issue.
Davies says he wouldn't characterise it as such.
Blake puts to him: "Did you see that as the problem facing the Post Office, the risk of adverse publicity or ensuring you were open and transparent with the court?"
Davies says no.
"I think it was important to be open and transparent."
Peter Ruddick
Business reporter at the inquiry
This latest exchange gets to the heart of the point I think the counsel for the inquiry has been trying to make today.
"You weren't a lawyer?", Julian Blake asked Mark Davies.
We have seen an email in which the former communications director expressed an opinion on some legal wording in relation to the, now famous, group litigation brought by Alan Bates.
Davies said it was "not inappropriate" for him to be providing opinions. However, he admitted he was probably not technically qualified.
We have heard regret today about the media response but the theme from inquiry lawyers appears to be a claim that Mark Davies was not just involved in communications.
Instead, they are trying to suggest he was a key player in the entire corporate and legal strategy.
We are now being shown email correspondence from 2016. Davies is asked if he recalls being involved in the issue of the wording of remote access for group litigation. In the emails, Davies expresses that he is “not keen on the final sentence”, referring to a suggested rewording.
“You aren't a lawyer,” Blake points out, before asking Davies whether it was unusual for the communication and corporate affairs director to be “commenting carefully” on wording that was going to be used in a legal capacity.
“I don’t think it was inappropriate,” Davies replies.
Blake then goes on to ask the ex-PR boss if he had carried out enough investigations into remote access.
“I wish I'd asked more, I wish I’d got more into it,” Davies says.
“Do you think you should’ve got more into it when confronted by Panorama?” Blake asks.
Davies pauses.
“As I said, I think I just answered the question.”
Image source, Post Office InquiryBlake asks if on the 9 April 2015, it was unclear to Second Sight that remote access was possible, based on intel from the Post Office.
Davies responds by saying we're obviously in some "deep technical area here".
The response you gave before, Blake pushes back, was that it was "possible in some circumstances".
"We have the point being raised by Second Sight here."
"And now to the response you gave Panorama in June 2015, where the email explicitly states the Post Office cannot edit amend or otherwise alter branch data."
Were those words chosen carefully, Blake asks, because you knew Fujitsu could?
"All words were chosen carefully, Davies retorts, noting there might be errors in this email.
"I never set out to intentionally mislead at any point ever. Now if there's a mistake, I can only apologise."
We see several emails dating back from January 2015 which shows some internal confusion about the remote access issue.
A pre-prepared answer to this question by the media team is shown to the inquiry followed by an email that details how Horizon can be accessed remotely and Blake asks Davies if by the end of January 2015, was it all a bit muddled with regards to remote access?
Davies says no, at which point Blake asks what was the position then?
Davies responds by saying that remote access was possible in some scenarios.
Ali Abbas Ahmadi
Reporting from the inquiry
Things seem to have cooled off a bit after lunch, with Mark Davies answering Julian Blake's questions calmly and straightforwardly.
But there is some action when Julian Blake presses Davies on the subject of remote access. He first displays an email from Melanie Corfied - who was on Davies' communications team - calling it a "totally loony" conspiracy theory.
Davies says those are "not the words I would have used", but clarifies that it didn't make sense at the time that someone was remotely accessing the accounts of Post Office branches.
Blake then displays an email from Paula Vennells, in which she wrote that she wanted a reason to explain why remote access "is not possible".
Couldn't it be that Vennells was trying to find an answer that fit in with the narrative that remote access was impossible? Blake asks.
"That is categorically not true," Davies fires back, sparking murmurs in the room.