Emails dating back to 2015 are continuing to be shown to the inquiry

We've heard Davies insist a number of times that he "doesn't recall" when responding to questions put to him by Blake.

Blake has asked him the following questions: Did you remember reading the Deloitte review? Did you speak with Chief Information Officer Lesle Sewell about the Deloitte report? Did you have a conversation with her about the report?

"I can't recall" is the only response Blake is able to get out of Davies on those matters.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

An email with Paula Vennells, former CEO of the Post Office is proving to be material for a heated exchange.

In the email, Vennells is asking what the true answer is around the remote access issue, asking Davies to spell it out.

She writes that, "I need to be able to say you can't get remote access to the system".

Blake says that the instruction seemed to hint that she wanted him to find a way of saying something that was untrue.

Davies hits back: "That is categorically not true."

Counsel for the inquiry Blake now moves onto a report from Deloitte in May 2014 about remote access.

This report showed the company knew that losses in branch accounts could be caused by the IT system and Fujitsu staff could remotely alter accounts without a post office operator's knowledge.

Davies says he doesn't remember seeing this report, which has been shown to the inquiry several times over the past few weeks.

Blake points out a particular section about the balancing transactions. Davies says he wasn't aware of the significance of this report.

The existence of the report was first reported by the BBC.

The inquiry is being shown a document that outlines a PR strategy ahead of the Horizon Issues Judgment that says that the view of independent expert witnesses is that the IT system was working and "highly reliable".

Davies says the strategy was being prepared ahead of the judgment, when the result was not known.

The inquiry is also shown a document that shows a video script which says, “I want to reassure you we can have confidence in the overall robustness of Horizon” and that “it compares well with systems” used by other companies.

The Horizon Issues Judgment (December 2019) relates to generic technical matters about the computer system since the original version was introduced in 1999.

Blake asks Davies if it came as a surprise to him that Horizon could be found to be not robust.

“Not at all,” Davies responds, adding that these were preparatory documents in advance of any announcement and they would be revised depending on the judgment.

The inquiry has resumed and the next round of questioning has started.

Julian Blake begins by showing the inquiry minutes from a board meeting.

In this board meeting, Mark Davies' perspective was sought, based on his position as comms director and a stakeholder.

Blake asks whether he had been asked to give a stakeholder view.

"Yes."

"Did you view sub-post as stakeholders?"

Davies confirms he did.

Blake says it might be suggested that the decision to seek the recusal of the judge from the 2019 litigation by the sub-postmasters was quite an "aggressive" tactic.

"Can you see why it might have been in the stakeholders, as in the sub-postmasters, interest to not seek that recusal?" he presses.

The inquiry is back after a lunch break. Mark Davies, the ex-director of communications at the Post Office, will continue to face questions at the hearing during the afternoon session.

Stay with us as we bring you the latest news lines and analysis.

You can watch the live coverage from the inquiry by clicking the play button above.

It's been a combative morningpublished at 13:55 British Summer Time 14 May

13:55 BST 14 May

Peter Ruddick
Business reporter at the inquiry

I have been following every day of the latest phase of this inquiry very closely. Certain days have been more eventful than others. I am struck by how combative this morning has been.

At one point, Mark Davies admitted "regret" about how "assertive" he had been in his responses to journalist queries.

Julian Blake, counsel to the inquiry, was then very assertive in his questioning.

When Davies objected to use of the word "spin" in order to describe a press release he had drafted, Mr Blake dropped the word and instead accused him of outright lies.

Why has the morning been so combative?

Perhaps because lawyers for the inquiry are suggesting that Davies was not just responsible for the press strategy but for the overall corporate response. A response that was - they argue - more focused on reputation management than on uncovering the truth.

Mark Davies, the former director of communications at the Post Office, was this morning's inquiry witness. Here's what he had to say:

• Davies began by confirming that he stood by his witness statement which characterised Post Office senior leadership as being open to challenge.
• Davies apologised for "prolonging the pain and anguish" caused to sub-postmasters.

• Pressed on why Davies didn't respond to a request from a BBC Radio 4 programme which wanted to look closer at imprisoned sub-postmasters he said, "I may have got that one wrong".

• He also accepted that emails where he attacked media coverage, calling the journalism "appalling" looked "ludicrous" in hindsight.
• When asked if he lied in a draft statement addressing the Second Sight independent report Davies said, "I've never lied in my career".

• Davies maintained that the Post Office did not believe there was an issue with the Horizon software at the heart of the wrongful convictions.

Ali Abbas Ahmadi
Reporting from the inquiry

There was a big moment just before the inquiry broke for lunch.

Every single head was turned towards Mark Davies, and Julian Blake's voice became increasingly incredulous at Davies' answers.

Blake began by questioning Davies about his reaction to BBC’s coverage of the Second Sight report in 2014. He pulled out an email in which the former PR boss called it “straightforwardly inaccurate” and "sloppy journalism in the extreme".

Davies replied that the BBC was making damaging claims about Horizon, and that the Second Sight report had not acknowledged any "systemic issues" with the software.

Who said anything about "systemic issues"? Blake asked.

Davies replied that the coverage from many news outlets at the time suggested Horizon was “dodgy” and we didn’t have that information at the time.

"These are the lines that are repeated year after year after year,” said Blake, raising his voice. "Why can’t you in September 2014 simply accept that Second Sight had identified issues with Horizon?"

Davies, looking increasingly uncomfortable, said he accepts in hindsight that there were issues with Horizon, and said had never sought to mislead anyone.

Several people shook their heads during this exchange.

Davies was also asked about an email he sent to Post Office leadership on 16 September 2015 about the BBC's Panorama programme.

He wrote that the allegations made in the programme were "highly misleading".

Davies said that they had submitted a formal complaint to the BBC and to the director of news & current affairs as well as the editor of Panorama.

In the email, he added that they were "highly active" in defending the Post Offices reputaion against what he called, "unsubstantiated allegations".

At the inquiry, Davies was asked if he had looked deeply enough into the issues to make such a strong rebuttal to the BBC. He replied "yes".

Lets just catch up with a couple questions Mark Davies faced before the break.

Julian Blake asked him if his response to Amjed saying that the allegations in the BBC Panorama programme were "untrue" was fair?

Davies said yes, because it's reflecting the statement that he had issued to Panorama.

"I think it was accurate at the time", Davies said.

There was some tension at the inquiry this morning as former Post Office PR chief, Mark Davies was heavily grilled and was asked if he had lied - which he roundly denied.

There will now be a break for lunch before Davies returns to answer more questions later.

We'll catch up on some of the remaining exchanges that happened before the break, as well as bringing you some analysis.

We're seeing more emails about the BBC Panorama programme.

A sub-postmaster, named Amjed, emailed about the programme after it aired, and the inquiry is shown Davies' response to his email. He says the programme "painted a very worrying picture", and calls it "one-sided".

"I can assure you allegations made are untrue."

Do you think it was right to send such a "strongly worded response", Blake asks.

Davies says he doesn't think his words differ from what he said to Panorama.

Amjed responds "If the BBC is saying this, it's scaring the living daylights out of me".

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

BBC Panorama is again the subject of Blake's questioning.

A note, written by Davies in July 2015 about the upcoming August programme, explains in his words why a representative from the Post Office would not be appearing.

"This is because it plans to focus on three individual cases and we do not believe it is right to break the confidentiality we agreed when we set up the mediation scheme," he wrote in the note.

Davies adds in his note that the Post Office would not "indulge in a public debate" while the sub-postmasters featured in the programme had their prosecution cases reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Davies tells the inquiry he thought it would be wrong to have the debate on TV.

Blake puts to him that emails seen earlier from Davies gives the impression that the Post Office did not want to engage with the BBC, and asks whether that formed part of the media strategy in writing this note.

Davies says this was a separate issue.

Inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams interrupts to ask Davies to be clear which independent report he is referring to when he talks about inaccuracies.

Davies clarifies that he means the second report from Second Sight, published in 2015, which suggested that the Post Office acknowledged 100-150 sub-postmasters were pursuing claims on the basis they may have not have been at fault.

Davies says that is inaccurate because the Post Office had not made that acknowledgement. Williams says that by commissioning the independent report they had made that acknowledgement.

Davies says he didn't read it that way but Williams insists the wording is clear.

Blake is delving into the Post Office's reluctance to accept issues with the Horizon system.

"These are the lines that are repeated year after year," Blake continues.

"Why can't the Post Office accept in September 2015, that Second Sight had acknowledged systemic issues with Horizon?", he asks Davies.

"It pains me grievously that we had that position, I never went into my job as a journalist or the years as comms [communications] director to mislead journalists," Davies says.

Davies himself worked as a journalist for 14 years, and was employed by the BBC.

"I thought I was acting in good faith," he adds.

More now on just how reporting by the BBC was being discussed at the upper echelons of the Post Office.

Inquiry lawyer Blake is showing an email written by Davies to Paula Vennells where he describes "sloppy journalism" in the extreme, adding that he has spoken directly to journalists at the BBC to "robustly correct" the impression that the Post Office had accepted there were issues with the Horizon system.

Blake asks Davies whether he really thought the second report written by Second Sight did not suggest there were issues with the software.

"Not systemic," Davies says.

Blake continues to press Davies on his thoughts about press coverage at this time - "They're right aren't they"? he asks.

Davies hits back that the Post Office did not have evidence to support that there were systemic problems.

"Do you think you clung too closely to the word 'systemic'?", Blake asks.

Davies replies by saying he does not believe so because it was suggested to him that there was no evidence to support systemic issues.

Image source, POST OFFICE INQUIRY

Davies is now being asked about an email he sent on 9 September 2014.

It referred to a leak of a report which he called inaccurate and said would be challenged.

Davies says he believes this is a reference to part two of the Second Sight review.

He says they were having "robust conversations" with the BBC about their reporting of the leak.

Davies is being shown an email where he says they want to challenge a suggestion by a BBC Radio 4 programme that the Post Office acknowledged there were faults with Horizon and that the sub-postmasters may not be entirely at fault.

He says at that point, the Post Office was not acknowledging that there were faults with Horizon or that the sub-postmasters were not at fault.

Emails are being shown to Davies where he describes Second Sight as effectively working as it should have been.

"Do you think your memory is playing tricks on you about the approach" to Second Sight, asks Blake.

He says it looks very much that by January 2015, the Post Office didn't view Second Sight as appropriate to be investigating.

That's absolutely correct, for January 2015, Davies says.

"There was definitely a concern" about Second Sight being able to handle an investigation, he says.

After a very short break, inquiry lawyer Blake resumes his questioning by asking Davies who - in an email from January 2015 - he says advised him that Second Sight should not look at everything.

He asks Davies whether he was in fact committed to supporting the fraud experts in carrying out their investigation.

Davies's initial response to Blake's question is described by the lawyer as a "very careful answer".

But the former communications head insists he had "no reason not to be supporting" the investigation.