We're wrapping up our live coverage of the Post Office Horizon inquiry for the day. Thank you to all those who've followed it with us.

The inquiry resumes on Tuesday when we are expecting to hear from former Chief Operating Officer of Post Office Ltd David Miller, and former Chief Executive David Mills.

You can read more about the latest on the Post Office Scandal here.

Today's updates were brought to you by Sean Seddon, Johanna Chisholm, James Gregory, Maria Zaccaro, Ben Hatton, Ali Abbas Ahmadi, Emily Atkinson, Alys Davies, Aoife Walsh, James Harness and Nadia Ragozhina.

Image source, PA Media

A sub-postmistress wrongfully convicted of theft on Alan Cook's watch at the Post Office says she doesn't believe "in the slightest" that he did not know his company was responsible for prosecutions.

Janet Skinner watched this morning as the former boss gave evidence to the inquiry, and the pair spoke privately afterwards.

"To be honest, I probably felt bigger than him, which was a nice feeling," Skinner tells the BBC.

Asked if she accepted Cook's apology, Skinner says: "Yes and no. I want accountability for what they [the Post Office executives] have done to so many families."

She believes Cook still "doesn't get" the gravity of the scandal, adding: "He doesn't hear the heroic stories, what people have had to endure

"He's literally turned a blind eye to it all and pushed it away.

Skinner says: "People have suffered, lost their lives, families, reputations to protect a computer system that didn't work."

• Watch: Cook grilled over case of imprisoned sub-postmistress

Now here's a look at what Adam Crozier, former chief executive of Royal Mail, said in the inquiry today:

• Crozier took the stand after Alan Cook and also said he didn't know the company was responsible for prosecuting sub-postmasters
• He told the inquiry he didn't recall "having involvement in or knowledge of the oversight of the investigations and prosecutions”
• He said he had "real regret" that the Royal Mail was structured in a way that meant he and other senior board members weren't made aware of the large number of prosecutions being launched by the Post Office
• A counsel told Crozier that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses raised concerns over the Horizon IT system when Crozier was in post, but they were told to pay up for the shortfall
• Crozier said he had always assumed "people check those things properly"

We heard from two witnesses today: Alan Cook, managing director of the Post Office from 2006 to 2010 and Adam Crozier, former chief executive of Royal Mail.

Here's a quick look at what we've learnt from Alan Cook in today's evidence session:

• Cook said he didn’t know the Post Office was doing the prosecuting in most cases - hundreds of people were prosecuted while he was in charge
• He said he was aware there were court cases, but assumed the police or public prosecutors were involved
• It wasn't until more than three years into his job he realised the Post Office could prosecute someone without any review or approval from another body
• Cook admitted "too much assumed knowledge” - and said there would have been a "higher bar" had a third party brought the prosecutions, rather than the Post Office itself
• He said he became aware of the issues around the accuracy of the Horizon IT system after a press report and letters from MPs in 2009
• A lawyer representing a sub-postmistress accused Cook of "straight-out lying"
• Cook, who at the start of the hearing offered a "personal apology" to wrongly convicted sub-postmasters, said all he could do was "apologise unreservedly"

Peter Ruddick
Business reporter

After this morning's revelations and apologies, this afternoon's evidence at the inquiry is certainly less gripping. But it is probably no less important.

Adam Crozier's position is that he was unaware of some of the relevant issues with Horizon and prosecutions while he was in charge of the wider group. Partly because the Post Office had a separate board.

However, Jason Beer KC was trying to test this in two ways:

One: did people who were aware of issues report to Crozier directly, or indirectly, and should that have made him responsible?

Two: if Crozier's job was to ensure the wider group's financial figures were correct, shouldn't he have been more aware of financial discrepancies and accompanying prosecutions?

What's becoming clear is that lots of people in charge of the business were unaware of the details of how the legal team operated.

Here's a moment earlier when former Royal Mail CEO Adam Crozier spoke about how several oversight bodies failed to pick up what was actually going on with the prosecution of sub-postmasters and mistresses, calling it a "matter of real regret".

James Gregory
Reporting from the inquiry

I'm just wrapping up here at Aldwych House on a day we have heard from two former executives.

It's clear just overhearing some of the conversations in the inquiry room at Aldwych House at the end of proceedings today that some in the public gallery are unhappy with the answers given by Alan Cook and Adam Crozier.

The inquiry will resume on Tuesday.

Just before the inquiry ended for the day, Stein dealt a final attack.

He said that during Crozier's seven years at the Royal Mail, nobody from there or the Post Office took oversight of the prosecutions of sub-postmasters.

"Are you proud?" he asked.

"No," Crozier replied.

Stein asked how much Crozier was paid during his stint as chair. Was it in the millions?

"Yes, it probably was, yes," the witness said.

As we mentioned earlier, Crozier was frequently criticised by the Post Office unions for his high salary. In 2007-08, he earned £3m in pay and bonuses. During his tenure, he raked in a total of £9.7m.

Some more now on Sam Stein KC's interrogation of Adam Crozier.

Stein fired a series of sharp questions on the money that sub-postmasters and postmistresses were made to repay to the Post Office.

Would the money that had been repaid by these employees appear be called a profit? he asked Crozier.

Crozier didn't answer initially, but eventually agreed that it would appear on the balance sheet.

He then pointed out that the business was in trouble at the time, and Crozier agreed that the accounts were being closely scrutinised at a time when the business was struggling.

If the accounts were being closely scrutinised, that would have been one way to understand what was happening in the business, wouldn't it? Stein asked.

"Yes," replied Crozier.

And if money had been taken from sub-postmasters for errors made by the Horizon system and be put into the profit accounts of the Post Office, that would be "wrong and dishonest, wouldn't it?"

Crozier replied that he doesn't know if it was, so he cannot comment.

Stein continued to press. "If it was, Mr Crozier, it would be wrong and dishonest, wouldn't it?"

"On the face of it, yes," replied Crozier.

James Gregory
Reporting from the inquiry

Just before he finished his questions from Beer, Crozier told the inquiry that his role at Royal Mail was "one of toughest jobs I've ever done from a terrible starting point".

"I do look back and wonder... whether the structure exacerbated the problems. I can see there was a lack of transparency now.

"What I don't understand now is why people worried about the performance [at the time], why you wouldn't get someone from the outside in to get a genuine independent view of what the problem was."

Before the inquiry adjourned for the day, a counsel told Crozier that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses raised concerns over the Horizon IT system when Crozier was in post, but they were told to pay up for the shortfall.

Crozier says he would have expected that when people raised these issues these would have been "fairly looked at".

"I always assume people check those things properly," Crozier says.

The counsel points out that people had to borrow money and some even turned to loan sharks to be able to pay. He asks if the money paid by staff was accounted for.

"I assume it was," says Crozier.

James Gregory
Reporting from the inquiry

Perhaps the toughest line of questioning Crozier faced came from Sam Stein - a lawyer representing several of the sub-postmasters and mistresses.

He put it to him that, contrary to Crozier's testimony, there were indeed people raising queries about the performance of Horizon - the very sub-postmasters and mistresses who were affected by it.

Crozier said he expected that these issues they were raising about the machine to have been "openly and fairly looked at".

Stein also put to Crozier that it would be "wholly wrong" for the shortfalls sub-postmasters and mistresses were being made to pay, because of failings of Horizon, to have been accounted for a profit for the Post Office.

Crozier seemed under pressure and for the first time under questioning is hesitant when answering.

Eventually after more probing, he agreed that had it have been paid in as profit it would be "wrong and dishonest", as Stein put it.

The inquiry has finished hearing testimony from Adam Crozier and will resume on Tuesday.

Stay with us as we catch you up with a few more lines of what we've heard in the last half an hour or so.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

Lawyer Tim Moloney, who represents dozens of sub-postmasters, asks Crozier about the threat of insolvency hanging over the organisation at the time. He puts it to him that if Horizon had failed, it would have threatened the commercial survival of the company.

Crozier says "yes it would, but that would have had to be have been faced into".

Does he think that "existential" problem, coupled with the years of negotiations it took to get the software in the first place, meant it was less likely fundamental problems with Horizon would be tackled?

Crozier disagrees but says that "whatever the difficulties, if people genuinely felt there were problems, they should have said something".

And what about problems that arose before he arrived, he's asked. Should senior staff have been told him about them?

Crozier responded: "I certainly wish they had."

The inquiry counsel asks Crozier about the conclusions he's drawn since leaving Royal Mail over the wrongful prosecutions of sub-postmasters that "happened on your watch".

"What went wrong?" Beer asks.

"I can genuinely say it's one of the toughest jobs I've ever done," he says. "I do look back and wonder if the structure exacerbated the problems."

He says it's now "impossible to look back and not see it as tainted" by the Horizon IT scandal.

Jason Beer KC quotes from Adam Crozier's witness statement, saying that his objective was to include sub-postmasters as trusted partners.

"I would indeed," replies Crozier.

Crozier references some of the recent revelations around what has was said to the sub-postmasters during their investigations, calling the language "deplorable".

Crozier confirms that he has read some of the judgements from the courts around the Horizon system that make it clear there were prevalent issues with Horizon during his tenure.

"Looking back, who is responsible for the fact that none of that was escalated to you or your board?" asks Beer.

Crozier replies that it doesn't seem "fair or right" to speculate on this. What he can remember, he says, is that these issues were not escalated to the higher levels of the management.

Crozier says that declining income soon became the issue that took over the agenda for everyone.

The Hooper Royal Mail review, external looked at various proposals, but Crozier confirms that the dire financial circumstances was the main consideration that preoccupied management.

He says that if concerns with the Horizon IT system had been flagged up, it would have been a concern for the shareholder as well.

Between 2000 and 2010, the Post Office knew about a number of bugs and issues with the Horizon system. Beer asks if Crozier and his senior board should have been made aware of that?

Crozier says he "absolutely" should have been told about any "serious and systematic" issues, as well as the wider board.

He tells the inquiry that never happened.

The inquiry has previously heard that senior Post Office staff defended the system using the phrase that it is "robust and has integrity". This was dubbed the "stock" response.

Crozier says he had no idea at the time senior managers below him had adopted this stance, and says no-one ever said to him that it may not be correct.

The inquiry has resumed.

Adam Crozier is asked to clarify his response to an earlier question on external audits.

He says that auditors were "constantly testing" that the Horizon IT system was working, including the "quality and consistency" of the numbers.

Inquiry lawyer Beer says this matter poses "a very open question" and asks Crozier if he believes those external auditors would, as part of their checks, asses the "reliability" of the Horizon system.

"I'm a layman on this, but I would have thought so," Crozier says.

But he adds that nothing was shown to him that indicated they had a concern about the quality of the numbers.

Crozier says he also cannot recall that he was shown anything that suggested the auditors were cross-checking the integrity of Horizon.

Staying on Horizon, Crozier confirms that the business was "greatly dependent" on the system and that it was relatively well established by 2003.

Beer asks Crozier what steps the main board had taken during his seven-year period to ensure that Horizon was running reliably.

"I don't recall exactly, but I would naturally assume it would have been part of the internal audit plan," replies Crozier.

In a follow up response, Crozier confirms that the internal audit employees were the right people and had the right skills to conduct this kind of review of a financial services system, and would have had the ability to call in further expertise if it was thought to be necessary.