Image source, Post Office Inquiry

We saw an email before the break, dating back to October 2013, which was written to Martin Edwards with a total of eight attachments containing complaints from sub-postmasters, where Vennells was seen writing that she found them very disturbing.

"Why were they disturbing?" Beer asks.

Vennelss says that it was "very disturbing and upsetting" reading those complaints and adds that she wanted to share them with her colleagues, "so everyone knew the seriousness of what we were dealing with".

Before the break, Beer moved his questions on to a handwritten letter sent to Vennells by sub-postmaster William Banville in 2013, which complained about losses incurred at his branch due to Horizon.

In the letter, Banville asks directly if management in the Post Office is aware of "unexplained problems we've suffered".

The letter also notes the larger issue he faces is not just the money he had to put in to replace missing funds, but the "personal attack on me and my staff" and the ongoing costs incurred to repeatedly check their tills match.

After a series of questions about the process that letters were dealt with by her office, Vennells says she remembers often asking for accompanying evidence that informed any response.

"I remember asking to see files, I wouldn't just take something and sign it. And I would always read the letter," she tells Beer.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

The Post Office inquiry is taking a break for about an hour till 14:15 BST.

Stay with us as we bring you more updates and analysis throughout the rest of the day.

Sam Hancock
Reporting from the inquiry

Another meta moment at the inquiry, as sub-postmasters - some of who are watching on today - are mentioned as part of Paula Vennells' evidence.

Vennells, taken through applications submitted to Second Sight (forensic fraud investigators) by people including Lee Castleton, Noel Thomas and Pamela Stubbs, says she found them "disturbing" and "upsetting".

And when asked how, if that was the case, none of the claims resulted in anything of "substance" - Vennells breaks down for a third time.

She apologies again and says she knows now that the Post Office made the wrong call.

I'm not sure I've heard anyone give evidence to the inquiry apologise as much as Vennells has today. Whether that means something, anything, to sub-postmasters and postmistresses is hard to say.

Beer is now focusing on concerns raised by sub-postmasters. He pulls up an email exchange from 2012 between Vennells and Pervez Nakvi, a sub-postmaster and magistrate.

In the email, Nakvi says he had turned down seven customers and his wife turned down another eight due to issues with Horizon. Vennells responds to the email the following day, with colleagues CC’d in, saying he was a respected sub-postmaster and magistrate and that “it is my understanding that Horizon is reliable” but if “trusted individuals” like him are raising then, she asks, “are we monitoring the right metrics?”

Beer asks Vennells, whether it was relevant that the person raising the complaint was a “trusted individual”.

“I responded to all complaining in exactly the same way, I happened to know Pervez very well, but it wouldn't make any difference if I had known the sub-postmaster or not," she says.

Beer presses further, asking her whether all complaints raised by sub-postmasters, whether they were magistrates or not or held other trusted positions, should have caused her to investigate potential horizon issues.

“I’m sure there are cases where that was not the case, but I would have tried to approach them in the same way," she says.

Beer pulls up a report by independent consultants Detica titled 'Fraud and Non-conformance in the Post Office' which highlighted a wide variety of deficiencies across the Post Office's IT system.

He highlights that the report states the findings of forensic accountants Second Sight "resonate strongly" - such as the "disjointed response by the Post Office and the habitual desire to assign responsibility to an individual rather than to conduct root cause analysis".

Is that something that was drawn to your attention?" he asks.

"No," replies Vennells.

"Ought it to have been?" he asks. "Yes," Vennells replies.

She agrees that this is an important report because it corroborates Second Sight's findings, and states that other senior executives had not informed her of it.

"So you didn't read Detica's report at the time because it wasn't passed to you?" Beer asks.

"Yes," Vennells agrees that she did not read the report, and adds that she is not sure if she knew if they were conducting a study.

Image source, Post Office inquiry

The inquiry is now shown the evidence on issues of complaints about bugs, errors and defects.

In her statement, Vennells says there were about 600-plus bugs and defects being corrected by Fujitsu without the Post Office's knowledge.

When asked about where she got that number, she says that she thinks it was from the Horizon issues trial "but I can't remember".

"It's a recent understanding of the numbers, not that one I had at the time," she adds.

Jason Beer KC moves on to showing Vennells an email sent by former Post Office boss Alan Cook to the communications director of Royal Mail Mary Fegan.

In the email from 2009, which Vennells is copied into, Cook accuses sub-postmasters with their "hand in the till" of choosing to "blame the technology". Cook has since apologised for these comments.

Vennells also denies it was also her view that sub-postmasters had their "hands in the till" nor using the word "subbies".

Beer asks: "What about the more important thing - about them having their hands in the till?"

A ripple of laughter from those watching proceedings is heard in the room.

Vennells replies: "I beg your pardon, I wasn't avoiding answering that question - neither - either calling them subbies or having their hands in the till."

Sam Hancock
Reporting from the inquiry

We're just returning from a quick break and, if possible, it seems to have got even busier here at the inquiry than it was this morning.

I asked former sub-postmaster Alan Bates for his reaction to Paula Vennells' evidence so far - specifically the revelations about how the death of Martin Griffiths was handled - but he told me that he'd like to listen to everything Vennells has to say today before giving any kind of comment.

If you look back at some of my earlier posts, you'll see that it was an email from Bates that first alerted the Post Office to Griffiths' suicide attempt. Griffiths, another former sub-postmaster, later died in hospital.

Emails between Vennells and other Post Office bosses, about Griffiths' death, were a key part of this morning's session. Let's see what this afternoon brings.

Beer presses Vennells further on her claims that she wasn’t aware of the dozens of private prosecutions while she was in charge of the Post Office.

Vennells says she personally spoke to John Scott, the Post Office’s former head of security, after the feedback from Second Sight and the mediation scheme.

“When you spoke to John Scott about this, did you say John, I’ve been in the organisation for five or six years, I didn’t know you had a team of 100 people that were investigating up and down the country sub-postmasters and sending them to prison. How come I didn’t know?” Beer asks.

Laughter can be heard in the inquiry room as Beer poses the question.

She says she spoke to him seriously about the culture at the Post Office and that the sub-postmasters were really important to us.

Classic interrogation placing Vennells under huge pressurepublished at 12:42 British Summer Time 22 May

12:42 BST 22 May

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Paula Vennells came to the inquiry with a staggeringly long witness statement and her position seems to be that she was let down by others, but should have dug more deeply.

That may be the story she wants to tell – but the fact is that in any public inquiry or courtroom, the simple story that dominates is often the one that a skilful barrister steers the witness towards accepting.

So Jason Beer, the inquiry’s lead counsel – and a master of detail – simply ignored Vennells' statement to cut through with simple and explosive opening questions. His first shot was a huge salvo: Had she been the unluckiest boss ever?

This is the kind of question that stops a confident witness in their tracks – and a fearful one will visibly wither.

They reach for their own simple story in response but, immersed in their detail, rather than the bigger picture, they don’t always know how to tell it.

Sam Hancock
Reporting from the inquiry

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

When Sir Wyn Williams, the chair of the inquiry, intervenes - you know it's a moment to take note. Nine times out of 10, he's picking up on something he wants further clarification on or is potentially struggling to accept as fact.

He's done just that in the last couple of minutes to really press Paula Vennells on her claim that she didn't know the Post Office was carrying out private prosecutions of sub-postmasters. It "was a function [of the Post Office] that one didn't hear about," is how she sums up the company's security and investigative arm.

Cutting in, Williams says many people giving evidence have said that, but he doesn't understand how it can be true. Using the example of Seema Misra, Williams says there was so much press attention around her cases, it's hard to imagine how bosses couldn't have known she was being pursued by the Post Office.

Vennells' response - that she has no recollection - doesn't seem to be accepted by those watching on. There are more than a few jeers, with one man laughing enough that he breaks out into a brief coughing fit.

Beer continues questioning Vennells about the meeting from 2008.

He asks her whether it is reasonable to infer from the record of this meeting that it was openly discussed that the Post Office was conducting investigations of its own staff and recovering money from them.

"Yes, I think that's a reasonable inference to draw," Vennells replies.

"So why is it you that you say that it was not until 2012 that you appreciated that?" Beer presses.

"The only acceptable answer [...] is that I should have known and I should have asked more questions, and I and others who also didn't know should have dug much more deeply into this," Vennells replies.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

Vennells goes on to say that she did not know that the different nations in the UK had different approaches to investigations and prosecutions, when she joined the Post Office in 2007.

"So my assumption would have been that the investigations and the prosecutions which were held by the Royal Mail Groups were held across the UK."

When asked when she became aware that the Post Office conducted its own prosecutions, she said it was 2012.

Now the inquiry is listening the notes from a Risk and Compliance Committee meeting in 2008, that Vennells was present at as well. Beers is pushing her that she should have been aware of the Post Office conducting its own criminal investigations in that meeting, since they were talking about investigators - and a Post Office investigation was the whole context of the discussions in the meeting.

Vennells says she wouldn't have "taken that from this at all... because it doesn't say that."

Jason Beer KC has turned to examining Vennells' professional background and knowledge of how the Post Office operated.

The lead counsel to the inquiry asks if it is correct she had no previous experience of managing both a large IT team and an organisation which prosecuted its own staff - Vennells says this is correct.

The barrister then moves on to discussing several references to the importance of protecting public money, asking if Vennells was preoccupied with this concept?

The former Post Office CEO says she was not preoccupied with it, but adds that when she joined the Royal Mail in 2007 she was surprised about how much attention was paid to a document called "managing public money".

"Of course it's because it was important, because all public organisations are funded through public money," Vennells tells Beer.

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

Counsel to the Inquiry Jason Beer now returns to Vennells’s witness statement. He says she has often said she doesn’t recall matters that could potentially be damaging to the Post Office, but “has no problem” remembering things that attribute blame to others.

Why do you tend to remember things that diminish your blameworthiness, Beer asks Vennells.

“I don't believe that’s the way I approach my statement at all,” she replies, adding that she had the intention to approach it with integrity and honesty.

Sam Hancock
Reporting from the inquiry

The death of former sub-postmaster Martin Griffiths is still being discussed - specifically now how Paula Vennells and the Post Office responded.

We're shown an email, in which Vennells is told of Griffiths' death, and as part of her response she says she had "heard but have yet to see a formal report, that there were previous mental health issues and potential family issues".

Image source, Post Office Inquiry

At this point, multiple people in the room shake their heads, something I didn't see anyone do when Vennells broke down a few minutes ago. One woman does so continuously as inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC puts it to Vennells that she was trying to get "on the front foot" in the case of Griffiths.

Vennells denies this and says her wording - specifically about any "potential family issues" Griffiths had - was wrong. She goes as far as admitting that's not something she should've said.

The mood in the room has well and truly changed.

Sam Hancock
Reporting from the inquiry

As we're shown an email, sent by Alan Bates to Paula Vennells and other Post Office staff in 2013, I can see the former sub-postmaster and campaigner for justice to my left.

He's staring at the screen on which his email - being read out by inquiry counsel Jason Beer - is shown.

The note's about Martin Griffiths, a former sub-postmaster who attempted to take his own life on 23 September 2013, having been accused of a shortfall amounting to £100,000 at his Cheshire branch. He died in hospital weeks later.

Vennells says she's "so sorry that Mr Griffiths isn't here today" - but acknowledges that sorry is a "shallow" response to this case. Reaching for a tissue once again, she breaks down and is told by Beer to wait until she's finished crying before trying to continue.

The mood in the room is very sombre as the death of Griffiths is discussed, and Vennells takes her time before continuing to answer questions.

Following a short break the inquiry resumes with Jason Beer KC going over notes from a Post Office board meeting in 2012, where allegations of issues with Horizon were raised and dismissed by the firm's top lawyer at the time Susan Crichton.

The meeting record notes board members were told the firm had won every criminal prosecution using evidence "based on the Horizon system's integrity", as well as receiving positive reports about it from auditors.

Vennells says this is what most people in the Post Office thought was case at the time, but goes on to admit "clearly that was completely and totally inaccurate".

Beer concludes the line of questioning by asking how she thinks false information was given to her.

Vennells replies that it important to note she didn't believe the information was false, adding that it is unlikely other board members thought so too.

How much did Vennells earn at the Post Office?published at 11:37 British Summer Time 22 May

11:37 BST 22 May

BBC analysis estimates Vennells earned £5.1m during her time at the helm of the Post Office, peaking at an annual sum of £718,300 in 2018.

That year, her base salary was £253,800 and she earned £390,800 in bonuses (plus pensions and other benefits).

Based on company accounts, the people running the Post Office for the 24 years that the flawed Horizon system was in place earned a collective £19.4m between them.