Image source, Reuters

The public inquiry into the Post Office scandal will continue tomorrow, when it will hear from lawyer Chris Jackson who has been called as the legal representative of the Post Office.

He'll be asked about the Post Office’s disclosure to the inquiry.

Join us again tomorrow as we bring you all of the latest developments but for now, you can read more of our coverage here:

• Hundreds could have convictions overturned this year
• 'I carried the shame - I refuse to carry it any longer'
• Post Office scandal explained: What the Horizon saga is all about

Today's page was brought to you by Sam Hancock, Malu Cursino, Natasha Preskey, Ali Abbas Ahmadi, Emily McGarvey, Marie Jackson, Ece Goksedef, Nadia Ragozhina, Marita Moloney, Owen Amos and Anna Boyd.

Two more convictions in Scotland relating to the Horizon Post Office scandal have been overturned.

Sub-postmistress Judith Smith pled guilty to a charge of fraud at Selkirk Sheriff Court in 2009, while sub-postmaster Colin Smith admitted a charge of embezzlement at Dunfermline Sheriff Court in 2013.

Their convictions were later identified as potentially unsafe by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and have been quashed before their appeals were due to be heard in court tomorrow.

A total of four Scottish convictions have now been overturned.

Image source, PA Media

As the inquiry wraps up for the day, let's run through some of the main points that were put to Stephen Bradshaw, a former Post Office investigator:

• Inquiry counsel Julian Blake asked Bradshaw if he should have looked further into claims there were issues with the Horizon IT system. Bradshaw insisted his role was to gather evidence and pass it on to solicitors
• Throughout the hearing, Bradshaw insisted he was only "a liaison" and deflected much of the responsibility for key decisions to the lawyers representing the Post Office - Cartwright King

• Lawyers representing the victims at the heart of the scandal had the opportunity to put some questions to Bradshaw. Edward Henry KC, representing former sub-postmistress Janet Skinner, put it to Bradshaw that he and his team were "drenched in information that Horizon wasn't working", to which Bradshaw accepted that the information "came through"
• Christopher Jacobs, a lawyer representing former sub-postmistress Shazia Saddiq, told Bradshaw he had "hounded" her and others but Bradshaw denied this
• Jacobs said 49 of the 156 sub-postmasters he represents said they were told by the Post Office that they were the only one being investigated and 61 were threatened with prosecution. Bradshaw insisted he'd "never threatened anyone with prosecution" and categorically denied telling postmasters or postmistresses "that they were the only one"

Hundreds wrongly convicted in the Post Office scandal could have their names cleared, after emergency laws were announced to "swiftly exonerate and compensate victims".

There were more than 900 convictions linked to the scandal over 16 years, with only 93 so far being overturned.

Here's a look at some figures over the course of the scandal:

Sam Hancock
Live reporter at the Post Office inquiry

Rounding off today's hearing was Tim Moloney KC - he represents, among others, Della Robinson who sits beside him today.

A former sub-postmistress at Dukinfield Post Office in Cheshire, Robinson was convicted in 2013 of false accounting.

Moloney suggests there was a time, after Stephen Bradshaw formally interviewed Robinson many years ago, that he and others were aware she hadn't taken the money.

Robinson nodded along as her lawyer spoke, at times smiling and looking at her partner, Michael, sat beside her. But Bradshaw denied this ever happened, saying "I wouldn't say anything like that".

When Chair Sir Wyn Williams calls today's proceedings to an end, there's a buzz of excitement in the room.

Some of the sub-postmasters and postmistresses talk to their legal teams, journalists - like me - tap furiously at their keyboards, and before long the room empties entirely. One thing's for sure, though - interest in this scandal isn't going away anytime soon.

Thanks for following my coverage of the inquiry today, it's been a pleasure. It'll carry on at the same time tomorrow - 10am.

Tim Moloney KC, who represents 73 sub-postmasters and mistresses - all of whom were convicted but later had their convictions overturned, brings up the case of Della Robinson.

Robinson, sitting beside him, was a sub-postmistress at Dukinfield Post Office in Cheshire. She was convicted in 2013 of false accounting.

Moloney says Bradshaw interviewed Robinson who said errors were the result of using Horizon.

But after the interview, Moloney says Bradshaw spoke to Robinson and her partner in an empty canteen and told her off the record "we know you haven't taken the money but worst case scenario is you'll be prosecuted."

Bradshaw denies saying this, adding: "I wouldn't say anything like that because it's not my decision."

Christopher Jacobs, a lawyer acting on behalf of Rita Threlfall, says Threlfall uses a wheelchair and, when she met Bradshaw to be interviewed in 2010, she asked for a chair and never received one, so she had to sit on stairs.

The interview was upstairs, without proper access for a wheelchair, Jacobs continues, and Threlfall was placed in a "tiny parcel lift".

In response to Threlfall's account, Bradshaw says the chances of being given a chair in a Royal Mail delivery office are "slim".

He also says: "It wasn't a small tiny parcel lift, it was a designated wheelchair lift."

Jacobs refutes this and says "Rita would want me to say you're not telling the truth."

Bradshaw says he has a photohraph of the lift. Sir Wyn Williams says this can be submitted formally and he can consider the evidence and also run it past Threlfall.

Jacobs says Threlfall was "shaken by the experience" and now has "crippling anxiety and depression which arises, in large part, from the way you treated her".

He says Threlfall is watching today but is "too traumatised to give evidence to this inquiry".

Sam Hancock
Live reporter at the Post Office inquiry

When I spoke to Shazia Saddiq earlier, she told me her story and described how she had received repeated and threatening phone calls from Stephen Bradshaw, which included the use of offensive language.

She told me Bradshaw once called her a bitch, which her statement to the inquiry says her husband heard as the phone was on loudspeaker.

When Saddiq's lawyer Christopher Jacobs asks Bradshaw about this, he says this isn't true and that he'd never use such a word.

Put to him that he was lying and had "hounded" Saddiq and others, Bradshaw says "no I didn't".

As her lawyer speaks, Saddiq nods along and looks directly in Bradshaw's direction. She told me earlier she had wanted to make eye contact with him all day, but had struggled. "He won't look at me," she said.

Image source, Post Office inquiry

Up next is Christopher Jacobs from Landmark Chambers, who represents 156 sub-postmasters and postmistresses - 49 of whom said they were told by the Post Office that they were the only one being investigated, and 61 were threatened with prosecution.

He brings up Jacqueline McDonald (whose case Julian Blake brought up earlier today) who had said Bradshaw had told her she was the only one being prosecuted.

What McDonald said about you is pretty standard practice for how the Post Office dealt with these sub-postmasters and postmistresses, isn't it? Jacobs asks.

"I've never threatened anyone with prosecution," says Bradshaw.

He said it was "completely wrong" if people from the Post Office told sub-postmasters or postmistresses that they were the only one. "I can categorically say I have never said that."

The inquiry has now finished for the day, but stay with us as we bring you more posts from the end of the session. There will also be reaction to come to today's events.

Proceedings will resume at 10am tomorrow.

Janet Skinner, who was interviewed previously by Bradshaw and another former Post Office investigator, Diane Matthews, made 116 calls to the National Business Support Centre (NBSC) about Horizon. Bradshaw says he was only there during the interview but everything was done by Matthews.

When Skinner was cleared of any wrongdoing, the Court of Appeal saıd there was an extraordinary failure to investigate the 116 calls which were made in a relatively short space of time.

Asked if he looked into them, Bradshaw says he didn't because "the inquiry was Ms Matthews'," and adds he was only there on the day of the interview.

Skinner was persuaded by her lawyer to plead guilty to false accounting in return for theft charges being dropped. She was advised she would not get a prison sentence if she did. In the end she was sentenced to nine months in jail.

"Diane Matthews dealt with that... it was completely wrong but I had very little input in that inquiry. Ms Matthews did not discuss that with me," Bradshaw repeats.

Sam Hancock
Live reporter at the Post Office inquiry

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

It's certainly a bit more lively in the inquiry room now that we're hearing from the lawyers representing the people at the heart of all this - the sub-postmasters and postmistresses convicted over faulty IT software.

First up is Edward Henry, of HJA, who represents five victims including Janet Skinner, who's here today.

Following a few questions, Henry asks Stephen Bradshaw if he has anything to say to the "innocent woman" who sits beside him, Skinner.

Bradshaw says he had "very little" to do with Skinner's case, but he concedes that if she was prosecuted in error, "that is wrong".

The conviction of Skinner, who looks very calm during the exchange between her lawyer and Bradshaw, was overturned in 2021.

Image source, Post Office inquiry

We've now moved on to questions from core participants.

Edward Henry KC puts it to Bradshaw that "you and your security department were drenched in information that Horizon wasn't working from the beginning".

Bradshaw accepts that information "came through".

Henry says there was an "epidemic of shortfalls" and there had been "thousands upon thousands of anguished and perplexed calls" to the help desk at the National Business Support Centre (NBSC) from postmasters.

Henry also puts it to Bradshaw that his department had been communicating with the Horizon help desk and NBSC.

Bradshaw says he would've obtained call logs but there was nothing in them to suggest there were any issues with Horizon, and that any issues would've been interrogated.

Henry tells Bradshaw that he and his department "ignored anything that didn't fit the narrative that Horizon was working".

"That's your suggestion," says Bradshaw.

Henry says that, over and over again, "terrified" sub-postmasters sitting across an interview desk from Bradshaw and his colleagues would have been told they were the only ones with a problem.

Bradshaw denies ever saying this.

Julian Blake has moved on from the case studies and is showing complaints from sub-postmasters on the screen.

One of the complainants Azfar Saeed wrote of an "unpleasant experience, inappropriate exercise, and improper code of practice, unbearable attitude, harassment and victimisation" by Bradshaw.

The letter accused Bradshaw of threatening to call the police if Saeed did not consent to a search of his house. Bradshaw "tried to put words into my mouth that I stole the money", Saeed's letter continued.

A second letter from 2009 from a sub-postmistress is also displayed on screen, complaining about the "unprofessional and disgusting behavour" from Bradshaw and one of his colleagues.

Can you tell us why your name seems to come up again and again? Blake asks Bradshaw.

The Post Office investigator replies that the complaints are not "totally accurate".

Inquiry counsel Julian Blake asks Bradshaw whether it was unusual for the Post Office - which prosecuted hundreds of sub-postmasters and postmistresses - to offer a plea on the basis that the defendant had to accept that the Horizon system was working well.

"I believe it has happened," says Bradshaw, but cannot confirm that it happened on a case he was working on.

Blake moves onto the case of Katherine McQue - a former Cumbrian sub-postmistress who was given a suspended prison sentence. She pleaded guilty to fraud after accepting there was nothing wrong with Horizon, Blake says.

The chair interrupts proceedings to push Bradshaw to answer the question.

Do you think it's appropriate for the Post Office to say we will accept your plea, the chair asks, but only if you don't blame Horizon?

Probably not, replies Bradshaw.

Bradshaw is being shown a witness statement from Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu (the company behind the Horizon system).

Jenkins's statement says that there had been no successful challenges to the integrity of the Horizon system in court.

He writes: "I fully believe that Horizon will accurately record all data that is submitted to it and correctly account for it."

He adds that he cannot account for human error, lack of training or fraud.

Inquiry counsel Blake says the wording of Jenkins's statement is very similar to Bradshaw's statement shown earlier today, and asks if Bradshaw or anyone in his team was involved in drafting Jenkins's statement.

"No, not at all," says Bradshaw.

Sam Hancock
Live reporter at the Post Office inquiry

There's a slightly different tone to the latter part of today's hearing.

Inquiry lawyer Julian Blake - continuing to take former Post Office investigator Stephen Bradshaw through various documents - brings up the working relationship between Bradshaw and one of the lawyers at Cartwright King, which acted for the Post Office on the private prosecutions it brought against sub-postmasters and postmistresses.

Blake mentions the fact that Andrew Bolc, of Cartwright King, criticised Bradshaw's abilities as an investigator.

There's some laughter in the room - not from any of the sub-postmasters sitting near the front, instead it comes from the various others who are here, some taking notes, some watching on.

Bradshaw, looking sternly ahead at Blake, says that's Bolc's opinion. But he adds that he could say the same about Bolc, triggering more laughter.

When pushed, Bradshaw says he doesn't wish to comment on people's character.

Image source, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

Bradshaw is now being asked whether further Post Office data should have been looked into - and if he got in the way of it going ahead.

Inquiry counsel Julian Blake says that according to an email shown to the hearing, a decision was taken not to look further into Post Office data.

The email shown to the hearing from Cartwright King solicitor Andrew Bolc read out: "Dear Gareth, the investigator is happy with the report as it stands. Please could you proceed as before. Many thanks".

But, Bradshaw says multiple times, that decision was not his.

Who was responsible for not carrying out the investigation further, Bradshaw is asked, to which he replies: "Mr Bolc. He was the one putting the evidence together."

According to another piece of evidence read out, Bolc said Bradshaw "wasn't much of an investigator".

In response, Bradshaw says he could say the same about Bolc "but I'm not going down that line".

Asked further about his opinion of Bolc, Bradshaw says all he is prepared to say is that he's employed by the firm that represented the Post Office.

Sam Hancock
Live reporter at the Post Office inquiry

The inquiry's just returning after another brief break, and we've just been told that after another 15 minutes or so of questions from inquiry lawyer Julian Blake, those representing former sub-postmasters and postmistresses will get a turn.

It'll likely be a big moment, emotionally, for some in the room.

As I reported earlier, Shazia Saddiq, one of the former sub-postmistresses here, has particularly bad memories of Stephen Bradshaw. It'll be interesting to see what her representative asks the former Post Office investigator.

And there's Janet Skinner, another sub-postmistress here today, whose interview with Bradshaw was spoken about this morning. She told me earlier she thought Bradshaw was "never going to show remorse".

Emails between Andrew Bolc (a lawyer for Cartwright King), Gareth Jenkins (Fujitsu's former chief IT architect) and Stephen Bradshaw are being shown on the screen.

Julian Blake asks Bradshaw to clarify why the price of obtaining Post Office data for the Grant Allen case should affect whether or not it should be sought in the first place.

Bradshaw says he doesn't know anything about the cost, and it would be "solely between" Bolc and Jenkins. He says he would not give Bolc any instructions about costs.

The price doesn't matter if the data is essential to the case, Bradshaw says. If its needed, it should be applied for, he adds.