ICYMI...Searchable transcripts of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry hearings

From which...some extracts of Phase 4 - 2 February 2024 - Closing statement by Mr Moloney:

  • Jarnail Singh ascended to Head of Criminal Law, seemingly because he was the only one left, whilst simultaneously practising in a completely different area of law in his spare time.

  • ...the evidence yesterday on the changes made Mr Jenkins’ statement in Noel Thomas’ case and the failings apparent in the evidence of Jarnail Singh and Warwick Tatford. They failed in respect of disclosure duties, including in the handling of third-party disclosure from Fujitsu and in the direct response to defence requests and, importantly, they have failed to exercise the independence expected of a legal professional in the exercise of the discharge of their duties to the court.

  • Far from reprimanding Mr Singh for his emotive, gloating response to the conviction of a postmaster, the Executive Team were associated with the thanks offered by management to him for his efforts.

  • Mr Singh wrote this:

    “Any case begun now will attract some type of Horizon issue because this is the passing bandwagon people are jumping on. When we have a few more wins under our belt the Horizon challenges will melt away like midnight snow.”

  • ...the evidence of Elaine Cottam and Jarnail Singh call into question the Post Office’s and their lawyers’ understanding of basic concepts, such as how to answer questions in a witness statement and whether information that is not written down is disclosable.

  • This also appeared to be the case for Mr Singh, who, despite being advised that Gareth Jenkins’ role as an expert witness had been discredited and that there were instances where the Post Office had breached their disclosure obligations, provided a quotation to the Post Office’s Public Affairs Manager, that it is submitted he knew must be untrue, to allow the Post Office to defend Horizon to the public.

    He seemed equally unapologetic for his part in his role as Head of Criminal Law, or whatever the title may have been: Mr Singh seemed not to be able to remember. Instead, he compared himself as aggrieved, in the same way as victims of Horizon were, because he was in a position to do something and he didn’t. His evidence and that of Elaine Cottam was shocking in its incoherence and, whether deliberate or not, adds to the obfuscation created by so much of the witness evidence.