The architect of the faulty Horizon IT system that provided evidence used to convict sub-postmasters has sought immunity before agreeing to take part in a public inquiry.
Gareth Jenkins, who as a senior computer engineer at Fujitsu is understood to have been instrumental in the development of the software, is under police investigation for his role in the Post Office scandal.
His testimony in court cases that the Fujitsu IT system was working correctly was central to the convictions and was used repeatedly by Post Office lawyers.
Asked if he was sorry about what had happened, Mr Jenkins, 69, who was tracked down to his home in Berkshire by The Telegraph, said: “I don’t want to talk about it. I have nothing to say to you.”
Can’t be used against him
Mr Jenkins twice sought assurances that his statements at the inquest could not be used against him in any possible investigation, and his evidence was adjourned twice.
On Tuesday, former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells, who presided over the scandal, said she would hand back her CBE and was “genuinely sorry for the devastation” that led to deputy postmasters being unfairly tried and convicted. It was also revealed in 2017 that he was being considered for the role of Bishop of London.
In a statement, Ms Vennells said: “I have maintained my silence until now as I felt it was inappropriate to comment publicly while the investigation was ongoing and before I gave my oral evidence.
“However, I am aware of calls from sub-postmasters and others to return my CBE. “I have listened and confirm that I am returning my CBE with immediate effect.”
Adam Crozier, chief executive of Royal Mail, which owned the Post Office between 2003 and 2010, also issued a statement, saying he was “deeply sorry for those whose lives were devastated by what happened” but denied any involvement.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, who was Post Office minister at the time, is now under pressure to hand back his knighthood.
Prosecutions brought by the CPS
The Telegraph can also reveal that at least 27 prosecutions have been brought by the Crown Prosecution service, as opposed to the Post Office; This raises serious questions about whether Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer oversaw a number of wrongful convictions during his five-year term in office. He served as director of public prosecutions between 2008 and 2013.
Mr Jenkins was required to give evidence twice to the public inquiry. But each time it was postponed; Including as recently as November 2023, when the Post Office disclosed 3,045 documents the evening before he was due to give evidence. Sources suggested the release of the documents was timed to prevent Mr Jenkins from giving evidence.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed last week that it was investigating “matters relating to Fujitsu Horizon and the Post Office… in relation to potential offenses of perjury and perverting the course of justice”.
The Met also announced it was investigating “possible fraud offences” as a result of unfair investigations into sub-postmasters. These allegations include the allegation that the Post Office increased its profits by collecting money from assistant postmasters who were wrongly dragged into criminal or civil courts.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Jenkins, chief architect for Horizon at Fujitsu, told investigators as early as 2012 that the IT system designed for the Post Office could be accessed remotely from Fujitsu’s headquarters in Bracknell, Berks. But it will take until 2019 for the Post Office to accept that sub-postmasters’ computer systems can be accessed remotely, creating a gap in the key prosecution claim that the system cannot be tampered with and is fail-safe.
Ian Henderson, director of forensic accounting firm Second Sight, which first highlighted the unsafe convictions, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We were able to identify errors and flaws in the Horizon system. This was reported to the Post Office by Fujitsu itself.”
“I visited Fujitsu in September 2012 and met with the senior technical engineer and had a very detailed meeting looking at how they worked, what the issues were. At that meeting Fujitsu explained to me that they routinely use remote access to branch terminals for troubleshooting purposes.”
The Telegraph was told that the senior engineer briefing the Second Sight team was Mr Jenkins. The cases were not stopped until 2015.
Documents forced the postponement
Mr Jenkins was first due to give evidence to the inquiry on July 6, 2023, but on the eve of his testimony the Post Office produced 5,000 documents it said had come to light. The visit was rescheduled for November 2023, but more than 3,000 documents were again found by the Post Office, this time from days before, forcing a postponement.
Mr Jenkins has twice asked the chairman of the inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, to request that the Attorney-General grant him immunity against any comments he made during evidence relating to the inquiry being used against him in a court of law in any possible future criminal investigation.
Both times Ser Wyn refused his request. In October 2023, Sir Wyn said he would not seek an undertaking from the Attorney General that would “restrict the use of evidence given at the inquest in criminal proceedings, as requested by former Fujitsu engineer Gareth Jenkins”.
He added: “I am satisfied that Mr Jenkins is not yet the victim of injustice and I am determined that he is not the victim of injustice as the investigation progresses.”
Politicians demanded that Mr. Jenkins testify.
Kevan Jones, Labor MP and member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, said; “Gareth Jenkins must face a public inquiry. The investigation considers him a key witness and therefore he must testify. If it is not visible, then it must be revealed. What was surprising this week was the deafening silence from Fujitsu as a company. “They need to come forward and explain what their role is in all of this.”
Former Tory cabinet minister David Davis, who has pressed for justice for sub-postmasters, said: “He must come forward and give evidence. The truth is, I can’t imagine in what world he thinks he should get immunity, given that we’re going to have to investigate what happened.
“We cannot give immunity just because people will give evidence to the public inquiry. Giving evidence is a requirement for their involvement in this case.”