Witnesses in the Mail Inquiry tend to be cautious about assigning blame. When pressured to identify those responsible for failures, they often struggle to recall or outright refuse to name individuals.
This hesitation was not shared by Paula Vennels, the former chief executive. She admitted early on that her greatest error was trusting people who withheld the full truth from her.
When asked to specify who was at fault, Vennels named names: ‘I trusted the people who provided the information, so on the IT side, Lesley Sewell and Mike Young… and, on the legal side, general counsel Susan Crichton and Chris Aujard and, later, Jane MacLeod. These were people I had collaborated with on several significant projects.’
Vennels might have hoped that her testimony would counteract or at least neutralize the perception that she was responsible for covering up this severe miscarriage of justice. However, public reaction suggests this hope was unfounded.
Taking her statements at face value, Vennels has highlighted a new level of responsibility among the lawyers advising the Post Office after the prosecutions of deputy postmasters had largely ceased.
According to her testimony, the lawyers failed to recognize or disclose that the Horizon IT system and associated convictions were flawed. It was these lawyers who advised against reopening cases and warned that even contacting a victim would be provocative. Vennels mentioned that she ensured the lawyers were fulfilling their duties in terms of discovery. They also led the strategy of defending cases until the plaintiffs exhausted their funds.
Vennels herself opposed this culture of fighting claimants: ‘This was not a policy I decided on. The questions I asked [general counsel] ARE [MacLeod] were: “This seems completely wrong to me. What can we do? We should not be in a position where we are fighting in court with sub-postmasters.”’ Despite her reservations, the trial proceeded with a disastrous outcome.
One way Vennels could have overcome the communication barrier with the Post’s lawyers would have been to heed their advice.
The inquiry heard disturbing details about the notorious July 2013 board meeting where Susan Crichton was supposed to update members on the forensic accountant’s report on Horizon. Crichton stayed outside the room (described as a ‘bad student’ by solicitor Jason Beer KC), while Vennels presented the report.
Despite Vennels’ complaints about being excluded from key legal advice, it might have been prudent to listen to some when it was available. However, it wasn’t Vennels’ decision; chairman Alice Perkins excluded Crichton from the meeting without Vennels’ input. Crichton was dismissed three months later, which doesn’t align with Vennels’ claims of putting too much trust in her.
Even if we accept Vennels’ testimony and absolve her from intentionally covering up the scandal, it was remarkably incompetent of her not to prevent those who were.
Vennels’ testimony has certainly shifted focus to the lawyers’ actions during this period. With some prompting, Vennels was willing to point fingers – and regulators are likely taking note.