by The architect of the faulty Horizon computer system, who presented evidence used to convict the subpostmasters, demanded immunity before agreeing to appear at the public inquiry.
Gareth Jenkins, who is believed to have been instrumental in developing the software as a senior computer engineer at Fujitsu, is under police investigation for his role in the Post Office scandal.
His testimony in court that Fujitsu’s computer system was working properly was critical to the convictions and was used repeatedly by Correos’ lawyers.
Tracked down by The Telegraph at his home in Berkshire, Jenkins, 69, said, when asked if he regretted what happened: “I don’t want to talk. I have nothing to say to you”.
It cannot be used against him.
Jenkins has twice asked for assurances that any testimony he gives at the inquiry cannot be used against him in any potential prosecution and his testimony has also been delayed twice.
On Tuesday, Paula Vennells, the former Post Office chief executive who presided over the scandal, said she was returning her CBE and was “truly sorry for the devastation” caused to the wrongly prosecuted and convicted subpostmasters. She also emerged that in 2017 she was considered for the position of Bishop of London.
Ms Vennells said in a statement: “I have so far maintained my silence because I considered it inappropriate to make public comments while the investigation is ongoing and before I have given my oral evidence.
“However, I am aware of calls from subpostmasters and others to return my CBE. “I have heard and confirm that I am returning my CBE with immediate effect.”
Adam Crozier, chief executive of Royal Mail between 2003 and 2010, when he owned the post office, also issued a statement saying he felt “deeply sorry for those whose lives were ruined by what happened” but denied any involvement.
Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader who was Post Office Minister at the time, is now under pressure to have his knighthood restored.
Prosecutions initiated by the CPS
The Telegraph can also reveal that at least 27 prosecutions were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (as opposed to the Post Office), raising serious questions about whether Sir Keir Starmer, the Labor leader, oversaw a series of wrongful convictions during his five-year term. as director of the Public Ministry between 2008 and 2013.
Mr Jenkins was due to give evidence twice at the public inquiry. But each time he was postponed, including in November 2023, when the Post Office released 3,045 documents the night before he was due to testify. Sources have speculated that the release of the documents was timed to prevent Jenkins from giving testimony.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed last week that it was investigating “matters relating to Fujitsu Horizon and the Post Office… into possible offenses of perjury and perverting the course of justice”.
The Met also announced it was investigating “possible fraud offences” as a result of unfair prosecutions of subpostmasters. That includes an allegation that the Post Office boosted its profits by recovering money from subpostmasters falsely dragged into criminal or civil courts.
The Telegraph understands that Jenkins, chief architect of Horizon at Fujitsu, told investigators as early as 2012 that Fujitsu could remotely access the IT system designed for the Post Office from its headquarters in Bracknell, Berks. But it would take until 2019 for the Post Office to admit that the computer systems of subpostmasters could be accessed remotely, blowing a hole in the prosecution’s key argument that the system could not be manipulated and was a fail proof.
Ian Henderson, director of Second Sight, a forensic accounting firm that was the first to highlight unsafe convictions, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We were able to identify that there were errors and defects in the Horizon system. This was revealed 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 to see how they operated and what the problems were. It was at that meeting that Fujitsu revealed to me that they routinely used remote access to branch terminals to troubleshoot problems.”
The Telegraph has been told that the lead engineer who briefed the Second Sight team was Mr Jenkins. The prosecutions did not stop until 2015.
The documents forced a postponement
Jenkins was due to give evidence for the first time at the inquiry on July 6, 2023, but on the eve of his testimony the Post Office produced 5,000 documents which it said had just come to light. The appearance was rescheduled for November 2023 but again Correos found more than 3,000 documents, this time days before, which forced it to be postponed.
Jenkins has twice requested that Sir Wyn Williams, the chair of the inquiry, ask the Attorney-General to grant him immunity from any comments he makes during evidence at the inquiry so that they are not used against him in a court of law in any possible future criminal proceedings.
On both occasions, Sir 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 in criminal proceedings of evidence given in the investigation, as requested by former Fujitsu engineer Gareth Jenkins”.
He added: “I am satisfied that Mr Jenkins has not been the victim of injustice so far and I am determined that he should not become the victim of injustice as the investigation work progresses.”
Politicians have demanded that Mr Jenkins be forced to testify.
Kevan Jones, Labor MP and member of Horizon’s Compensation Advisory Board, said; “Gareth Jenkins should appear before the public inquiry. The investigation considers him a key witness and, therefore, he should testify. If he does not appear, we must make him appear. What has been surprising this week is the deafening silence from Fujitsu as a company. “They have to come forward and explain what their role has been in all of this.”
David Davis, the former Conservative cabinet minister who has been pushing for justice for the subpostmasters, said: “He should appear and give evidence. I can’t think in what world he imagines he should get immunity given the fact that we’re going to have to investigate what happened.
“We cannot grant immunity just because people are going to present evidence at the public inquiry. Offering evidence is a requirement for your participation in this case.”
