questions of detail of what are the questions of detail of what was happening in the boardroom and at other senior levels in the post office that this phase of the inquiry really should be tackling. i think there may be a lot more to come out that we don't already know. the post office has said it was deeply sorry for the impact this has had on victims and be recognised for what to do more, they are working around the clock to address this but i believe the inquiry has just started. richard, and so sorry, that's just listening. joining me at one o'clock this morning and i understand before we begin hearing evidence, you wish to raise the issue of disclosure?— issue of disclosure? yes, it's a matter of— issue of disclosure? yes, it's a matter of importance - issue of disclosure? yes, it's a matter of importance that - issue of disclosure? yes, it's a

matter of importance that i - issue of disclosure? yes, it's a - matter of importance that i wanted to update your decode participants on before we caught mr bates to give his evidence. and commence the substance of the hearings in phases five and six. the court participants were sent an e—mail by the solicitor to the inquiry yesterday that content relevant correspondence from the post office that dates between the post office that dates between the 28th of march and the 5th of april sent to the inquiry and consists of long letters. or it would propose to give you a brief background before movement to the current issue and i will try and keep it simic synced but i think the issue may assist you. —— qubits assault. the post office led an problematic disclosure of documents has been a constant theme in this inquiry resulting in or drink that

we hear oral evidence from the post office and the inquiry representatives to disclosure related hearings held injuly and september last year. on the 12th of january this year at the inquiry held a further hearing on disclosure and called post offices recognised legal representative mrjackson to give oral evidence. you will recall that by and large the key issue that was discussed at that hearing was held at the post office had discovered an about post office repository or data source known as microsoft exchange 365. he will recall that the microsoft exchange 365 repository was brought to the attention of the inquiry during the phase for hearings and as a result the inquiry received numerous sometimes voluminous last—minute disclosure of documents said to

relate to your face for witnesses and on some occasions only days before some witnesses were adhered to give evidence. during the january hearing mrjackson said such last minute discussion about the post office during the pace of the hearings were sent to give evidence. during the january hearing mr jackson said such last—minute disclosure by the post office during the face of the hearings was undercooked suboptimal. there left disclosures have put immense pressure on the inquiry counsel and solicitor teams who worked extremely hard to ensure that the face for hearings, in fact as planned. in some instances regrettably a decision was made to postpone or reschedule a witness at short notice including you will remember mr jenkins are best among men, both of whom the inquiry has scheduled to hear during phases five and six. whilst other matters were discussed at the hearing held on the 12th of january the focus was on the post office work related to the microsoft exchange repository. on the 31st of january this year and following the

hearing, you need directions which were published on the inquiry website and those directions provided that firstly a meeting will be held between the representatives of the inquiry and the post office to discuss disclosure issues as soon as was reasonably practicable and well before the commencement of all hearings in phases five and six and hearings in phases five and six and he directed the meeting will be monitored in the minutes should be agreed and is close to all participants and secondly you ordered a further disclosure hearing shall be convened either before or during phases five and six of the inquiry. on the 24th of february 2024 members of the inquiry team and information management team met with the post office and its representatives in this building is directed by ga. and the inquiry later circulated a copy of the minutes of the meeting as a with the post office to court participants, i

will not meet the minutes info but are not paragraph three has circulated says as follows. at the outset of the meeting leading counsel to the inquiry that is me, noted that from the inquiry perspective the aim of the meeting was to ensure that the post office was to ensure that the post office was doing as much as was possible to ensure phases five and six could proceed in accordance with the inquiry timetable. mrjackson confirmed the post office agreed and promoted the post office starting point for the meeting was prioritising and clarifying what needed to be done in line with your directions, ensuring reasonable and proportional disclosure and minimising disruption to the hearing timetable and inquiry proceedings. t the inquiry confirmed the aim is not minimising disruption to the hearing but eliminating it. given the post office highly disruptive late disclosure in the fourth face. mr jackson come from the post office

also aspired to eliminate disruption for every it was possible to do so and the post office recent structural work should have mitigated the likelihood that a new discussion issue would come from left field. in order to achieve that objective part to the meeting the inquiry had provided the post office with a series of deadlines for any further let disclosure of microsoft exchange documents and correspondence and in summary and i quote for all witnesses but for those listed within the four weeks of the inquiry timetable, the inquiry directed any late disclosure must be provided by the post office no later than six weeks before the date on which the witness is set to be called to give evidence, for the witnesses listed in the first month separate specific deadlines had been set in march 24. the inquiry in the post office also discussed about what the inquiry believed to be a

talk at the significant potential document sources in the woods other than microsoft exchange and this was outlined in the meeting minutes of paragraph ten and caught mrjackson took the inquiry legal team throughout the work completed by the post office regarding other potential document sources including mimecast, sms and instant messaging and eat media sources. brackets corporate devices, servers, backup tapes and parcels. post office representatives confirmed they were still sending questionnaires regarding data sources to some specific former office employees and board members, material held by third—party advisors and material related to possible it was also discussed. in short the inquiry understood what mr long ongoing in relation to some additional data sources but should post office have any material update and in particular data source content

relevant information would alert the inquiry as soon as soon as possible. on distributing the minute to court participants the inquiry noted as the disclosure process by the proset bus was continuing, the disclosure of additional documents had only recently started, i advise gently inquiry legal team ought to continue to monitor the post office compliance with the inquiry disclosure requirements and report to you regularly. the reporting ought to include whether the post office continued to meet deadlines, the inquiry had set in order to enable phases five and six oral hearings to proceed and thereafter continued as scheduled. at that stage i got the solicitor to the inquiry considered it premature for the inquiry to hold further disclosure prior to the commencement of phases five and six today. you considered our advice and confirm the agreement but in the light of historic disclosure issues and disruptive nature of the post office

late disclosure of microsoft exchange material in the fourth phase you noted you wanted to keep this issue under close consideration. you're noted he would not hesitate to hold a hearing should it become necessary. throughout february and march the post office continued to disclose a large volume of material as a result of the microsoft exchange disclosure feelings and the remediation exercises put in place in the last of these productions was made on the 22nd of march 24 and i turn to the present issue. on thursday the 28th of march the legal representatives for the post office notified the inquiry that the post office would be providing the inquiry with documents that day and the following week in relation to witnesses giving evidence during the first week of phases five and six of the hearings and in the latter part of april. all documents which might otherwise be

in the cult of interest to the inquiry. the volume of documents were said to be in the low hundreds and no more than 1000 and two have come from and i quote a last check scoping exercise. particularly in relation to documents from third—party advisers. some such documents were in response to the inquiry section 21 notice issued as long ago as the 21st ofjuly 23 known as section 2013. others were not responsive to requests from the inquiry but were otherwise of interest. as i say, section 213% by the inquiry to the post office on the inquiry to the post office on the 21st ofjuly last year in which the 21st ofjuly last year in which the inquiry mandated the post office disco several categories of material relevant to phases five and six of the inquiry, documents addressing what was defined in the notice as relevant issues, including reviews of horizon carried out by ernst &

young, kpmg, linklaters and deloitte. it was expressed the documents be those created by, sent to or received by recorded a conversation or meeting involving or otherwise made reference to 19 specific individuals within the post office. the individuals named in the notice included but were not limited to ten mac three, over glance, alice perkins, mark davies, angela, tim parker and susan crichton. at 5:32pm on thursday the 28th of march the post office and a cover letter for a production of 1071 documents and the cover letter noticed post office had had the court initiated assurance exercises, the first being a review of specific third—party material, i

am sorry, third—party advisor material and the second being search and review of e—mail inboxes of personal assistance, to the section 21.3 individuals. and other e—mail inboxes of potential relevance were considered appropriate for the exercise. the letter further explained that the post office and a quote section 21.3 search methodology focused on the relevant individuals data sources, third—party adviser files and personal assistant e—mails have previously been reviewed for other lines and section 21 is as explained in previous interim disclosure statements however as part of assurance, post office has now run sub searches across specific third—party adviser files as were set out in the letter. such third—party advisers include a dose of the inquiry had specifically named in the section 21 notice

including linklaters, do not, and kpmg. the post office explained within the production of 1071 documents 788 of them were said to be relevant to section 21.3 of which 583 related to witnesses and 15 were said to be and i quote of height relevance and material. 44 documents were said to be documents of interest being documents at the post office said were not directly responsive to the notice but were otherwise of relevance to the inquiry terms of reference, of those six related to witnesses, the remaining 239 or family six related to witnesses, the remaining 239 orfamily members of such documents. the post office noted that a number of the documents could be apparent duplicates of previous documents already produced but that information to assist in identifying cheap tickets will be provided separately. the easter break them to place between friday

the 29th of march and monday the 1st of april. at around 10am on the 2nd of april. at around 10am on the 2nd of april. at around 10am on the 2nd of april the post office legal representative contacted the inquiry legal team to not for the documents were to be expected. the post office requested a meeting with the inquiry to provide an update and discuss how the post office intended to disclose further documents. at 11:47am on the 2nd of april the inquiry confirmed it would be grateful if the post office could provide the inquiry with information it should have or will be assisted in having in relation to the late disclosure relevant to hearings or witnesses this week. at 650 8p on that date the post office and the inquiry a 4—page letter seeking undercoat to provide a brief update regarding the post office further urgent witness focused review to best assist the inquiry with anticipated timings for further productions. that letter has been provided to court participants and i will not repeat it but it was

in this letter received after hours on tuesday the inquiry was informed the post office intended to make and i quote a full day smoke number of productions in the future of further documents relevant to phases five and six. that was said most will be directly relevant to witnesses scheduled to appear later in april and in laterjuly but a limited amount would relate to witnesses scheduled to appear at this week, another with starting today. the letter said the post office anticipated the documents relating to witnesses appearing this week are likely to be low in number and not likely to be low in number and not likely to be low in number and not likely to contain many documents that would give rise to potential questions for those witnesses but rather particularly for non—post office royal mail witnesses would be documents referring to them. importantly the letter said the post office anticipated making it further productions of material following five further reviews and it

confirmed the reviews were not related to the microsoft exchange remediation process. but as noted already, the documents were relevant to phases five and six and to witnesses scheduled to be called as early as this week. those five reviews were summarised by the post office as follows, first the third—party adviser and personal assistant review, secondly the drive and file share review, thirdly the supplementary precautionary mimecast review, arising from the face five and six remediation review. and the hard documents review and finally the patrick paul 2017 mimecast data review, the post office did not provide the numbers of documents for witnesses commencing this week although they anticipated providing those numbers shortly. between the 2nd of april and the 5th of april

the inquiry received seven further letters about one or more of those reviews. those letters have also been provided to court participants and i should not repeat them. within those letters the post office disclose the number of additional documents as follows, on the 3rd of april 196 documents were disclosed said to be from the nasa drive, the post office said they continue to collect material from the post office file share that might be relevant to the phase five and six hearings. howeverthe relevant to the phase five and six hearings. however the inquiry understands such a measure to be out of an abundance of caution. on the 3rd of april 3180 documents were disclosed said to be from and i quote further material identified from third—party adviser files and material identified as part of a second assurance review involving searches of e—mail inboxes of personal assistance to section 21.3 individuals and other inboxes of

potential relevance were considered appropriate and this was further to the 1000 plus documents on the 21st of march. on friday the 5th of april, just passed, the post office discussed 199 documents following a review of ha rdcopy discussed 199 documents following a review of hardcopy material, 200 documents following an additional precautionary mimecast review, a further 374 documents disclosed said to be the third tranche of documents including and a quote further material identified as part of a second assurance review involving searches of e—mail inboxes of personal assistance to section 21.3 individuals and this was an addition to the 1071 documents disclosed in the 28th of march and the 3100 and 8080 documents disclosed and the post office said it was now urgently reviewing data for personal assistance to the section 21.3 individuals who were witnesses and

set to give evidence from the 23rd of april onwards and they anticipated they would provide the documents to the inquiry on or before this friday the 12th of april. taking the five reviews about which the inquiry was informed on the 2nd of april in turn, i understand the position to be as follows. third—party adviser and personal assistance review has seen the disclosure of a total of 4633 documents since the 28th of march alone. the post office has told us that review is not yet complete. the mass drive and vulture saw the disclosure of 196 documents but the review is ongoing in relation to other witnesses. the supplementary precautionary mimecast review arising from the face five and six remediation review so the disclosure of 200 documents but that is now said to be complete. the hardcopy

documents review so that the disclosure of 189 documents last week and it's unclear if that review is complete or remains ongoing. the patrick book 2017 mimecast data work appears to be ongoing and we understand data is being collected and processed urgently the volume and processed urgently the volume and timing of such disclosure is unknown but the post office said they are working to disclose any further documents well in advance of the hearing patrick book on the 7th of may. so we in the inquiry team wish to inform you and the court participants of these developments without delay. the present issues without delay. the present issues with which the inquiry has become extremely and unfortunately familiar with over the last three years. it should also put the developments in a wider context. since the end of the fourth phase hearings alone,

that since the closing submissions on the 2nd of february 2024, the post office has disclosed 73,720 documents to the inquiry. of which they can quarrel legal team have characterised 67,210 documents as possibly relating to phases five and six of the inquiry. the inquiry has received documents from other providers during that time or be it known as substantial volume as the post office and the inquiry information management team have confirmed as of late yesterday at least 78,211 documents including but not limited to the post office documents that likely or potentially related to phases five and six of the inquiry may fall for disclosure to court participants. the majesty inquiry investigate spanning 20 years and a number of detailed issues and in order to proceed with

hearings in a meaningful baby inquiry has needed to prioritise the disclosure to court participants and will continue to do so. it is with this in mind that many in the inquiry team specifically set deadlines for the receipt of the light exchange material likely to be relevant to the face five and six hearings on a witness bore witness and week by week basis in order to ensure that the hearings could go ahead as planned. this was communicated to the post office and the inquiry understood the post office considered it had completed its face five and six exchange remediation exercises by the 22nd of march. the obligation of disclosure to the inquiry is ongoing and the inquiry had expected and indeed anticipated ongoing disclosure from providers and documents and documents can be found late, hard sought electronic files or messages

may turn up in unexpected devices. but the issue is the post office disclosure to this inquiry had presented have been much more than minor ad hoc or additional disclosure. in particular, the post office assurance review as it has called it, of personal assistant e—mails and other inboxes of potential relevance in response to the inquiry section 21.3 notice of last year as well concerning. as i said that my dismissal injuly of last year. that lists a number of senior king office individuals. such individuals would undoubtedly communicate via their personal assistance. the inboxes of what are called inboxes of potential relevance have not been explained by the post office so do not know to whom the reverend. even more concerning, the inquiry emphasised

that the post office ought to apply a commonsense approach to senior custodians as far back as a meeting with the post office in april 2023. so he asked for your team to monitor the post office disclosure to the inquiry and we have done so and will continue to do so. once there is not developments or to use a parliamentary vote unwelcome, your team is not unprepared. we are committed to doing all we can to ensure the hearings can go ahead as planned. and subject to your views, thatis planned. and subject to your views, that is what we intend to do, to continue with the hearings. the alternative is further delayed to allow the post office to get its disclosure house an order is not one which is acceptable. it of course follows from that approach that that

may be a need to recall some witnesses to ask them questions about documents which have not been processed in time for them to be asked questions about such documents in the coming weeks. that's the approach that we intend to take. that's all i say at the moment about this latest letter post office disclosure.— this latest letter post office disclosure. ., , ,, ., . disclosure. thank you. the substance orthe disclosure. thank you. the substance or the summary _ disclosure. thank you. the substance or the summary of _ disclosure. thank you. the substance or the summary of what _ disclosure. thank you. the substance or the summary of what has - disclosure. thank you. the substance or the summary of what has just - disclosure. thank you. the substance | or the summary of what hasjust been or the summary of what has just been explained publicly was provided to me late last week. together with the advice of counsel and the team, despite the problems which have occurred, we should carry on and i have had the weekend to think about that and also whether it would be necessary to invite court

participants to provide their views to me about that. and the decision i have reached an as follows. first of all, do not wish to hearfrom the core participants and secondly, we are going to carry on. well that is perhaps a better thing to do. because it means that there will be occasions much witnesses giving evidence for the documents have not caught up with the witnesses, so to speak. and that is a highly undesirable state of affairs. but as has been explained, that can be cured or with some cost to the witness, then if necessary. the alternative is to have a substantial balk and in my opinion, there are civiljudgements, even though i am not a judge anymore, that is not

desirable! make no mistake, everyone, i understand fully that the problems with disclosure are capable of creating very significant pressures for all the participants in the inquiry. but protracted adjournments so as to ensure that every relevant disclosable document is in the hearts of all court participants for 20 witness giving evidence would also cause the damage and stresses to all the participants. and so i have to exercisejudgement and come participants. and so i have to exercise judgement and come to a balanced decision and as i said, might girl's at the moment the problems or not search that will need to call a halt and my intention

is to continue with the evidence sessions in accordance with the published timetable. so far as is reasonably possible. i stress, as council has stressed, the monitoring of disclosure which i promised would continue throughout will continue throughout and if i deem it appropriate or it will certainly use one of our days off, it or sometimes the friday, to quote a disclosure hearing so there is a threat to you all! i want to publicly acknowledge this is the last of the observations which i wish to make, that at least in part, i might be to blame for some of the problems relating to

disclosure. that may be sought in this room, in fact there are some in this room, in fact there are some in this room, in fact there are some in this room and certainly there are some in the inquiry team who consider that the timetables which are set for the hearing of evidence on realistically tight. the volume of material to be disclosed to the inquiry and then by the inquiry to court participants is enormous. i acknowledge that if the hearing faces had been spelt out with greater breaks between them, as some have advocated, then some of the disclosure pressures will be eased. iam i am acutely conscious that this public inquiry has been in existence for very nearly three years.

although by the standards of some inquiries that is a comparatively short period of time, i am unshakeable in my belief that this inquiry should not last for a day longer than is strictly necessary. and if that means that the pace at which we proceed causes significant work pressures for us all, then i'm afraid that's a price we are all going to have to pay. so thank you for your words, and i think we are ready for some evidence. just before we do that, — ready for some evidence. just before we do that. can _ ready for some evidence. just before we do that, can i _ ready for some evidence. just before we do that, can i turn _ ready for some evidence. just before we do that, can i turn to _ ready for some evidence. just before we do that, can i turn to a _ ready for some evidence. just before we do that, can i turn to a brighter i we do that, can i turn to a brighter note? ., ~' ,, we do that, can i turn to a brighter note? ., ~ ,, as we do that, can i turn to a brighter note?_ as you - we do that, can i turn to a brighter note?_ as you know, i we do that, can i turn to a brighterl note?_ as you know, and note? thank you. as you know, and has been publicly _ note? thank you. as you know, and has been publicly announced - note? thank you. as you know, and has been publicly announced by - note? thank you. as you know, and has been publicly announced by the | has been publicly announced by the inquiry on the 9th ofjanuary this year, the inquiryjointly appointed dame sandra dawson and doctor katie stuart to the role of government

expert witnesses.