The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Phases 5 and 6 of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry were heard as a combined 16-week block, examining the investigation of Horizon complaints, the mediation scheme, High Court group litigation and the Post Office’s response to the scandal. A 5 August 2024 recap by Computer Weekly described testimony that exposed broad institutional failures alongside a few people who raised concerns. It was a phase recap, not the Inquiry’s final determination of every allegation.
What were Phases 5 and 6 about?
The Inquiry combined its planned fifth and sixth phases into one hearing block. According to Computer Weekly’s report, published on 5 August 2024, the 16 weeks of hearings had finished in the preceding week. The remit included the forensic accounting firm Second Sight’s investigation, the mediation scheme that followed and its collapse, the Post Office’s conduct in High Court group litigation, and its response to the scandal.
The hearings took place within an Inquiry that the report described at the time as having been underway for roughly two years and covering more than two decades of events. Those descriptions are historical context from 2024, not a statement of the Inquiry’s current status.
How much evidence did the phase cover?
Computer Weekly reported that 66 people gave oral evidence during the combined phase and that it was associated with two million pages of evidence. In the same 2024 account, the publication said 267 people had given oral evidence to the Inquiry and another 229 had provided written evidence. These are figures reported by Computer Weekly at that time; they should not be read as current totals or as independently verified Inquiry statistics.
#1 Best Overall
What did witnesses say about Horizon complaints?
The account revisited earlier testimony about a report commissioned to reassure MPs about Horizon. David Smith, the executive who commissioned it, said he wanted an honest, balanced view. Rod Ismay, who authored it, said he felt asked to present “one side of the coin.” Ismay gave that description at a Phase 3 hearing in May 2023; it was recalled in the later Phase 5/6 recap.
Former Post Office chief operating officer David Miller’s evidence also came under scrutiny. Computer Weekly reported that Miller signed off on a £180,000 payment associated with keeping a branch’s Horizon problems out of public view. The article said Miller agreed that investigating the claims, rather than concealing them, might have avoided suffering. The amount and characterization here reflect the publication’s summary of evidence, not an independent review of the underlying payment records.
Former Post Office CIO Lesley Sewell addressed the question of whether a computer system could be free of bugs: “I don’t know the answer to that because from my perspective as an IT professional, I would never say there are no bugs in any system, because you do have faults in computer systems and it’s important how you deal with them.” This is the wording reproduced in Computer Weekly’s account of her testimony.
What did the hearings examine about mediation and litigation?
Second Sight’s work and the mediation scheme were central to the phase’s stated remit, as was the Post Office’s conduct in group litigation in the High Court. The recap included former judicial mediator Anthony Hooper’s view that accusations of theft against reputable subpostmasters did not make sense in light of the balancing process:
“It did not make sense that reputable subpostmasters, appointed by the Post Office after examination of their character, would be stealing these sums of money. It didn’t make sense particularly because within a matter of days of any alleged theft, they had to balance the books. It just never made sense.”
Rank #2
That is Hooper’s assessment as quoted by Computer Weekly, not a finding that resolves every individual case.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What was raised about prosecutions and disclosure?
The recap described scrutiny of the Post Office’s dealings with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and of internal lawyer Rodric Williams. It said the Post Office’s 2014 response to the CCRC did not include findings that pointed to serious flaws in prosecution processes, including concerns about expert evidence. These points concern the account of evidence presented in the hearings; they should not be treated as independent legal findings about an individual lawyer or as a complete account of the CCRC’s work.
What did the phase hear from government and Fujitsu?
Executives from the Post Office, Fujitsu personnel, ministers and civil servants gave evidence. The topics included the Post Office’s public position on Horizon’s reliability, its relationship with Fujitsu, what government officials and ministers knew or were told, and how civil servants handled warnings. The recap reported pointed criticism as well as competing accounts and recollections, so testimony should be attributed to its speaker rather than treated as a settled conclusion.
Recommended Free Tools
Former government minister Margot James described her view of the Post Office board’s attitude toward subpostmasters: “There was an assumption on the part of the Post Office board members that the subpostmasters were in the wrong [over Horizon]. I think that the Post Office board did regard them as incompetent at best and criminal at worst.” This quotation is reproduced from Computer Weekly’s summary of testimony; consult the underlying transcript if exact wording is material.
Quick Recap
How should the phase recap be read?
- It reports what witnesses said and what topics the hearings examined; it is not itself the Inquiry’s final findings.
- Its figures describe the evidence landscape as reported in August 2024 and should not be reused as current Inquiry totals.
- Its summaries and quotations are from a secondary journalistic account. Readers seeking primary-source detail should consult the Inquiry’s hearing transcripts and evidence.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
