Fujitsu manager labelled subpostmaster as ‘nasty chap’ before High Court case
Peter Sewell gave evidence to the inquiry on Thursday.
A Fujitsu manager labelled a subpostmaster as a “nasty chap” who will be “all out to rubbish” the company’s name ahead of legal proceedings which led to his bankruptcy, the Horizon IT inquiry heard.
Peter Sewell, who was part of the Post Office Account Security Team at Fujitsu when East Yorkshire subpostmaster Lee Castleton faced his legal battle in 2007, describe the road the court was situated on as a place “they used to hang people out to dry”.
Mr Castleton, from Bridlington, was found to have a £25,000 shortfall at his branch after losing his fight with the Post Office.
In an email exchange in December 2006 with IT security analyst Andrew Dunks, Mr Sewell appeared to give words of encouragement to his colleague ahead of the court battle, which read: “See you in court then.
“Fetters lane is where they used to hang people out to dry. I don’t suppose that type of thing happens any more though.
“That Castleton is a nasty chap and will be all out to rubbish the FJ (Fujitsu) name.
“It’s up to you to maintain absolute strength and integrity no matter what the prosecution throw at you.
“We will all be behind you hoping you come through unscathed. Bless you.”
Questioning Mr Sewell about the exchange, counsel to the inquiry Julian Blake said: “Is that typical of the approach to the work that you were doing?”
Mr Sewell responded: “No, no – I don’t know why that was written.”
The witness added: “I don’t know why it was written – I don’t remember writing it, but obviously I did. I certainly don’t understand it.”
The counsel to the inquiry also asked Mr Sewell: “But my question is, did you see it as important to your work to protect the name of Fujitsu?”
He said: “I guess I did, but not purposely.”
Mr Sewell said: “We all protect our own companies, yes.”
On behalf of a number of subpostmasters, Flora Page continued to probe the witness about the email to Mr Dunks, saying: “Was this your pep talk to your team member that you were managing before he had to go and give evidence?”
Mr Sewell replied: “No it wasn’t a pep talk, no.”
Ms Page continued: “What you say to reassure him is ‘don’t worry, he’s a nasty man’ – how did you form that opinion Mr Sewell?”
Mr Sewell said: “I don’t know, I don’t know why I wrote it. I apologise.”
Ms Page then asked: “What was being said within Fujitsu that allowed you to form the opinion that he was a nasty man?”
The Fujitsu witness said: “Nothing, I don’t think.”
Ms Page continued to press him, saying: “Nothing?”
Mr Sewell said: “I’m not aware of anything, no.”
Ms Page went on: “You made that up off the top of your head?”
The subpostmasters’ lawyer continued: “And why would you do that Mr Sewell?”
“I don’t know,” he said.
Ms Page went on: “Is that the opinion you formed of all subpostmasters who took issue with what the Post Office said in the courts?”
Mr Sewell responded: “Absolutely not.”
Ms Page continued: “You were egging Mr Dunks on weren’t you, urging him to go into battle with Mr Castleton, weren’t you?”
Mr Sewell said: “I don’t know what it was written for now, I don’t know.”
Moving on to a different part of the email, Ms Page said: “You will know by now that Mr Castleton was indeed ‘hung out to dry’.”
Mr Sewell replied: “I know a lot more about it now than I did, yes.”
Ms Page then asked: “Knowing what you know about him being hung out to dry, and the way in which you urged Mr Dunks to go into battle with him, is that the right attitude for someone to take into court when they’re about to give evidence in a case with serious implications for someone?”
“No,” he said.
Ms Page added: “And yet that was the attitude that your management style, and your email, fostered and encouraged isn’t it?”
Mr Sewell said: “It suggests that way, yes. I don’t know why I wrote it.”
He was then questioned on whether he had written a similar email before Mr Dunks gave evidence against subpostmistress Seema Misra, to which he replied: “Absolutely not.”
“Why do you say absolutely not?” Ms Page asked.
Mr Sewell said: “I can’t even believe that that (the email about Mr Castleton) was written.”
Ms Page added: “The attitudes towards subpostmasters that you encouraged in your team must have been one they carried into court whenever they gave evidence against subpostmasters, is that right?”
The witness replied: “I don’t believe so.”
The statutory inquiry, which began in 2021 and is chaired by retired judge Sir Wyn Williams, has previously looked at the human impact of the scandal, the Horizon system rollout and the operation of the system, and is now looking into the action taken against subpostmasters.
The inquiry was established to ensure there was a “public summary of the failings which occurred with the Horizon IT system at the Post Office” and subsequently led to the wrongful convictions of subpostmasters.
