Post Office inquiry latest: Former executive accused of 'blatant lie' - as barrister loses patience at scandal inquiry

That brings an end to Angela van den Bogerd's two days of evidence to the Horizon IT inquiry.

The former top Post Office executive said she was not aware of issues with the Horizon system at the time sub-postmasters were being prosecuted over money reported as missing.

She has also rejected suggestions that she "lied" or was involved in a "cover up".

The inquiry is due to resume next Tuesday, when former Post Office head of legal Hugh Flemington and barrister and former employee of Cartwright King Solicitors Harry Bowyer will be questioned.

We're pausing our coverage for now - scroll through the blog below to catch up on all the key moments.

In the final part of his questioning, Sam Stein KC asks Angela van den Bogerd whether the Post Office strategy was to "outspend" sub-postmasters who had brought legal action against it.

Campaigner Alan Bates said earlier in the Horizon inquiry that he believed this strategy had been adopted by the firm as part of its "aggressive" tactics at the High Court.

Ms van den Bogerd says she was not aware of this being the case.

Mr Stein then refers to previous comments from High Court judge Peter Fraser, who had assessed that the "level and rate" of expenditure by the Post Office during the group litigation was "very high".

"That was a deliberate [Post Office] strategy wasn't it?" he asks.

Ms van den Bogerd responds that she didn't think so at the time.

It's suggested by Mr Stein that the Post Office's actions at the High Court were not that of a company "worried about the public purse" - referring to evidence she gave yesterday.

"It's hardly expressing any concern is it... to use government money, postmasters' money, to drive them out of the court?"

Ms van den Bogerd says she was "always concerned" about taxpayers' money.

We're again being shown part of Angela van den Bogerd's witness statement where she says she was aware of "general 'rumblings' of complaints" about the Horizon system.

She tells the inquiry she had been aware of such "rumblings" until 2011 - when she stepped into a role where she was "exposed" to complaints by sub-postmasters.

Sam Stein KC asks if she agrees there were "a lot of rumblings" before her involvement - enough to prompt discussion and letters to the company by MPs.

"At around that timetable when I stepped into that role, yes," she admits.

"What we haven't seen at around that time, or indeed frankly any time, is any documents say something along the lines of, 'gosh, maybe there's a problem with the Horizon system, Imagine the harm we might be doing'," Mr Stein puts it to her. 

He asks if the Post Office culture was to protect its brand and "damn the sub-postmasters" - which Ms van den Bogerd denies.

Sam Stein KC describes Angela van den Bogerd as being "Post Office through-and-through like a bad stick of rock" when it came to Jennifer O'Dell.

The former sub-postmaster previously told a High Court trial she experienced "intimidating" behaviour by Ms van den Bogerd, who denies she acted this way.

She rejects a suggestion from Mr Stein that she "carried the Post Office line" when dealing with sub-postmasters.

Mr Stein brings up comments made by High Court judge Peter Fraser in 2019, who said Ms van den Bogerd sought to "mislead" him during her evidence defending the Post Office.

He says Judge Fraser's comments were "pretty serious" and asked if the Post Office investigated her as a result. She says this did not happen.

"Did you get your bonus that year, in 2019, Ms van den Bogerd?", Mr Stein asks.

"Yes, I did," she says.

"So despite the finding in the High Court that basically you lied... you got your bonus?"

"Yes."

The inquiry is shown documents detailing calls to the sub-postmasters' helpline by Jennifer O'Dell.

She was being told she needed to make up a shortfall of roughly £7,000, but was refusing to do so as she wasn't liable.

Sam Stein KC says the matter should have been escalated, but instead "she was being told basically to 'shut up, pay the money'".

Angela van den Bogerd agrees that she was being told it was her liability.

The barrister then refers to the 2019 High Court battle between the Post Office and sub-postmasters where it was revealed the helpline scripts ordering people to make up shortfalls were "orchestrated by the Post Office".

"It would have been part of the script to say that the postmaster was liable for the losses?" Mr Stein asks Ms van den Bogerd. 

"Yes, it would have been," she concedes.

After a break, Sam Stein KC is being given time to question Angela van den Bogerd.

He starts by asking her about a helpline that was available to sub-postmasters who encountered issues with their accounts.

Mr Stein says staff were "repeatedly" told they had to make good any shortfalls flagged by the system and that each sub-postmaster making a complaint was told they were the "only one" raising issues with the system.

"That's fraud isn't it?" he says, and Ms van den Bogerd responds that it depends on what the detail of that conversation would be.

"What do you mean 'depends'? Sometimes it's fraud and sometimes it isn't?", says Mr Stein.

"I'm not saying it's fraud at all," she says.

By Adele Robinson, business correspondent

The lawyers directly representing sub-postmasters have the freedom to be way more direct with Angela van den Bogerd.

And they’re embracing it.

They have, multiple times, directly accused of her lying.

One - asking her if she’s committed fraud.

Even taking biblical references to being “blind” to the evidence before her.

But she’s sticking to her well-rehearsed defence

She “wasn’t involved” in prosecutions, accepting she missed things, but says it was “not intentional”.

There have been lots of sighs, wry laughter and shaking of heads among the sub-postmasters present.

They clearly have zero trust in her words, and it’s obvious to the whole room - including Angela van den Bogerd.

We're pausing now for another short break.

Lawyer Catriona Watt is next up to briefly question Angela van den Bogerd.

She uses a biblical reference to describe Ms van den Bogerd's evidence: "Those who have eyes and see not, those who have ears and hear not. 

"You would not see, you would not hear, would you?" she asks the former boss, who says she did not intentionally ignore information but accepts there are "things that I would look at differently... knowing what I know now".

Ms Watt then puts to her that she lied "consistently" to everyone who she and the Post Office "needed to keep on side".

Ms van den Bogerd denies this.

"You were responsible for or complicit in the lie that there was nothing wrong with Horizon on every possible occasion to MPs, government ministers, civil servants, the NFSP, unions such as the CWU, the courts, Second Sight, the working group, media outlets... Nick Wallace and anyone else who ever asked, weren't you?" Ms Watt asks the ex-executive.

"No," she replies.