The lawyers produced "template" statements, that witnesses were supposed to complete by filling in the blanks. These templates included various forms of words t

The lawyers produced "template" statements, that witnesses were supposed to complete by filling in the blanks. These templates included various forms of words that they wanted included, e.g. to avoid having to prove in court, for each case, that the Horizon software was behaving correctly. I don't think that amounts to "covering up" - after all, these lawyers were paid advocates for their client, the Post Office. The real covering-up was the PO lawyers' failure to hand over to the defence evidence that might support the defence case. That's criminal (perverting the course of justice), and also, in the words of the appeal court judge, "an affront to justice".