• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Largest ever miscarriage of justice?

Paula Venells was given a CBE after her time heading up the Post Office. Then went to the top of the NHS and a job in the Cabinet Office.
 
I hope Vennells is getting a stream of phone calls and e-mails that start, sorry Paula, but....

She should become the exemplar of all that is wrong with the management culture of protecting the image of an organisation over doing what is right.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...estigation-potential-horizon-accounting-fraud

….. The Post Office is under criminal investigation over “potential fraud offences” committed during the Horizon scandal, the Metropolitan police have confirmed for the first time.

Officers are “investigating potential fraud offences arising out of these prosecutions”, for example “monies recovered from sub-postmasters [operators] as a result of prosecutions or civil actions”, Scotland Yard said on Friday evening…..
 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...estigation-potential-horizon-accounting-fraud

….. The Post Office is under criminal investigation over “potential fraud offences” committed during the Horizon scandal, the Metropolitan police have confirmed for the first time.

Officers are “investigating potential fraud offences arising out of these prosecutions”, for example “monies recovered from sub-postmasters [operators] as a result of prosecutions or civil actions”, Scotland Yard said on Friday evening…..
 
Darat said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...estigation-potential-horizon-accounting-fraud

….. The Post Office is under criminal investigation over “potential fraud offences” committed during the Horizon scandal, the Metropolitan police have confirmed for the first time.

Officers are “investigating potential fraud offences arising out of these prosecutions”, for example “monies recovered from sub-postmasters [operators] as a result of prosecutions or civil actions”, Scotland Yard said on Friday evening…..
Click to expand...

The PO were recovering shortfalls, as covered by the contracts the sub-postmasters signed. They had evidence from Horizon that they believed proved the shortfalls. It is hard to see how that is provable as fraud by the PO.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67899189

"The force also said in the statement: "The Met is investigating potential offences of perjury and perverting the course of justice."

That seems like a far more provable crime. Evidence was being presented in court, that Horizon was faultless and each sub-Postmaster was the only one, which was clearly not true. Evidence that Horizon was capable of making mistakes and incorrectly balancing monies was withheld from evidence. For example;

https://twitter.com/Carlier_J87/status/1743198877782560929

"It will have been unequivocally clear to any reasonable minded person that if the new sub postmaster who succeeded Janet Skinner was experiencing the same Horizon issues and the same discrepancies, then there had to be some truth to Janet's repeated concerns raised about Horizon and that any action against Janet must have been groundless, or questionable at best, and should be halted immediately.
WHEREAS, the Post Office instead......stopped any further investigation of the new sub postmaster and her discrepancies, ensuring any evidence was therefore 'buried' or not discovered, and proceeded with their actions against Janet."

No court would convict if it was revelled that the next postmaster to use the Horizon terminal in that PO, experienced the same faults as the accused.
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
The PO were recovering shortfalls, as covered by the contracts the sub-postmasters signed. They had evidence from Horizon that they believed proved the shortfalls. It is hard to see how that is provable as fraud by the PO.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67899189

"The force also said in the statement: "The Met is investigating potential offences of perjury and perverting the course of justice."

That seems like a far more provable crime. Evidence was being presented in court, that Horizon was faultless and each sub-Postmaster was the only one, which was clearly not true. Evidence that Horizon was capable of making mistakes and incorrectly balancing monies was withheld from evidence. For example;

https://twitter.com/Carlier_J87/status/1743198877782560929

"It will have been unequivocally clear to any reasonable minded person that if the new sub postmaster who succeeded Janet Skinner was experiencing the same Horizon issues and the same discrepancies, then there had to be some truth to Janet's repeated concerns raised about Horizon and that any action against Janet must have been groundless, or questionable at best, and should be halted immediately.
WHEREAS, the Post Office instead......stopped any further investigation of the new sub postmaster and her discrepancies, ensuring any evidence was therefore 'buried' or not discovered, and proceeded with their actions against Janet."

No court would convict if it was revelled that the next postmaster to use the Horizon terminal in that PO, experienced the same faults as the accused.
Click to expand...

The potential fraud is the other way.

If I say that you owe the Post Office money and I know that the accounting system is dodgy. I'm the one committing fraud on behalf of the Post Office
 
jimbob said:
The potential fraud is the other way.

If I say that you owe the Post Office money and I know that the accounting system is dodgy. I'm the one committing fraud on behalf of the Post Office
Click to expand...

The problem is proving genuine knowledge that Horizon was at fault and that actions were not driven by a belief a crime had been committed and recovery was being made as per the sub-postmasters contracts.

Who do you prosecute? The investigators? The lawyers who mounted the prosecutions? The PO management? The investigators will say they were acting under orders. The lawyers were acting under instructions. The PO management will say they had assurances from Fujitsu that Horizon was working fine.

I think the line of enquiry more likely to be successful is perverting the course of justice. There was a lot of evidence that Horizon was at fault and that was ignored by investigators, prosecuting lawyers and PO management.

I think the Met and CPS should go down the line of enquiry more likely to be successful and get the bastards.
 
Nessie said:
The problem is proving genuine knowledge that Horizon was at fault and that actions were not driven by a belief a crime had been committed and recovery was being made as per the sub-postmasters contracts.

Who do you prosecute? The investigators? The lawyers who mounted the prosecutions? The PO management? The investigators will say they were acting under orders. The lawyers were acting under instructions. The PO management will say they had assurances from Fujitsu that Horizon was working fine.

I think the line of enquiry more likely to be successful is perverting the course of justice. There was a lot of evidence that Horizon was at fault and that was ignored by investigators, prosecuting lawyers and PO management.

I think the Met and CPS should go down the line of enquiry more likely to be successful and get the bastards.
Click to expand...
Sorry but why are you so keen to exonerate people we know continued with prosecutions long after it was known that Horizon was deeply flawed? What is it about the conduct of the witnesses at the enquiry convinces you that they were making an honest mistake and not simply engaging in a cover up? The initial actions might be excused, but the later ones are quite possibly criminal, hence the long overdue Police investigation.
 
Nessie said:
The problem is proving genuine knowledge that Horizon was at fault and that actions were not driven by a belief a crime had been committed and recovery was being made as per the sub-postmasters contracts.

Who do you prosecute? The investigators? The lawyers who mounted the prosecutions? The PO management? The investigators will say they were acting under orders. The lawyers were acting under instructions. The PO management will say they had assurances from Fujitsu that Horizon was working fine.

I think the line of enquiry more likely to be successful is perverting the course of justice. There was a lot of evidence that Horizon was at fault and that was ignored by investigators, prosecuting lawyers and PO management.

I think the Met and CPS should go down the line of enquiry more likely to be successful and get the bastards.
Click to expand...

That is why they are investigating whether a fraud was committed.



I can imagine scenarios where I could see fraud having been committed
 
Garrison said:
Sorry but why are you so keen to exonerate people we know continued with prosecutions long after it was known that Horizon was deeply flawed? What is it about the conduct of the witnesses at the enquiry convinces you that they were making an honest mistake and not simply engaging in a cover up? The initial actions might be excused, but the later ones are quite possibly criminal, hence the long overdue Police investigation.
Click to expand...

How is suggesting a more successful means to prosecute "keen to exonerate"?

The cover-up is better dealt with as perverting the course of justice, than fraud.

The reason for that is actions such as ignoring evidence of faults in the Horizon system are far easier to prove than claiming ignoring those faults is evidence of fraud.
 
jimbob said:
That is why they are investigating whether a fraud was committed.



I can imagine scenarios where I could see fraud having been committed
Click to expand...

That is part of the problem, there are scenarios required for fraud. Perverting the course of justice by ignoring or suppressing exculpatory evidence is universal in every single case. No specific scenarios are required.

From the instant Horizon was introduced, shortfalls were found. That means either Horizon has uncovered previously unknown fraud, or it has bugs. The PO sided with Fujitsu and ignored all the evidence from the sub-postmasters of bugs. Indeed, in cases where sub-postmasters were better prepared with their evidence of bugs, such as those who continued to run their old accounting paperwork in parallel to Horizon, the PO did not prosecute.

The fact that the PO, as in the investigators, the lawyers and management sided with Fujitsu, is on its own evidence of perverting the course of justice. By refusing to investigate reports of bugs within the Horizon system, that is perverting the course of justice. That happened IN EVERY SINGLE CASE.
 
Every single PO or Fujitsu witness who gave evidence in court, stating there were no faults with Horizon and/or that the accused sub-postmaster was alone in experiencing problems, needs to be arrested and investigated for committing perjury.
 
Nessie said:
The problem is proving genuine knowledge that Horizon was at fault and that actions were not driven by a belief a crime had been committed and recovery was being made as per the sub-postmasters contracts.
Click to expand...
Their is a data trail of warning to the Post Office from staff working on Horizon, even before the infamous "not fit for purpose" description of 2014.
There are numerous instances of failure to disclose relevant evidence.
There are numerous instances of deliberate interference in the Second Sight enquiry.
Then there is the matter of malicious prosecution.

The Post Office should be barred from acting as a private prosecutor; in fact it's probably time to end this legacy feature of common law.
 
Old computer guy here. Even in 1984 when I started in IT bugs were recorded and tracked. If someone told me ICL or Fujitsu didn't have a problem management system in place I would assume they were a liar and a badly informed one at that.
 
Wudang said:
Old computer guy here. Even in 1984 when I started in IT bugs were recorded and tracked. If someone told me ICL or Fujitsu didn't have a problem management system in place I would assume they were a liar and a badly informed one at that.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and whichever ISO900x audits it would have had should have highlighted that.
 
I only found out about this today. In Scotland, it was not the Post Office who prosecuted, it was the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Office (COPFS), the equivalent of the CPS in England. The PO was still the investigatory body, who then presents their evidence to lawyers working in COPFS, who then prosecute. COPFS are responsible for 73 convictions.

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and...ub-postmaster-cases-referred-to-appeal-court/

Meanwhile, lots of idiots, such as Nigel Farage are trying desperately to smear Kier Starmer for the prosecutions, but in E&W it is not the CPS who run Post Office prosecutions.
 
It's time they just threw out every verdict that depended on data provided by Horizon as unsafe. If that means a few guilty people are exonerated too it's a small price to pay to end the torment of the innocent.
 
Nessie said:
I only found out about this today. In Scotland, it was not the Post Office who prosecuted, it was the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Office (COPFS), the equivalent of the CPS in England. The PO was still the investigatory body, who then presents their evidence to lawyers working in COPFS, who then prosecute. COPFS are responsible for 73 convictions.

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and...ub-postmaster-cases-referred-to-appeal-court/

Meanwhile, lots of idiots, such as Nigel Farage are trying desperately to smear Kier Starmer for the prosecutions, but in E&W it is not the CPS who run Post Office prosecutions.
Click to expand...
1. I'm surprised you didn't know about the Scottish situation, given that private prosecutions are vanishingly rare and require court approval.
2. The CPS can block private prosecutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom