• 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?

catsmate said:
I'm not sure who developed Capture, I'll ask around, but I *think* it was internally managed with contractors doing the work.
Click to expand...

I think it was a company called ICL, that Fujitsu bought, or bought into.
 
Wudang said:
I believe you are thinking of Horizon. That's where it came from.
Click to expand...

My ex-wife worked for Fujitsu (after they took over ICL; I had left ICL by then), but she wasn't involved in Horizon.


The Post Office is not being forthcoming about Capture, but it was possibly an in-house development.

Computer Weekly asked the Post Office to explain what the Capture system was, whether it was part of a pilot, how many branches used it, and how many subpostmasters were prosecuted based on data from capture, but received no answer to these questions. However, the Post Office did say that people affected by Capture errors should contact it.
...
Documents reveal that there was a capture development team based in a Post Office location in London, with a Branch Focus newsletter – a weekly update for subpostmasters – in September 1995 revealing that subpostmasters were experiencing problems with the software.

The Branch Focus newsletter read: “We were aware that, as a new software, there would inevitably be faults in the programme. These faults were generally considered to be of a low category and it was our plan for these to be corrected under the terms of our 90-day warranty following initial acceptance.”
Click to expand...
 
Ofsted and the PO are also related, due to the attitude of at least some of the people employed to inspect, investigate. They like being able to rock up unannounced and instil terror into the people they are visiting. Jobs that carry power to totally ruin other people's lives sadly seem to attract people who like to ruin other people's lives.
 
Good news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68369015

The government plans to bring in a law to clear the remaining sub-postmasters. OK, some may have stolen, but the vast majority likely did not and lets not perfect be the enemy of good.

Plus, another extraordinary case of Horizon failings, with a post office in Aylesbury that consistently lost about £320 a week, till one day, the Horizon helpline told the owner, the money would be put back into her account, which happened overnight. Clear evidence Fujitsu could remotely access their accounts.

https://twitter.com/nickwallis/status/1760707311704703359
 
I'm not sure that is good news; I don't like the idea of parliament deciding legal cases like that, better to put the resources in to do it properly.

What should be done is to take away the powers of the Post Office to act as a prosecutor. An FAQ on the Post Office website implies that the powers used are the same any company or individual has,
Does Post Office still have the power to bring private prosecutions?
Post Office has no special authority to bring private prosecutions. The right to bring a private criminal prosecution is available to both companies and individuals in England and Wales as a result of section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
Click to expand...


but due to the history of the PO, they had in-house departments dedicated to investigation and prosecution which other bodies would not have.
Following full privatisation in 2015 the Royal Mail Group retained its investigative branch and its legal department and continued to prosecute about 150 cases per year as a private prosecutor. While being granted no investigative powers it has regularly undertaken joint investigations with the police and other investigative bodies that do have statutory investigative powers. It was granted access to the Police National Computer system for intelligence and prosecution purposes. It had financial investigators appointed by the National Crime Agency for the purposes of undertaking financial investigations for restraint and confiscation proceedings, and Royal Mail Group was included within the list of “Relevant Public Authorities” under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 designated to grant authorisations for the carrying out of directed surveillance to investigate crime.
Click to expand...

There are concerns about the use of private prosecutions by corporations in general, which have increased in number in recent years.
“There is a strong case that organisations which bring significant numbers of private prosecutions should be subject to inspections. If an organisation is found to be misusing the power to bring private prosecutions, then the body responsible for inspecting all prosecutors and enforcing the code, be it the CPS, HMCPSI or another public body, should be able to remove the right of an organisation to bring a prosecution, or to require them to obtain consent from the Attorney General or the DPP before they can initiate a prosecution.”
Click to expand...
 
zooterkin said:
I'm not sure that is good news; I don't like the idea of parliament deciding legal cases like that, better to put the resources in to do it properly.
Click to expand...

The problem with that its been over 20 years, and many of the accused sub-postmasters accused are getting old - time is fast running out for them - the wheels of justice grind far too slowly - and a number have already died waiting for justice.

Are the Post Office and Fujitsu still opposing attempts to clear the names of the falsely accused? I know they are admitting culpability in the Inquiry, but are they doing so in court? If not, then I wonder why it is taking so long to clear all of these sub-postmasters. Appeals against convictions where the prosecution are not arguing against the appeal should be a slam dunk.
 
Nessie said:
Good news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68369015

The government plans to bring in a law to clear the remaining sub-postmasters. OK, some may have stolen, but the vast majority likely did not and lets not perfect be the enemy of good.
Click to expand...

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

- William Blackstone, English jurist, Ⓒ1762
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
The problem with that its been over 20 years, and many of the accused sub-postmasters accused are getting old - time is fast running out for them - the wheels of justice grind far too slowly - and a number have already died waiting for justice.

Are the Post Office and Fujitsu still opposing attempts to clear the names of the falsely accused? I know they are admitting culpability in the Inquiry, but are they doing so in court? If not, then I wonder why it is taking so long to clear all of these sub-postmasters. Appeals against convictions where the prosecution are not arguing against the appeal should be a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

I still think it should be the courts. Just far quicker, looking to see if Horizon was used in the prosecution evidence and then deem the conviction unsafe.

It could be set up to have a similar effect, but preserve the courts for findings of fact, interpretation of the law and justice.

I'm the meantime, the Home Secretary could issue an interim pardon until they are absolved
 
jimbob said:
I still think it should be the courts. Just far quicker, looking to see if Horizon was used in the prosecution evidence and then deem the conviction unsafe.

It could be set up to have a similar effect, but preserve the courts for findings of fact, interpretation of the law and justice.

I'm the meantime, the Home Secretary could issue an interim pardon until they are absolved
Click to expand...

But there is no way to do that quickly - there is not the capacity in the system, and it isn’t a matter of throwing money at it, you need the court time, the people will have to be involved, there simply isn’t the number of trained people to do the huge amount of work to get to what everyone wants if it followed the standard court procedures. Don’t we want a quick end to the miscarriage of justice against the innocent?

Parliament has issued blanket pardons in the past and people haven’t objected to Parliament muddying the waters in the separation of powers. (And we don’t have such a separation in our country, Parliament is supreme and can’t be limited by the courts.)
 
IANAL - is there a way to regard ALL Post Office testimony as being unreliable as they have demonstrated they are an unreliable witness? Is there an existing process when, for example, a pathologist has been shown to have faked or misread evidence? I have vague memories of such a case but insomnia is screwing my brain just now.
 
Wudang said:
IANAL - is there a way to regard ALL Post Office testimony as being unreliable as they have demonstrated they are an unreliable witness? Is there an existing process when, for example, a pathologist has been shown to have faked or misread evidence? I have vague memories of such a case but insomnia is screwing my brain just now.
Click to expand...

Such a process is needed.

Not just for this but where others have been convicted using evidence from corrupt police officers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom