• 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?

Orphia Nay said:
Senior Post Office lawyer Jarnail Singh tells big fat lie.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d4j5m3l08o.amp
Click to expand...

Mr Beer showed evidence suggesting Mr Singh had saved an attachment about Horizon discrepancies to his hard drive, and printed it off on 8 October 2010.

"I don't recall seeing it, I don't recall printing it," Mr Singh said.

When asked whether it was saved on the hard drive of his computer, Mr Singh said: "I don't even know what you're talking about.

"I don't know how these things worked."

"You don't know how to save a document?" Mr Beer asked.

"I didn't know how to do it," Mr Singh responded, saying he wouldn't have had the technical knowledge either to do that or to understand the document itself.

"I don't remember this document at all, or the email," he added.

Mr Beer said Mr Singh was engaged in "blind denial" because "this is evidence of your own guilty knowledge".

Mr Singh replied: "That is not true, and I don't feel guilty, because I haven't received it, because if I did, I would have dealt with it.

"I don't recaIl receiving it, or reading it, or printing it - that is my evidence on oath."​


WTF? A lawyer, in the 21st century, doesn't know how to save an attachment and print a document?
Holy Shamoley... really? He truly expects that anyone is going believe this?
 
Law Gazette blog on yesterday

2.35pm: A major revelation and one of Singh's most uncomfortable moments so far. The inquiry sees an email chain where Post Office leaders are discussing whether to disclose investigators' reports as part of the mediation process in 2014.

Singh says that in relation to the former sub-postmistress Jo Hamilton (pictured below), he had no doubt that disclosure would have been an 'extremely dangerous approach'. Hamilton was fighting to clear her name and clearly, suggests Beer, would have benefitted from knowing there were deficiencies in the case against her.

The solicitor tells the inquiry he had not even read the Hamilton file when he wrote this email. This prompts Beer and chair Sir Wyn Williams to ask incredulously how he could possibly have quoted directly from it if he had not read.

Singh takes long pauses as he tries to explain what was happening. He says this email was just him 'weighing' up the arguments over disclosure of investigators' reports.

Beer says this is proof of a cover-up, which Singh denies.
Click to expand...

Here
 
smartcooky said:
Mr Beer showed evidence suggesting Mr Singh had saved an attachment about Horizon discrepancies to his hard drive, and printed it off on 8 October 2010.

"I don't recall seeing it, I don't recall printing it," Mr Singh said.

When asked whether it was saved on the hard drive of his computer, Mr Singh said: "I don't even know what you're talking about.

"I don't know how these things worked."

"You don't know how to save a document?" Mr Beer asked.

"I didn't know how to do it," Mr Singh responded, saying he wouldn't have had the technical knowledge either to do that or to understand the document itself.

"I don't remember this document at all, or the email," he added.

Mr Beer said Mr Singh was engaged in "blind denial" because "this is evidence of your own guilty knowledge".

Mr Singh replied: "That is not true, and I don't feel guilty, because I haven't received it, because if I did, I would have dealt with it.

"I don't recaIl receiving it, or reading it, or printing it - that is my evidence on oath."​


WTF? A lawyer, in the 21st century, doesn't know how to save an attachment and print a document?
Holy Shamoley... really? He truly expects that anyone is going believe this?
Click to expand...

Slightly longer video on Twitter

https://x.com/ruddick/status/1786346584122216492

Even more painful than the transcript
 
Well, just because the computer shows the lawyer received the email and read the email and printed the email and wrote a response quoting the email, we have to consider it might just be the computer that made a mistake. Computers aren't flawless, you know. [/sarcasm]
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Well, just because the computer shows the lawyer received the email and read the email and printed the email and wrote a response quoting the email, we have to consider it might just be the computer that made a mistake. Computers aren't flawless, you know. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Beautiful
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Well, just because the computer shows the lawyer received the email and read the email and printed the email and wrote a response quoting the email, we have to consider it might just be the computer that made a mistake. Computers aren't flawless, you know. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

I take your point, but does the computer show that the lawyer did or that, or simply someone with access to his account? (And I don't think replying to it was alleged.)
 
Last edited:
Filippo Lippi said:
Law Gazette blog on yesterday



Here
Click to expand...

Jarnal Singh is such a liar!

From that blog:

2.10pm: Here we go again, then. Beer takes Singh to an email he sent to a colleague in which he referred to cases where it is 'immediately apparent that criminal investigation should be commenced with view to prosecution to protect POL brand and reputation and in the interest of the business'.

Beer asks whether brand protection was a message he wanted to emphasise. Singh says not him personally.

Beer then shows another Singh email, this time to executive director Angela van den Bogerd, in which he says the Post Office needs to investigate 'with a view to potential prosecution to protect POL brand and reputation and for business purposes'.

Beer says the wording is almost identical and asks again if Singh was concerned with reputation management. He says these emails were discussion papers and he wasn't personally trying to protect the Post Office brand.

He’s not trying to protect the Post Office brand when telling people to protect the Post Office brand. :jaw-dropp
 
He was trying to protect the Post Office brand, now he's trying to keep himself out of prison, presumably. Do we know if he's still practising?
 
Filippo Lippi said:
He was trying to protect the Post Office brand, now he's trying to keep himself out of prison, presumably. Do we know if he's still practising?
Click to expand...

Well he certainly needs to improve
[/Deliberate misunderstanding]

I recall seeing that he isn't anymore, so getting struck off would only be a symbolic act
 
Legal advice given to the PO in July 2013, clearly stating that the expert witness Gareth Jenkins is unreliable and failing to disclose evidence. It is referred to as the Clarke Advice, after the lawyer who wrote it;

https://www.postofficescandal.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Clarke-advice-re-Jenkins.pdf

"In an appropriate case the Court of Appeal will consider whether or not any conviction is
unsafe. In so doing they may well inquire into the reasons for Dr. Jenkins' failure to refer
to the existence of bugs in his expert witness statements and evidence."
 
Nessie said:
Legal advice given to the PO in July 2013, clearly stating that the expert witness Gareth Jenkins is unreliable and failing to disclose evidence. It is referred to as the Clarke Advice, after the lawyer who wrote it;

https://www.postofficescandal.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Clarke-advice-re-Jenkins.pdf

"In an appropriate case the Court of Appeal will consider whether or not any conviction is
unsafe. In so doing they may well inquire into the reasons for Dr. Jenkins' failure to refer
to the existence of bugs in his expert witness statements and evidence."
Click to expand...


If Jenkins lied under oath, he really should be charged with perjury!
 
jimbob said:
And showing how widespread the culture of cover up in the public sector is,

Records destroyed about the contaminated blood scandal when the prospect of compensation was raised.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ood-deaths-lawsuit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Click to expand...

There ought to be a rule of evidence/procedure that if one side has been shown to have destroyed relevant documents, the other side can argue that the documents must have been incriminating, the judge may instruct the jury accordingly, and the side that destroyed the documents cannot object.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
If Jenkins lied under oath, he really should be charged with perjury!
Click to expand...

That should come, once the Inquiry is finished. They don't like running criminal cases and public inquiries at the same time.
 
steenkh said:
Wouldn’t a testimony from 2013 be barred from prosecution today?
Click to expand...

Why? Are you thinking some kind of statute of limitations?

If so, you should know that under UK Law is there is no general statute of limitations for criminal offenses. There is a limit for some minor offenses, but perjury is not a minor offense - if you give false testimony before a court/under oath, you are liable to prosecution at any later time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom