• 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?

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-to-deploy-80-detectives-for-criminal-inquiry

Police are planning to deploy 80 detectives for their criminal inquiry into the Post Office scandal, the Guardian has learned, but victims will face a long wait to discover if charges will follow.

The investigation will examine potential offences of perjury, and perverting the course of justice by Post Office senior leaders as well as the tech company Fujitsu.

Police have already started discussions with prosecutors about the investigation and potential criminal charges, which stem from the possibility that post office operators were wrongly prosecuted for stealing when bosses allegedly knew their computer accounting system could be flawed.

The police operation will be national and split into four regional hubs. The staffing and resources will be similar to a major murder or terrorism investigation. Police have asked government for a special grant of at least £6.75m to fund the operation.

But the victims face a big delay before finding out if those who pursued them – they say wrongly – will themselves face criminal trials.
Click to expand...
 
That sounds like a lot, but each detective will start off with 10 to 20 cases to investigate, and the courts are already backed up, so don't expect any trials for at least 5 years. However, putting the PO staff responsible through years of worry is no bad thing in itself.
 
Pixel42 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-to-deploy-80-detectives-for-criminal-inquiry
Click to expand...

A couple of things stand out

1. They knew fairly early on that there were issues with Horizon, at least as early as 1999.

2. They intentionally isolated the SPMs from each other by telling them that they were the only ones having problems when they KNEW that was a lie.

3. When SPMs asked for help, they were threatened with prosecution.

4. They prosecuted SPM's without doing any real investigation into what the SPMs were complaining about.

5. In court, they lied, under oath, insisting that Horizon was robust. They failed to disclose knowledge of the faults in both criminal and civil cases - that is obstruction of justice. I am convinced some of them have perjured themselves again before this inquiry.

6. They claim that Fujitsu had no access to SPM's system. This was a false claim as shown by Michael Rudkin when he visited Fujitsu and saw technicians accessing SPM accounts. Fujitsu claimed he never visited, but the visitors book for that day disappeared. This is at least spoliation of evidence.
 
Nessie said:
That sounds like a lot, but each detective will start off with 10 to 20 cases to investigate, and the courts are already backed up, so don't expect any trials for at least 5 years. However, putting the PO staff responsible through years of worry is no bad thing in itself.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I would like to see them all crapping themselves for the next five years, continually being called in, or called upon, for questioning by the Police so that their lives are uncertain, and they won't know if "today" is the day they will be arrested and charged. I feel this might give them a taste of their own medicine, and a sense of what life was like for their victims.
 
smartcooky said:
A couple of things stand out

1. They knew fairly early on that there were issues with Horizon, at least as early as 1999.

2. They intentionally isolated the SPMs from each other by telling them that they were the only ones having problems when they KNEW that was a lie.

3. When SPMs asked for help, they were threatened with prosecution.

4. They prosecuted SPM's without doing any real investigation into what the SPMs were complaining about.

5. In court, they lied, under oath, insisting that Horizon was robust. They failed to disclose knowledge of the faults in both criminal and civil cases - that is obstruction of justice. I am convinced some of them have perjured themselves again before this inquiry.

6. They claim that Fujitsu had no access to SPM's system. This was a false claim as shown by Michael Rudkin when he visited Fujitsu and saw technicians accessing SPM accounts. Fujitsu claimed he never visited, but the visitors book for that day disappeared. This is at least spoliation of evidence.
Click to expand...

7. Adding to this, the subpostoffice masters/mistresses, were blackmailed into pleading guilty to a lesser charge of false accounting or else threatened with criminal prosecution of fraud and theft with prison.
 
The lawyers are already setting themselves up for an almighty battle with Vennells and other PO managers;

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commen...-and-threw-them-under-the-bus/5119861.article

"Paula Vennells had faith in her lawyers - and threw them under the bus"

The issue is who is responsible for the lawyers actions such as failing to disclose evidence of Horizon's flaws and to keep going in the civil claims to try and get the sub-postmasters to abandon as their money had run out.

Lawyers are already positioning themselves that it was the management who are responsible, but they must carry blame. If a lawyer is advised by a manager to not disclose evidence, does that lawyer have a duty to refuse?
 
Nessie said:
The lawyers are already setting themselves up for an almighty battle with Vennells and other PO managers;

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commen...-and-threw-them-under-the-bus/5119861.article

"Paula Vennells had faith in her lawyers - and threw them under the bus"

The issue is who is responsible for the lawyers actions such as failing to disclose evidence of Horizon's flaws and to keep going in the civil claims to try and get the sub-postmasters to abandon as their money had run out.

Lawyers are already positioning themselves that it was the management who are responsible, but they must carry blame. If a lawyer is advised by a manager to not disclose evidence, does that lawyer have a duty to refuse?
Click to expand...


Well, Chrichton did, when she presented her report on Second Sight's findings. Actually, technically, she didn't get to present her report because Venal snatched it out of her hand and made her sit outside the boardroom meeting whilst she took over. Moaned about Crichton having more regard for her professional loyalties than to the Firm.

As for the other one, McLeod: I have no sympathy for her at all. None. Seems she just grabbed the money and ran. Lovely £2m house in her native Australia.

It always was the case that the corporations had near unlimited funds for lawyers via indemnity insurance, whilst the poor subbie in the street somehow had to find an affordable high street lawyer or find someone on contingency fees (no-win, no-fee) which is very difficult as the lawyer won't take you on unless you have a significantly better chance of winning than 50-50. They don't want to be out of pocket. Meanwhile the PO had the best lawyers in the land and an almost bottomless fund from taxpayer monies to challenge each and every little man.

The other problem of course is that case law states that computers and phone logs, plus other digital evidence is presumed in law to be accurate, so how does the high street lawyer/barrister even begin to challenge the claim that Horizon and Fujitsu were not complete and utter crap? Hence, Venal's reliance on the use of terms such as 'exceptional' and limited in unforeseen circumstances', rather than 'bugs' or 'defects'.

All of this indicates she knew full well of the issue and miscarriages for her to so actively cover them up and try to repress any information that might bring it to light.
 
Vixen said:
Well, Chrichton did, when she presented her report on Second Sight's findings. Actually, technically, she didn't get to present her report because Venal snatched it out of her hand and made her sit outside the boardroom meeting whilst she took over. Moaned about Crichton having more regard for her professional loyalties than to the Firm.

As for the other one, McLeod: I have no sympathy for her at all. None. Seems she just grabbed the money and ran. Lovely £2m house in her native Australia.

It always was the case that the corporations had near unlimited funds for lawyers via indemnity insurance, whilst the poor subbie in the street somehow had to find an affordable high street lawyer or find someone on contingency fees (no-win, no-fee) which is very difficult as the lawyer won't take you on unless you have a significantly better chance of winning than 50-50. They don't want to be out of pocket. Meanwhile the PO had the best lawyers in the land and an almost bottomless fund from taxpayer monies to challenge each and every little man.
The other problem of course is that case law states that computers and phone logs, plus other digital evidence is presumed in law to be accurate, so how does the high street lawyer/barrister even begin to challenge the claim that Horizon and Fujitsu were not complete and utter crap? Hence, Venal's reliance on the use of terms such as 'exceptional' and limited in unforeseen circumstances', rather than 'bugs' or 'defects'.

All of this indicates she knew full well of the issue and miscarriages for her to so actively cover them up and try to repress any information that might bring it to light.
Click to expand...


The PO spent £millions on lawyers to prosecute subbies over £thousands, in order to "protect the brand". :eek:
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
The PO spent £millions on lawyers to prosecute subbies over £thousands, in order to "protect the brand". :eek:
Click to expand...

I think that initially, management did think that Horizon had uncovered crime by sub-postmasters on a scale not previously detected. That created a culture of a crusade against a wave of criminals, needed to protect the brand. Once that wave had started, it took a lot before management could bring themselves to accept Horizon and they were at fault.
 
Nessie said:
I think that initially, management did think that Horizon had uncovered crime by sub-postmasters on a scale not previously detected. That created a culture of a crusade against a wave of criminals, needed to protect the brand. Once that wave had started, it took a lot before management could bring themselves to accept Horizon and they were at fault.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that was only the case for a few months, perhaps 24 at most. It wasn't long before they knew there were serious issues with Horizon, and right from the outset, they were lying to SPMs telling each one that no other SPMs were having any problems. Once they started the deceit, they thought there was no way to back out of what they started.

The way they proceeded from there was both outrageous and unforgivable. A lot of the PO executives and advisors need to go to jail for what they did, starting with Vennells. She must have known almost from the beginning of her seven year term as CEO from 2012 to 2019, that the PO was suppressing evidence of the bugs in Horizon from the court - and some of that evidence was exculpatory. She also must have known that the prosecutions were fraudulent and leading to wrongful convictions.
 
There are plenty of examples within the police and prosecution services, of initial erroneous decisions to investigate, charge and prosecute, where they plough on regardless and double down rather than admit error. Psychologists can explain why that is. I find it utterly bizarre and rather disturbing.
 
The moment of Vennells' testimony that struck me the most because of my long professional experience was the exchange about external IT audit reports. The externals reported that modifications directly to the data were not only possible, but were untraceable and unauditable. Vennells testified that she hadn't understood the significance of the findings and that she'd asked for internal advice; it's not clear what follow-up was given.

I spent many years at a Big4 firm and did many, many IT audits, mostly in support of statutory financial audits. Nearly all of my clients were quoted on the NYSE and were enormous international groups.

Without exception, if the IT audit threw up anything remotely like that it was discussed in detail with the CIO and the CFO and then we were invited to present to the main board. It's part of the audit reporting process and we were more than happy to do it. Clearly we'd present things in as non-techie a way as possible, but we'd be there and make sure the message and the implications got across. If we used phrases such as "untraceable and unauditable" heads would roll.

Of course, these were organisations with serious senior management who accepted their responsibilities and were terrified of messing up.
 
malbui said:
Of course, these were organisations with serious senior management who accepted their responsibilities and were terrified of messing up.
Click to expand...

I'm betting that

a. They weren't Public Corporations with the Government as the sole shareholder.

b. They weren't trying to protect a "brand"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom