I still think that before people get sent to prison there should be proof that the system works flawlessly. and if the prosecution doesn't provide it the defense should demand it. It sounds like postal executives are the people who need to be locked up.
Largest ever miscarriage of justice?
- Thread starter Garrison
- Start date
I still think that before people get sent to prison there should be proof that the system works flawlessly. and if the prosecution doesn't provide it the defense should demand it. It sounds like postal executives are the people who need to be locked up.
Sadly didn’t work out like that.
Yep and their legal folk all the way up to the QCs involved.
But of course that is never going to happen.
How about "whether or not your premise is valid this is an example of a miscarriage of justice"?
Because under the definition that others are using, for instance Mathew Best's
It's clearly a miscarriage of justice.
But as SmartCookie showed, under your definition, it's also a miscarriage of justice.
So, at least with regards to this case, it's not necessary to sort out the philosophical issue that you're bringing up in order to answer the question "was this a miscarriage of justice?" the answer, in either case, is "yes."
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,176
Something various lawyers are picking up on, is the systematic failure by the PO to disclose exculpatory evidence;
https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/1385551884463837185
"Amongst many jaw-dropping paragraphs in the Sub-postmasters' appeals is this gem.
Document not to be disclosed "because it might assist the defence."
That is the theme behind the miscarriage of justice, the PO started off their enquiries believing their system was not at fault, but as they realised that it was the system, rather than back down and admit their own error, they covered up and created a false narrative.
There has been a debate here over miscarriages of justice, but there is also evidence that this was a large scale malicious prosecution, whereby the PO continued to prosecute, knowing that the exculpatory evidence indicated their system was at fault.
https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/1385551884463837185
"Amongst many jaw-dropping paragraphs in the Sub-postmasters' appeals is this gem.
Document not to be disclosed "because it might assist the defence."
That is the theme behind the miscarriage of justice, the PO started off their enquiries believing their system was not at fault, but as they realised that it was the system, rather than back down and admit their own error, they covered up and created a false narrative.
There has been a debate here over miscarriages of justice, but there is also evidence that this was a large scale malicious prosecution, whereby the PO continued to prosecute, knowing that the exculpatory evidence indicated their system was at fault.
I’ve been following this case for years - in PE, ComputerWeekly and the Radio 4 coverage and it has always been clear that the prosecutors withheld pertinent information time and time again. And not only that actively attempted to bury and prevent reports into its activities coming to light.
malbui
Beauf
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,670
I've done a fair amount of forensic software evaluation over the years and twice testified as an expert witness. It's so much easier doing that for the defence where all we had to do was demonstrate how easy it was to break stuff or modify data illicitly (God? root? What is the difference?) than to demonstrate how robust something was. One of the reasons why the PO didn't want to allow anybody to go down that path.
The other being that both the PO and their legal team were institutionally corrupt without the slightest regard for justice or the effects of their actions on individuals.
On a lighter note, I have contemporaneous reports from a well-known trial of the time where an ancestor of mine and a couple of his accomplices were found not guilty by a sympathetic jury of a series of charges of which they were guilty and for which they should have ended up on the end of a rope. Almost exactly 200 years ago and justice was never done.
Of course, if it had been I wouldn't be here.
The other being that both the PO and their legal team were institutionally corrupt without the slightest regard for justice or the effects of their actions on individuals.
On a lighter note, I have contemporaneous reports from a well-known trial of the time where an ancestor of mine and a couple of his accomplices were found not guilty by a sympathetic jury of a series of charges of which they were guilty and for which they should have ended up on the end of a rope. Almost exactly 200 years ago and justice was never done.
Of course, if it had been I wouldn't be here.
Which should (is?) illegal in itself and the buggers should be hauled roughly over the coals for it.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,176
It is a classic and sadly common example of how many people (police, prosecutors and in this case, other authorities with investigative powers) who work within the UK CJ system, think. They decide on the preferred narrative at the start of any investigation and then plough on regardless, even when the preferred narrative is falling apart.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,176
Hopefully that will happen.
There is a recent example in Scotland, where it has been admitted there was a malicious prosecution of the administrators involved after the collapse of Rangers football club. The problem is that no one has been held responsible and disciplined, instead the Scottish taxpayer is forking out millions in compensation.
In cases like that, compensation is legalised bribery, paying off victims, so those responsible can avoid responsibility.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,176
Very interesting blog post, by a lawyer, who is questioning the role of the lawyers in the prosecution;
https://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2...e-lawyers-post/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
"There are indications from the Court of lawyers finger prints on some of the other failures to disclose that the Court deals with. Disclosure is declined because it is costly and inconvenient or because something was sensitive and “Could be used as mitigation” (!)."
That relates to advice given by a lawyer, Clarke, to the PO about collating information about issues with the accounting system;
"“At that conference he had advised the creation of a single hub to collate all Horizon-related defects, bugs, complaints, queries and Fujitsu remedies, so there would be a single source of information for disclosure purposes in future prosecutions. POL had accepted his advice and had set up a weekly conference call, three of which had taken place by the time Mr Clarke wrote his later advice."
But what happened was that all such information was either shredded, not recorded or not disclosed. It appears whilst one lawyer was advising and encouraging disclosure, others may have been behind the actions by the PO to hide that exculpatory evidence.
https://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2...e-lawyers-post/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
"There are indications from the Court of lawyers finger prints on some of the other failures to disclose that the Court deals with. Disclosure is declined because it is costly and inconvenient or because something was sensitive and “Could be used as mitigation” (!)."
That relates to advice given by a lawyer, Clarke, to the PO about collating information about issues with the accounting system;
"“At that conference he had advised the creation of a single hub to collate all Horizon-related defects, bugs, complaints, queries and Fujitsu remedies, so there would be a single source of information for disclosure purposes in future prosecutions. POL had accepted his advice and had set up a weekly conference call, three of which had taken place by the time Mr Clarke wrote his later advice."
But what happened was that all such information was either shredded, not recorded or not disclosed. It appears whilst one lawyer was advising and encouraging disclosure, others may have been behind the actions by the PO to hide that exculpatory evidence.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Don't you have "discovery" in UK law?
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,176
We do and it is called disclosure.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Then how is it that both Fujitsu and Post Office knowingly failed to disclose, and why aren't they being criminally prosecuted for it?
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,176
I am not sure. I am also not sure how many, if any Post Office cases are from Scotland.
In Scotland there is no specific criminal offence to fail to disclose evidence, instead there is a Lord Advocate's Code of Practice. Since it is regularly the prosecutor who fails to disclose evidence, or ensure that potentially exculpatory evidence is investigated, and the Lord Advocate is head prosecutor, it is unlikely the prosecutor is going to prosecute themselves.
The legal system considers itself to be honourable, whilst repeatedly proving it is not. Like the banking system, which asked for a light regulatory touch because it could be trusted, and then instantly embarked on a series of financial scandals mis-selling products. Another example are MPs, who hate being held to account, but constantly prove that they need strict regulation of their behaviour.
It is legalised corruption, the fantasy whereby we pretend not to be corrupt, by making corrupt practices leagl, or at least not illegal.
That’s part of why it is a miscarriage of justice! And why I say it is everyone on the prosecution side needs to be investigated for their part in it.
At the heart of this was a terrible conflict of interest, the investigators were the Royal Mail and the prosecution was Royal Mail they both had an interest in ensuring the blame fell outside the Royal Mail.
Should never be allowed in my opinion - akin to say how the RSPCA investigates and prosecutes.
ETA: In case this seems slightly strange wording or not in your justice system. In the UK (think this is countrywide) we all have the power to bring prosecutions, not just civil actions, so a private individual or company can prosecute you in a standard court and if found guilty you will face the same sentence, including prison time as if the state had been prosecuting you. This can be for pretty much all alleged crimes (“serious” crimes require the approval of the state prosecutors to go ahead or only the state can prosecute - for example crimes such as terrorism).
What happened here is that Royal Mail accused their employees of theft (and similar crimes), Royal Mail staff investigated these alleged crimes, then often the same Royal Mail staff (and contracted legal bods) prosecuted in court. Many of the victims of this didn’t even understand that they would end up in court and often spoke to the investigators never knowing the “investigators” were building a criminal case against them.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
If there's a fact that leads you to a conclusion, feel free to share it. If I know your facts, I might even agree with your conclusion. Or at least discuss it.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yesterday I actually considered making the argument that it wouldn't be justice to not do anything unless the system was perfect. I figured that went without saying. I guess it doesn't.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
smartcookie showed it might be. But again, I don't see the point in debating it if you don't even accept the premise.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,176
It is odd that as the Post Office investigated the alleged thefts and found more and more evidence of failures with the Horizon system, that they did not switch to investigating it, using the accused post office workers as witnesses.
The PO could have got millions in compensation from Fujitsu and kept its reputation.
The PO could have got millions in compensation from Fujitsu and kept its reputation.
Well, I think you have a point, depending on what we're actually talking about.
If a miscarriage of justice is meant to be evidence that there's something necessarily wrong with the system, then certainly you're right that "produced a negative outcome" isn't enough to show that.
If on the other hand we're trying to improve the system and as a first step noting it's failures, then it's worth tallying up all the times it fails, whether or not they were avoidable, because we're not yet at the level of analysis that can really determine whether they were avoidable. Having tallied up the failures the next step is to say, "okay, is there anything we can do to lower the number of failures the system makes?". Haven't a more complete list of failures should make that analysis easier to do.
Even if we're just working on a case by case basis, saying "here's a negative outcome! This is bad!" seems like a useful step. Then going back and seeing if there's anything that could have been done to prevent that outcome is probably the next step.
So, do I grant your premise? I think it's really a semantic issue. Most people will probably agree with you that the system shouldn't be changed based on cases where the system itself wasn't at fault. Whether or not those cases should be called miscarriages of justice just doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but I think I'm leaning more toward the side that they should as doing so lets us tally them all up together and we might find that there are so many that even though in individual cases it doesn't seem like there was a problem with the system, so many problem cases indicates that we must be missing something.