mr bates vs the post office

In Scotland the Lord Advocate blames the post office.

“She said the Post Office had been a trusted investigating agency in Scotland and prosecutors had been entitled to take its assurances about Horizon at “face value”.She said the Post Office’s repeated failure to disclose problems and mislead prosecutors was a “truly exceptional” and “unique” scandal.She also said Scottish prosecutors took a cautious approach to the software system from 2013 to 2015, before ending prosecutions based on it, even though it was not until 2019 that a court action in England conclusively established it was defective.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24053742.scotlands-lord-advocate-apologises-post-office-victims/

She also said Scottish prosecutors took a cautious approach to the software system from 2013 to 2015, before ending prosecutions based on it

Which seems an attempt to confuse things since by 2013 anyone paying the slightest attention would be asking “so what about these Computer weekly, private eye, BBC reports and the mps and campaign group they reference? I would like you to explain why they are irrelevant in this case please” and in 2015 the PO gave up on the attack and switched to trying to confuse things long enough for everyone involved to die off.
The appalling thing is it took until 2019 anywhere in the UK for it to be reviewed in a court of law and then it needed funding by a litigation fund. If it hadnt looked like it could make a profit (minus the legal costs and the legal costs of other promising prospects which failed) then it could still be he said/she said.

Peter Sewell comes across as a slippery **** doesn’t he?

Can’t even manage a cover-up competently.

BOOM ?#PostOfficeScandal
? This hugely significant Bombshell dropped by Channel 4 News this evening with the inimitable @PaulMar72224296.

First sight of the 2013 notification from @PostOffice Lawyers to @PostOffice and Royal Mail Group Insurers and the fact that the Board… pic.twitter.com/mwl8ybOO3M

— Monsieur Cholet (@stugoo17) January 18, 2024

Ooops. PO Board aware of defects in the Horizon evidence being used to convict subpostmasters. In 2013, yet allowed prosecutions relying on this evidence to continue.

Vennells and her colleagues should be in for a very uncomfortable time in front of the inquiry, and hopefully in a police interview room at some point.

If you’ve not watched channel 4 news from last night, it is absolutely damning.

The post office management knew full well that the Horizon system was faulty, their ‘star witness’ was completely unreliable and that the evidence they were giving in court was unsafe, but they continued with the prosecutions regardless

They should be behind bars

Vennells became CEO in 2012 so this would suggest she knew that there could have been wrongful convictions in the past, yet continued to instruct po security to prosecute based on the same or similar evidence. As well as continuing to insist that Horizon was infallible – I still hear daily about issues with Horizon. A PO on a FB group yesterday said that a counter that hadn’t been used for some time (essentially turned off) had just shown a £2.49 discrepancy.

I’m sure PO were aware at some level that Horizon had issues a significant time before 2013, this evidence is just follows the law team catching up and realising potential consequences of previous witnesses telling fibs.

If they are getting documented advice at board level which effectively says subpostmasters were convicted on the basis of faulty evidence, and continue to rely on this evidence to continue prosecuting, then that moves into the realm of criminal activity rather than just incompetence or indifference.

It goes from ‘surely they must have known?’, to ‘look, this proves they knew’.

then that moves into the realm of criminal activity rather than just incompetence or indifference.

I agree with the sentiment. However I am pessimistic around what the law may say here. Any lawyers care to comment?

Radio 4 are revisiting the investigations they did some years back. Lawyers for the post office demanding hand written minutes of meeting instead of typed and emailed then asking for any to be shredded.

Nothing iffy at all then going on oh no.

Post office could have come clean 10 years ago and thrown the exc team righly under the bus the same with Fujitsu but nah stick it to the plebs and carry on quaffing on the teet of lies and corruption.

However I am pessimistic around what the law may say here.

This is a helpful run-through of the thresholds for the relevant offences. The law is pretty clear.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard#:~:text=The%20offence%20of%20perverting%20the%20course%20of%20justice%20is%20sometimes,course%20of%20justice%20are%20done.

It’s probably right to be pessimistic about what will actually happen once the scandal drops off the public radar again. I think Vennells’ testimony to the inquiry under oath will include an awful lot of ‘I don’t recall’. Fujitsu CEO has the opportunity to drop the PO Board deep into the mire today.

Peter Sewell comes across as a slippery **** doesn’t he?

Every single one of the fujitsu/PO witnesses I have seen tick that box. Normally with a bonus character trait of bully or vindictive.

Fujitsu CEO has the opportunity to drop the PO Board deep into the mire today.

He does seem to be taking the approach of dropping both the PO and the Fujitsu staff at the time into the mire.
Going to be awkward for the new PO board who could have taken the same approach years ago and stopped playing games with compensation.

Tldr has there been any suggestion as to where or if money was disappearing to?

Tldr has there been any suggestion as to where or if money was disappearing to?

In most cases (there were various bugs) it simply didnt exist.
Examples given are:
Faulty rollbacks: So a transaction would show as errored but still be processed on the backend.
Faulty syncing with the central db: if the submission was interrupted it didnt track duplicates properly so would create another transaction again.

Although in those cases where the postmasters made up the “shortfall” out of their own pocket it eventually just got swept into the post office general profit account.

The end of each session tends to be quite interesting, the bit where lawyers representing the victims can ask the witness questions, these tend to be a bit more pointy.

One witness was grilled on why he didn’t come forward 10ish years ago when he first learnt about these prosecutions based on evidence from a system he knew was a pile of crap. He was the “acceptance manager” who led the PO accepting Fujitsu’s system into service despite known issues of accounting irregularities. Kept his mouth shut all this time hoping to avoid getting into trouble I bet.

Although in those cases where the postmasters made up the “shortfall” out of their own pocket it eventually just got swept into the post office general profit account.

Just to reiterate, it’s not just the 900or so prosecuted SPM’s that were affected. Of the remaining 11500 postoffices, 2960 have successfully claimed (of 3500 submitted) for erroneous weekly and monthly shortfalls totaling over 130million.

We took on our postoffice in 2015 and had shortfalls between then and 2017 so could technically claim but we’ve decided it’s not worth the hassle. The couple we bought the po from had a 8k shortfall appear but disputed it as at that point po weren’t taking people to court for less than 10k shortfalls.

Imo there wouldn’t have been a postoffice in the country that wasn’t affected by the Horizon scandal – there are 1000’s of postoffices that have shut since horizons introduction in 1999, I really hope the inquest highlights how many closures had shortfalls as a factor.

More potential abuses of power from PO investigators coming out almost daily.

Another outrage. A Post Office investigator went into a postmaster's parents' house and seized their jewellery, supposedly using powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

I have some questions. https://t.co/8sWVRqph8Z

— Dan Neidle (@DanNeidle) January 24, 2024

IANAL, but even I know ‘seizing’ property from a different person than the accused is just plain unjust and unlawful…

I just find it a bit of a circus now, we’ve seen this before, and we know the outcome, the public will pay the damages, and those who were at fault will end up drawing their pension without any issues, if the worst we’re talking about is taking back Vennells CBE then that’s embarrassing.

IANAL, but even I know ‘seizing’ property from a different person than the accused is just plain unjust and unlawful…

Applying the POCA prior to not only conviction, but charging, and without a court order seems a tad over-zealous to my layperson’s eyes…

if the worst we’re talking about is taking back Vennells CBE then that’s embarrassing.

She’s handed it back. But there is a police investigation looking at, among other things, perjury, fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

With every day that passes the organised nature of the wrongful prosecution campaign and the cover-up seems more and more apparent. Vennells just got flat out accused of lying to Parliament in evidence by the person who sat next to her at that select committee.

Indeed, and as we already knew, this is beyond culture or mistakes, this was deliberate decisions and actions both before any awareness and after people were made aware.

My understanding  of the Proceeds of Crime Act is that property/cash etc can only be recovered after someone is convicted and an order is granted at court. An investigator whether post office or police can not just seize it.

” Confiscation occurs after a conviction has taken place.”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d7b6740f0b64fe6c23fae/Fact_Sheet_-_Overview_of_POCA__2_.pdf

But there is a police investigation looking at, among other things, perjury, fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Watching channel 4 news last night, there seems to have been a big shift in the language being used. Instead of using typically vague legalise phrases about Vennells like ‘she misrepresented the facts’, the lawyers interviewed last night were bluntly saying ‘she’s a liar’ and ‘she lied to a parliamentary committee’.

Nice to see her being called what she is. Looks like the gloves are off

The way that these prosecutions were undertaken by PO can only lead to 2 conclusions:

1. The process was being directed at the highest level within the PO to protect their reputation (share price impact and directors’ bonuses)

or

2. The revenue protection team within the PO literally went feral, appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner unbeknown to senior management.

Expect concerted efforts to portray it as 2

My understanding of the Proceeds of Crime Act is that property/cash etc can only be recovered after someone is convicted and an order is granted at court. An investigator whether post office or police can not just seize it.

If this is the case, does the behaviour of this fine upstanding investigator using mention of the act as a means to extract valuables from a subpostmaster’s home amount to fraud by deception or just plain theft?

If this is the case, does the behaviour of this fine upstanding investigator using mention of the act as a means to extract valuables from a subpostmaster’s home amount to fraud by deception or just plain theft?

I get the feeling through the proceedings that there is a couple of police officers watching – with the occasional ‘Sarge, we have another one. Can we have an investigation started into this one now?’ being uttered…. And at the end of the process we will see Police and CPS make a decision to investigate or even prosecute when the fullest picture is painted…

I watched over the weekend. As someone who works in IT, for a company that works on big government contracts i found it very sobering. I definitely had a bit of a reset moment, remembering just how important the work we do is, and how it impacts potentially millions of people.

Sadly, they mentioned my old friends dad in the last episode. Peter Holmes – died before he could clear his name, convicted for theft of 46k, terribly sad.

The way that these prosecutions were undertaken by PO can only lead to 2 conclusions:

1. The process was being directed at the highest level within the PO to protect their reputation (share price impact and directors’ bonuses)

The PO Ltd is owned by UK Governement.  Whist technically there is a share price it is not on the market and so that does not make sense.  BUT I have to wonder what ministers knew.  If you’ve reached the point of warning your insurer, would you not also alert your primary shareholder?

or

2. The revenue protection team within the PO literally went feral, appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner unbeknown to senior management.

Expect concerted efforts to portray it as 2

I think there’s enough evidence to contradict any claim that it was simply 2.  What surprises me more is that there are not more senior internal figures willing to throw their leadership under the bus.

Yesterday’s witness genuinely seemed to believe he had done nothing wrong and was just doing his job.  He was more concerned that 65% financial recovery target was unachievable than believing that it drove a behaviour of trying to get the money back rather than do a decent investigation.  He genuinely still seemed to be of the belief that “well a lot of these people admitted wrong accounting” so broke the law rather than any introspection to say, did we pressure them to admit that because proving actual theft was too hard if you can’t follow the money.

“does the behaviour of this fine upstanding investigator using mention of the act as a means to extract valuables from a subpostmaster’s home amount to fraud by deception or just plain theft?”

I have no knowledge of English law. In Scotland there would need to be the intent to deprive the owner of it. So if the investigator genuinely believed he had the power to seize it and it was later returned after proper advice was taken there may not be a crime there. Mere incompetence not being criminal. It suggests that the training the investigators got was insufficient.

The bit that concerns me in the above email is where it says they are seeking in the first instance repayment of £52k. That reads a bit like they will are saying the jewellery will only be returned after the £52k is paid.

So maybe it was theft as it wasn’t being returned until £52k was paid. But I am not a lawyer etc.r

Expect concerted efforts to portray it as 2

Doesnt really work since even if it had been true to begin with by 2012-13 there was evidence coming out and the managements response was to circle the wagons.
Good to see their latest “investigator” being interviewed is showing the quality we have come to expect. Still thinks someone was guilty and also didnt really see why the inquiry was wasting his time asking him to read documents and respond until they had some sheriffs pop round to explain it wasnt optional.

2. The revenue protection team within the PO literally went feral, appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner unbeknown to senior management.

Expect concerted efforts to portray it as 2

I would think that just the fact that the senior management were in touch with their insurers with their concerns about the safety of convictions/reliability of their main witnesses (in 2013?) and those documents are now in the public domain has put paid to that

Applying the POCA prior to not only conviction, but charging, and without a court order seems a tad over-zealous to my layperson’s eyes…

Seizure / detention of assets can be legal under POCA prior to conviction ; 

(1)On being satisfied as mentioned in section 47B(1) an appropriate officer may seize any realisable property if the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that—

(a)the property may otherwise be made unavailable for satisfying any confiscation order that has been or may be made against the defendant, or

(b)the value of the property may otherwise be diminished as a result of conduct by the defendant or a

I think they would struggle to satisfy either of those ‘reasonable grounds’ in the case highlighted. It will be interesting to see whether the investigator bonus scheme for convictions which has been mentioned has any reward linked to asset seizure.

Either way, the culture stinks to high heaven, and the close link between the drive to convict, and to ‘recover’ assets is disturbing.

I have read of one case which appears to have been dropped because a failure to convict would jeopardize the POCA seizure of assets held by the previous postmaster at the shop, who had already been convicted.

Anyone consider it suspect that all the media talk regarding the Post Office has now moved onto a possible 3 day delivery system?, tin foil hat?

Anyone consider it suspect that all the media talk regarding the Post Office has now moved onto a possible 3 day delivery system?, tin foil hat?

the post office don’t deliver mail. that’s royal mail. a completely different company.

the post office don’t deliver mail. that’s royal mail. a completely different company.

Yeah that’s obvious to those with half a brain but to those with the other half the Post Office/Royal Mail are one and the same, that was my point.

Letter deliveries don’t make royal mail any money, the price of a 1st/2nd class stamp is dictated to them by Ofcom and the government. The system is out dated based on a 20billion item per annum requirement, where as RM now only handles 7billion letters a year and it’s declining year on year. There’s a reason the likes of yodel and Hermes minimal cost is around £3+. Add to that the large redundancies at the start of the year RM made it’s a bit of a twist of the knife to letter delivery. The current gov has said that they won’t support a removal of sat letter deliveries, but that’s almost certainly a political rather than commercial or social decision with the election coming up. 12-18 months time we won’t have sat letters imo.

It’s also one reason POL expanded it’s business into banking, insurance etc because there’s a year on year decline in stamps. We used to sell thousands of them at Christmas, it’s hundreds now.

Good to see their latest “investigator” being interviewed is showing the quality we have come to expect.

todays guy moved us to another level!   Everyone that has gone before must be thinking – hey at least I’m not the worst!  The bizzare thing was he finished with a statement about the PO being terrible – and he could say that as he was no longer there, but he didn’t actually include that in the statement or the main part of his evidence!  

Still thinks someone was guilty

I thought it was a shame that the KC didn’t finish by reasking the same question – so we could see whether he was just thick, didn’t understand the law or focussed on being right at all cost.  Having agreed that various checks should have been made, if not by him then by his successor, I wondered if he could now see why the conviction was unsound.

and also didnt really see why the inquiry was wasting his time asking him to read documents and respond

whilst his attitude stinks he did actually have a valid point.   They’ve had years to cite him to attend and provide those docs and instead give him less than 30 days to review 350 pages and write a witness statement.  He’s not paid for that time; I assume he was entitled to travel and loss of earnings expenses for attending today.  That said, I am sure if a civil discussion took place it may have been possible to reschedule later in proceedings.  In any case he should have been able to answer the most basic questions like when he joined RM/PO, and the “CV” stuff.

until they had some sheriffs pop round to explain it wasnt optional.

sheriffs officers not sheriffs!  A sheriff is a judge – similar in standing to county court judge in England, they don’t go knocking on people’s doors.  Sheriff’s Officers are employed by private contractors and are bit like a Bailiff in England.  The sort of people who wear a suit with trainers!

His departure from the PO was a bit weird – he was “made redundant” seemingly quite quickly as his cases were in a mess, but whilst he described it as “put on gardening leave” he was actually working in a post office branch for his notice period… …so I’m thinking he was basically sacked?  

Rightly or wrongly, surely ALL the convictions have to be null and void now by default? and ‘lots of’ compensation paid unless there is real evidence of wrong-doing?

We know the system was flawed, it’s a proven matter of fact…. so that sets a high bar of ambiguity.

God knows I’ve left jobs before, when I come across this kind of bollocks… I was lucky enough to be able to walk away rather than relying the job to pay my mortgage or whatever.

Some people can’t afford to walk out of a job, and I don’t really blame them for that. .they may be coerced into towing the company line, and thus, become part of the probelm.

Rightly or wrongly, surely ALL the convictions have to be null and void now by default? and ‘lots of’ compensation paid unless there is real evidence of wrong-doing?

Yes and no, no because our legal system doesn’t work that way and every case should be reviewed. Yes compensation should be paid, but it’s a complicated process that takes time, especially when there are thousands of cases. The most complicated cases (where convictions were made) are taking the longest time.

Some people can’t afford to walk out of a job, and I don’t really blame them for that. .they may be coerced into towing the company line, and thus, become part of the problem.

It seems many if not most of the POL investigation teams had worked at POL for all or most of their careers. Walking away from a job that pays well with a good pension is very difficult I would have thought.
Add to that POL have, imo, a high level of excess middle and upper management left over from prior to privatisation. For example when I did site meetings as a project manager for a large supermarket chain, there would be two of us representing the supermarket and 6-8 POL staff per meeting – we were managing the multimillion pound development of supermarket, POL were putting in one postoffice counter. I must have attended 100’s of meetings like that.