mr bates vs the post office

Potential legislation to quash subpostmaster convictions en masse, apparently.

I’ve no idea how they would be able to do this, there talk of any convictions that used the horizon systems accounts as evidence to be quashed – big that would be all post office convictions since 1999 as horizon is the only accounting system post office use on site. So any real wrong doing as well as the falsely accused.

on the radio this morning, David Davies was saying that the heart of the prosecution evidence was on the basis that the only people that could access Horizon were the postmasters themselves therefore and changes / financial adjustments or whatever HAD to be the PM’s own work.

That was accepted at the time, now discredited so you can’t say with any certainty that the PM’s did it. Which in itself removes the guilty beyond all reasonable doubt you needed to convict. However, some PM’s aren’t entirely happy because there’s still a ‘your word against mine’, in the absence of knowing WHO (or WHAT, eg: a bug)  did the adjustments then there’s still a ‘possibility’ that it was the PM. And they want proof of innocence, not absence of guilt BARD

Still – also now looking forward to Grenfell – the Ballet and Covid – the Musical so we can get proper attention to these other failings.

@wheelsonfire1 yes, I believe so.

I think if any “rightful” convictions were overturned, that is not as bad as allowing the many more false convictions to stand.

One thing that many people don’t understand is how the establishment* closes ranks to protect itself all the time. In this case it was on an industrial scale, but individuals suffer like this everyday in more individual cases.

Someone I was working with about 10 years ago, had their father killed by a locum doctor who could barely speak any English and miss prescribed a lethal drug dose. It was only because he was working in Germany (where the doctor was from) and his brother was a GP, that they were able to piece together the complete unsuitability of the locum for the role he was performing. The police, the NHS trust and the German medical authorities did everything they could to stop them pursuing justice including so frequently lying to them that he resorted to recording conversations. Unfortunately the system won in the end and no justice was found.

In my own case, I had security clearance rejected (for what I assume was a mistake) but then my appeal paperwork was twice lost, running the clock run out on the time allowing an appeal. That meant I lost my job, causing incredible financial hardship at the time (where the ripples are still felt today) and meant that I could no longer apply for any roles where security clearance might be required.

*establishment – for want of a better term, the system of bureaucracy and justice, whether through incompetence, malice or just the individuals working in the system so often taking the easy option, can become an overbearing machine that individuals are unable to stand up to and they just get chewed up and spat out.

So any real wrong doing as well as the falsely accused.

Perhaps, but that’s how the justice system is supposed to operate – the requirement for ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ means a lot of guilty people walk out of court free every day, or never even get charged, because that’s better than innocent people getting convicted.

If people had known back then what we know now about Horizon, cases relying heavily on its ‘evidence’ would all have been laughed out of court, even if they involved actual criminality.

Aye, sometimes Hanlon’s Razor does not apply… 😐

Still – also now looking forward to Grenfell – the Ballet and Covid – the Musical so we can get proper attention to these other failings.

I’m with you on this. The Post Office scandal has been kicking around for 20 years. MP’s, and now Lords asking about it. A well organised campaign group, excellent investigative journalism, really well produced BBC podcasts, absolutely massive court cases and now a statutory enquiry. Yet the government only seem to sit up and get engaged when ITV make a (very good) TV programme about the scandal. Its crazy.  

Yet the government only seem to sit up and get engaged when ITV make a (very good) TV programme about the scandal. Its crazy.

Sunaks “Everyone has been shocked by watching” was great. Aside from anyone paying vague attention to the trials and the public inquiry. Like the government should have been.

 Aside from anyone paying vague attention to the trials and the public inquiry. Like the government should have been.

Especially as the government/British tax payers own 100% of all shares in the post office. Many of Sunak’s sound bites to the press over the last few days over this have been factually incorrect or misleading themselves.

Sunaks “Everyone has been shocked by watching” was great

More like “Oh bollocks, now that more people are aware of the absolute shit-show we’ve been doing nothing to either prevent or put right, I suppose we’ll have to cough up. Finally.”

What’s that saying “its not the crime its the cover-up” ? I wonder if there’s a pithy one-liner when its both.

If people had known back then what we know now about Horizon, cases relying heavily on its ‘evidence’ would all have been laughed out of court, even if they involved actual criminality.

It’s worse than that – it was broadly known, but because in E&W the PO can bring their own prosecutions then it was ignored / covered up and the judges either had to go on the evidence provided, or in some cases people were bullied into plea bargaining for false accounting rather than theft. As last night’s viewing of Ep 2 showed – the prosecutors should never have offered a plea bargain because they knew the evidence for the theft wasn’t there.

In Scotland where they don’t have the authority to prosecute of their own accord and where computers aren’t automatically held to be infallible, they were told to FRO by the PF in many cases – although not all and there are still some unanswered questions about why some proceeded when they already knew the system was shonky.

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23964156.questions-remain-scottish-handling-post-office-horizon-scandal/

Regarding the shonkiness of the Horizon evidence and the likelihood that a blanket quashing of all convictions would include the few postmasters who had done something dodgy, well tough, you can’t allow innocents to be convicted for the sake of mopping up the guilty.

Regarding the shonkiness of the Horizon evidence and the likelihood that a blanket quashing of all convictions would include the few postmasters who had done something dodgy, well tough, you can’t allow innocents to be convicted for the sake of mopping up the guilty.

I agree. I also struggle to see how any conviction during the Horizon era is safe, there must now be reasonable doubt on any conviction. Is almost like the discrediting of an expert witness, all convictions that relied on that witness are now unsafe.

I’ve no idea how they would be able to do this, there talk of any convictions that used the horizon systems accounts as evidence to be quashed – big that would be all post office convictions since 1999 as horizon is the only accounting system post office use on site.

I think the suggestion I say proposed on X was that they would have legislation to enable cases to be quashed, with the current list of N cases included as a schedule to the legislation but a mechanism allowing the Sec of State, or perhaps Parliament via a statutory instrument to add other names as they come forward.  The problem with that is it will require someone to make quasi judicial decisions to determine if you are “on the list” or not.  Presumably based on some review of the evidence/claim. That seems like it just moves the burden from overworked experts in law to civil servants or ministers which has all sorts of risk.  I believe when historic crimes have previously been pardoned etc then it’s usually everyone, or everyone between certain dates.  That would seem far clearer.

So any real wrong doing as well as the falsely accused.

I think even if you were caught on cctv putting money in your pocket, you might stand a chance of getting off, because the witnesses, prosecutors and employers behaviour across the board was so bad that it could undermine the right to a fair trial.  The “easy” answer would be to reverse all convictions for offences brought by the post office between the relevant dates, then allow the PO to seek new prosecutions via the CPS if they wish to do so.

i wonder if Rishi has realised yet that if he can sort this in the next few weeks he’ll score points against the nationalists?  Who, for all their advantage in not having the PO as prosecutor have still ended up with a bunch of cases, and very few through appeal yet.  Presumably Holyrood would be playing catch up to replicate Westminster legislation for once?

The testimony of these idiots at the public enquiry has been something else.

One of the investigators wrote to the head of the Post Office enquiring about compensation for them too for their loss of reputation from perjuring themselves in court. 🤣

Jarnail Singh couldn’t even remember whether he’d been Head Of Criminal Law for the Post Office, and when questioned about a crowing email that he’d written about the (wrongful) conviction of Seema Misra he claimed that he’d been forced to write it by someone whose name he couldn’t remember. 🤡 

They covered again on R4 PM.

Technically the King could issue a pardon – but technically that’s ‘I let you off what you did’ and of course people (rightly) don’t agree they did anything wrong.

Or the Gov could issue blanket legislation declaring all innocent….. (I mean, they can declare what they like after all!!) ….but the issue here is that parliament and the judiciary are supposed to be independent of each other, so the Gov shouldn’t be overruling the courts.

Who, for all their advantage in not having the PO as prosecutor have still ended up with a bunch of cases, and very few through appeal yet

The Scottish appeals only got the first appeal through September last year so lots of catching up to do.
The tories seem to be focussing on blaming Ed Davey for the mess due to his position as post minister in the coalition (lets not mention who else was involved in that coalition since it does seem to come as a shock to the tories that they have been in power for the last 13 years) and a half arsed attempt against Starmer for being the CPS head when, ermm, private prosecutions were happening.

Vennels is handing her gong back

One of the investigators wrote to the head of the Post Office enquiring about compensation for them too for their loss of reputation from perjuring themselves in court

Is the end result of employing ex-posties and counter clerks as “investigators” and handing them extreme powers to act like cops without anything like the training or tests of competence I guess?

Vennels is handing her gong back

I can only suppose she doesn’t want the public humiliation of having it taken off her? 

One of the investigators wrote to the head of the Post Office enquiring about compensation for them too for their loss of reputation from perjuring themselves in court.

If they believed at the time of giving evidence they were telling the truth then they haven’t perjured themselves.

@nickc

Is the end result of employing ex-posties and counter clerks as “investigators” and handing them extreme powers to act like cops without anything like the training or tests of competence I guess?

Now, now. They had to go on a <checks notes> three week residential course to become an investigator.

Took 27yrs to get the right inquest results after Hillsborough, protection of the few at the “top” always seems to trump the awful consequences to the average Joe bloggs on the street 😕

Paula Vennells said:

I am truly sorry for the devastation caused to the sub-postmasters and their families, whose lives were torn apart by being wrongly accused and wrongly prosecuted as a result of the Horizon system.

So, still no acknowledgement of the part that the Post Office played in this under her leadership.

Gov shouldn’t be overruling the courts.

but isnt the line on this completely blurred by the fact that the Post office, is allowed to bring it’s own criminal prosecutions  – something no other organisation is able to do?  I think that’s what needs to change any prosecutions need to go before the CPS for oversight..

Another fine example of a ‘non apology’ apology.

protection of the few at the “top” always seems to trump the awful consequences to the average Joe bloggs on the street

I work in an industry that’s increasingly burdened with legislation and regulation that are pretty career ending if we get it wrong at any stage, and I can’t help reflecting that those at the top with powers to make the sorts of decisions they have absolutely no training to do and no business making can often not only waltz off into the sunset with no punishment, but with the offer of an attractive pay-out to ‘soften the blow’

The likes of Us will never be treated like Them

but isnt the line on this completely blurred by the fact that the Post office, is allowed to bring it’s own criminal prosecutions – something no other organisation is able to do? I think that’s what needs to change any prosecutions need to go before the CPS for oversight..

Not really IMHO

I can see some logic that cases need independent review but the issue isn’t bringing prosecutions per se. In fact it’s important that a private individual or company can bring a prosecution even if the state doesn’t support it. Bring the evidence and let an independent judiciary and or jury make a decision – we all have that right. Having the power wasn’t the issue, it was the abuse of it by the PO leaders.

The issue is that the evidence was false, or severely contestable but because of the cover ups and obfuscation never really came to light. ‘Expert’ witnesses from Fujitsu and PO seem to have just lied, but not get caught. I wonder if it could happen again now, with social media, they’d surely never be able to peddle the ‘you’re the only one this has happened to’ lies. An expert’s view against a solitary postmaster…. Vs the same story being told by 500+ 

I’m frequently told that I’m the only person to have a problem with something at work.

To be honest the parallels between the organisation of the Post Office and the NHS are frightening.

I wonder if it could happen again now, with social media, they’d surely never be able to peddle the ‘you’re the only one this has happened to’ lies.

IT companies seem to get away with charging millions and delivering crap time and time again. The bigger the project the bigger the balls-up

The amount of bandwagon-jumping by MP’s, who have done the sum total of **** all about any of this until this week is absolutely shameless

The amount of bandwagon-jumping by MP’s, who have done the sum total of **** all about any of this until this week is absolutely shameless

[cough] Election Year! [/cough]

🙂

but isnt the line on this completely blurred by the fact that the Post office, is allowed to bring it’s own criminal prosecutions – something no other organisation is able to do?

Other companies can as can you and I (although the upfront costs would likely be prohibitive for us). It was actually suggested, semi ironically, that the SPO go after the royal mail and fujitsu employees using private prosecutions. Hopefully the headlines from this means it wont be needed though.

The PO were unusual in that they actively did so in the past due to their weird historical structure (the forerunner of their investigation department predates the police and they never gave it up).
However it is thought (there is no central register so its difficult to track) that the number of private prosecutions by companies have been increasing over the last few years after the tories destruction of the justice system.
They get the money back for private prosecutions so it makes sense for insurance companies and the like to start running private prosecutions.
If you google private prosecutions and insurance there are lots of articles selling it to businesses.

So, still no acknowledgement of the part that the Post Office played in this under her leadership.

I assume since they gave her the award she is a tory.
If so isnt it just standard operating procedure for tories to be shocked they were in charge whilst they shit hit the fan?

Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.

An expert’s view against a solitary postmaster…. Vs the same story being told by 500+

Like I said on page 3, all postmasters and sub postmasters were asked a couple years ago if they had had incurred significant unexplained losses due to horizon between 1999 to current, and if they would be prepared to pursue postoffice for repayment. From what I’ve heard they had around 8000 responses.

There have been 500+ convictions, but I bet there isn’t an postoffice in the country that doesn’t have a story about how horizon didn’t match up when audited, or ‘bugs in the system’.

Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.

It may have come to the forefront of public attention, but the postoffice / horizon issues havet been raised in the house of commons for at least 10years.

Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.

Then they should have been paying attention.
It has been reported on extensively and has featured in several debates in the HoC especially around the inquiry being set up which most mps were in office for.
There is no excuse beyond incompetence for an mp not to be aware of it.

I’ve been aware of it for a couple of years now, I’ve always been surprised that it’s not been more talked about. If you look I started (or revived?) a thread on this subject a few months ago, and it didn’t get that much interest.

It’s always deserved to be in the public eye, but unfortunately it hasn’t been.

on the radio this morning, David Davies was saying that the heart of the prosecution evidence was on the basis that the only people that could access Horizon were the postmasters themselves therefore and changes / financial adjustments or whatever HAD to be the PM’s own work.

That was accepted at the time, now discredited so you can’t say with any certainty that the PM’s did it.

Been doing a bit more digging and one thing that strikes me is the PM’s defence didn’t do a great job of discrediting/questioning the Horizon system.  For example, did they ask for a list of bugs/change requests that had occurred?  The Dalmellington Bug entailed a user repeatedly hitting a key when the system froze as she was trying to acknowledge receipt of a consignment of £8,000 in cash. Unknown to her each time she struck the key she accepted responsibility for a further £8,000. The bug created a discrepancy of £24,000 for which she was held responsible.

And also asking who had admin rights on the Horizon system that would allow them to make changes to the underlying data.  As far back as 2011 the SSC (support team) had APPSUP permissions on more than the intended basis which was supposed to be in extreme circumstances only and temporarily.

This guy has written extensively about the IT and auditing side of things:

https://clarotesting.wordpress.com/the-post-office-horizon-it-scandal/

Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.

That’s very unlikely.  I think you can assume that every one of the accused PMs will at some point have been in touch with their own MP.  The now Lord Arbuthnott was the prominent figure and will have made noise in Westminster about it to anyone who might listen when he was MP.  it has been mention in the commons and lords on numerous occasions.  There is an ongoing public inquiry about it.  The appeal cases were widely reported in mainstream media.  Its unimaginable that if you asked any MP in mid Dec 2023 if they were aware of the Post Office / Horizon scandal that they would simply have said no.  What they’ve failed to do is appreciate its general significance and that the wider public, presented with the story in a consumable fashion, would care.

Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.

I think the vast majority of the adult population has known about it for a long time – I would question the suitability of office for any MP who remained unaware of it until they saw a drama on the telly.