a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
I understand the pressure on Fujitsu but beyond « goodwill » their base liability will rest with their contractual obligations to the Post Office. To argue their contract with the Post Office was unfair, an organisation of national standing will not stand.
The point about potential perjury in terms of false statements in the cases of prosecution is well made but probably difficult to prove
The early political debate here speaks to the entire problem.
It is frankly pathetic it has taken a well produced and well delivered TV docudrama to motivate Government to act. It is in reality no more than a case of Deflection, deflection & deflection where no one has wanted to put their name on this from day one.
Any defence a problem started on somebody else’s watch does not excuse any subsequent failure to act. Whatever actions taken/ not taken under predecessors, if a situation remains current, it is in your in tray. Don’t want the responsibility? Don’t take the pay check.
Governments have appointed Ministers to oversee the Post Office for decades. Since 2010 such appointments have fallen to the Conservative (Coalition or not) Government. It has had 13yrs to get this right. Why are we still here? Nobody has wanted to own it.
I have no knowledge of the events involving Fujitsu, the Post Office or any Postmaster. I have operated in this space and after 40yrs in the major corporate financial world I can speak to corporate culture. Much of what has happened is unlikely to be far from your own corporate environment.
I spent 30yrs in UK banking, much of it building new businesses involving the delivery of IT business solutions followed by a decade in the US with a leisure technology group encountering a number of unsafe fiscal practices to the point we stopped anti trust practices and shut businesses down.
Delivery in this environment is a matter of IT Audit. It Audits are not meant to toe the company line or be popular.
I am incredulous any UK financial institution signed off on the Horizon functionality in the first place. The apparent absence of regulatory compliance is extraordinary.
(I have if you are interested recounted in the subsequent post one specific bank major processing error which positions comparable challenges. Read it , don’t read it your choice.)
The naivety on display from the Post Office speaks to a basic misunderstanding of the responsibility of handling other people’s money extends to electronic transactions. Handling people’s money real or electronic doesn’t get more personal.
As many suggest Fujitsu have a very great deal to answer for. The whole system registers as flawed from design, technical and user documentation, to implementation, to audit trails, training, to the level of user support and ultimately maintenance.
NB. If there is a pin pad subject to judiciary consideration who in the hell re-programs it without a reason?
That said ownership & oversight of operations reeks of gross mismanagement by Post Office executives.
I am astonished Mr Bates stood alone for so long. To anyone with a smattering of financial management knowledge the whole process screams unsafe and unsound. He deserves huge credit simply for standing his ground ( where the Emperor truly had no clothes) at this nonsense at the outset, let alone all the subsequent campaigning and support for others.
The more damaging failure is his stance should have had Post Office Auditors alarm bells ringing from the outset. No matter whether it was 1, 10 or 100 users they had a responsibility to dig up the drains.
I repeat Auditors are not there to toe the party line or be popular.
The pursuit of due diligence in such matters does not start with the end user. It starts with the service provider, in this case Fujitsu acting in the name of the Post Office.
Had they possessed any meaningful professional standards this could and should have been stopped almost immediately. They had been put on notice and had a duly of care to protect the organisation, its users and its customers.
Brand protection starts with them, not with executives allegedly lying through their back teeth. They should pending their research have either suspended use of Horizon immediately or secured commercial sanction to underwrite a level of losses to a reasonable level.
It is not as if Post Offices did not have well established albeit laborious manual procedures to fall back on.
I cannot overstate my anger a) such gross technical incompetence was allowed in the first place, b) at the abdication of Auditor responsibility for failing to control matters arising c) the apparent subsequent self serving corporate malpractice if not malevolence which shames the entire organisation.
The politics of it all? Stinks, whether it be corporate, industry or within whatever Westminster ideological shade you prefer. I find the blustering indignation now evident nauseating and no, suddenly coming up with special legislation and random compensation WITHIN THE YEAR absolves nobody from this fiasco.
This matter has been hiding in full sight for over a decade. There are no winners here nor will there be.
Will any official anywhere face any serious consequence? Do pigs fly
To continue - This experience occurred some decades ago.
I speak to the building of 4 UK businesses around;
- the launch of the Switch debit card and the explosion of EFTPOS.
- electronic transaction capture/ processing from retailer/ bank suppled equipment.
- cross border multi currency transaction processing/ settlement
Does it sound boring? It does but I need to stress there are a huge range of rules, regulations, data standards, domestic & international technical specifications as to how you do this stuff.
If you ever wanted to suffer pain ploughing through interbank minutes & specifications for launching the Switch Debit card hits the spot.
Why do I need stress it? To 90% business executives it is a foreign language …and one many fought and fight to ignore at every opportunity. The executive fast track career path is rarely blessed with such attention to detail.
My career elevation was built around translating between the technical & commercial towers of modern financial business.
When my bank chose to step into the space it had its own IT staff (on line internal electronic processing of transactions had operated since the 1970s) and a wholly owned data processing company. It proved a fortuitous & successful combination.
It started badly. A project scoped to cost £10m and take 2yrs saw the Bank sanction £5m and 18 months. The stuff pulled out of development to meet the launch date released a palpably poor product.
The reputation damage to the rest of the bank was painful. We spent a further £6m and 12 months putting back in what had been descoped before launch. it cost the Head of Business his job.
His successor in a political masterstroke wrote his ticket before he stepped in the building. He refused to accept the cost of any of it arguing it was a strategic error by the board. They acquiesced.
Charged with market share targets and free of the cost of development he could undercut competitors to buy market share at will. Barely having to lift a finger, he was a winner, with bonuses to match. The hard work had been done before he arrived. As he basked in the success nobody batted an eyelid
Functionally, with the explosion of EFTPOS the bank recruited 15 specialists (overseen by bank staff) as an IT audit, to sign off every merchant EFTPOS terminal. Bank IT staff at the time were pleasingly anal.
Put simply the functionality, financial & technical disciplines, specifications, business requirement, external design, internal design and user documentation for this industry had been in place for a decade or more before Horizon.
In the matter of remote POS on line transactions it doesn’t get more basic.The security around UK electronic financial transactions is governed by definitive controlled access, a secure encrypted message set and a secure accessible evidential transactional audit trail.
NB. Any unaudited remote open access to any financial process is a licence for potential fraud. Even the most basic process has to have user identification.
Introducing the use of new technology is fraught with confusion. In the early days of ATMs bank staff even stood outside branches to explain how to use them.
Structured in 3 Groups Commercial, Technical & Operational to our credit the efforts to support the end user could not have been more robust.
The major processing error involved the processing of transactions collected overnight from merchant POS via a bank of PCs before being processed into the banks mainframe. 99% of the time the process worked without a hint of a problem.
Doesn’t mean there were not issues where clients failed to complete the right end of day procedures, unplugged machines, network connection failures or related sales reconciliation errors. That is what help desks are there to resolve.
POS failures could be legendary notably within the petrol sector where they had range of technical forecourt equipment suppliers whose engineers to fix a problem invariably removed the POS memory boards to promptly chuck them in the back of a van. The recovery of the financial data thereon was in the lap of the gods.
Indeed one such POS supplier was infamous in, for every small « bug », releasing endless softwares upgrades without telling anyone. At one stage I believe they had 17 different versions of the same software in use. The industry stance was every upgrade had to be run against specific audits before use.
In these circumstances end users were liable for their losses. Their equipment, their technical supplier contracts, their financial procedures.
The processing error arose from a glitch in the bank of PCs collecting merchant transactions, which though providing all the correct reports to the end user chose not to process certain batches of transactions to the mainframe.
The selection of which batches of transactions appeared random whether by POS terminal session, POS terminal, merchant store etc., The failure to process appeared when clients did not receive the expected value to bank accounts which might be highlighted immediately, in days or on occasion weeks.
Initially the « system » was deemed to have randomly « lost » the transactions. Crucially there was always a clear local record of the transactions/ audit trail with the end users.
However what complicated the situation was a) the problem was intermittent b) the bank of PCs had not for the most part actually lost the transactions but merely misplaced them, because at some indeterminate point it randomly decided to find « the misplaced transactions » to process them, ….again and again and again.
Though technically in breach of industry compliance at this point we were marking our own homework.
(The actual failure was ultimately identified by a set of default programs everybody had forgotten about designed to protect the system when its processing capacity was overloaded.)
Over a period 6 months, a part of my duties, was to have teams of bank staff at major high street merchants working with their staff often late into the night correcting the errors.
At one stage one team calculated we owed one merchant £800k. Indeed we were on the point of being mentioned as a note in their published audited accounts. In a competitive industry where we were fighting for market share « Bank loses 1000s of customers transactions headlines » were palpably not a good look.
Knowing my style you will not be surprised to learn I wrote a 9 Chapter report. Across the first 8 chapters I listed a range of technical, operational, training failings by the merchant, the POS suppliers and bank staff.
Chapter 9 was my recommendation of financial compensation to the merchant.
No matter merchant errors it was our cock up.
I, though many colleagues were new to it all., had had at this point 15 yrs in banking. I secured sign off from the commercial executive to release all 9 chapters to ALL relevant parties.
Unbeknownst to me the furore that rose up through internal channels most certainly had my name in « lights » Over the next weeks I was increasingly asked about aspects of the report to the point I had to ask my Operations Director « Is someone saying they did not know this report was being released …..to All Parties?». There came no reply.
Fortunately I held not only a copy of my internal memo requesting authority to release the full report but an A4 page of hand written comments by the commercial executive.
I chose to get on with my job leaving it a couple of days before casually providing this paperwork to Operations Line Management. I am not sure I had ever seen anyone so joyfully run down the corridors of power wildly brandishing a piece of a paper. It would have done justice to Eden on the airport tarmac waving his « peace accord » with Hitler.
The release of my report to all parties had rattled cages across operational, technical and commercial departments.
There was no escaping it was our technical service failure but it became apparent nobody wanted to own it and everybody was running for cover. I can only imagine the back stabbing that went on behind the scenes. Such is corporate politics.
Despite whispers of being too close to the customer I was never challenged. There was little point, every gory detail was there in print for people to read. The facts will out. The only comment, beyond the merchant who thanked my staffs efforts, was a weak memo from the Chief Executive asking everybody to work more closely together. However
- The failure to the client belonged to our technical group.
- The failure to the business brand belonged to our commercial executive who had failed to contractually tie down the right service levels for the provision of in-house internal technical services and data processing to the end client.
I met the Chief Executive on many occasions. He knew where the failures lay but had I not had that A4 page my career could have followed a very different path.
Lo and behold some weeks later I was walking to a meeting with another senior executive discussing another major cock up where he was expressing his thoughts on how we might manage away that problem. It was simply for us to stand our ground and deflect responsibility.
My reply? « Just exactly in which newspaper would you like to read the headline? »
I note all this not as any display of personal integrity but in the knowledge ingrained from my first day in those then 15yrs in the bank where whatever the problem the bank was always likely going to have to pay. I cut my teeth on dozens of bank agreements with clients which were 100% there to cover our asses.
This business executive had run away from « the foreign language » and been negligent in not understanding nor protecting the business from technical risk
I got a lot of criticism on Charlton Life for refusing to get a smart gas and electricity meter installed, even though the energy companies pestered me continually. In the light of the Horizon scandal I am not persuaded that a smart meter is a safe installation.
How are these comparable?
Well how about the idea that a programmer working for the company that makes the meters could go in and change your reading to cover up a small bug in the system.
Of course, that could never happen could it? The energy companies, the regulator and not to mention the government would immediately spot this and put matters right.
You still have the reading on the meter to compare to any bill and of course your usage in comparison to any other period.
How about the bank change your bank statement too if we are going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes !!
The point is a smart meter is NOT really connected to this PO issue - any more than say your metered internet usage or minutes on a mobile phone contract or any other number of things we all pay for.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
Not to defend them but there is a possibility that some actual fraud has also occurred in some cases. I don't think a blanket quashing of all convictions is necessarily the right thing to do but definitely an expedited and thorough review of all cases.
cliché time .. better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
Not to defend them but there is a possibility that some actual fraud has also occurred in some cases. I don't think a blanket quashing of all convictions is necessarily the right thing to do but definitely an expedited and thorough review of all cases.
cliché time .. better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted
Even better that 100 innocent men go free and one guilty man is convicted. Its not arguing that quashing the incorrect ones is bad but automatically assuming innocence is not more just than assuming guilt was.
Hence a proper review is the right way forwards IMO.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life .. the Post Office brought cases before the courts that were fit ups, either through incompetence or malice .. and as mentioned on here previously, no 'legal expert' or 'watchdog' either noticed or brought to attention the ridiculous fact that a high number of Sub Postmasters were being convicted of theft/false accounting. Perhaps this was noticed and swept well under the carpet. Someone else's problem m'lud Some of these cases are decades old, those erroneously found guilty have waited far too long for recompense and 'justice', many are old and/or skint, they do not have time to sit around waiting for a bunch of waffling wigs paid by the hour not by results to eventually reach a conclusion in their case which might still be wrong due to arse covering or to preserve the reputation of incompetent legal eagles. Fuck due process, get this scandal sorted
I understand the pressure on Fujitsu but beyond « goodwill » their base liability will rest with their contractual obligations to the Post Office. To argue their contract with the Post Office was unfair, an organisation of national standing will not stand.
The point about potential perjury in terms of false statements in the cases of prosecution is well made but probably difficult to prove
The early political debate here speaks to the entire problem.
It is frankly pathetic it has taken a well produced and well delivered TV docudrama to motivate Government to act. It is in reality no more than a case of Deflection, deflection & deflection where no one has wanted to put their name on this from day one.
Any defence a problem started on somebody else’s watch does not excuse any subsequent failure to act. Whatever actions taken/ not taken under predecessors, if a situation remains current, it is in your in tray. Don’t want the responsibility? Don’t take the pay check.
Governments have appointed Ministers to oversee the Post Office for decades. Since 2010 such appointments have fallen to the Conservative (Coalition or not) Government. It has had 13yrs to get this right. Why are we still here? Nobody has wanted to own it.
I have no knowledge of the events involving Fujitsu, the Post Office or any Postmaster. I have operated in this space and after 40yrs in the major corporate financial world I can speak to corporate culture. Much of what has happened is unlikely to be far from your own corporate environment.
I spent 30yrs in UK banking, much of it building new businesses involving the delivery of IT business solutions followed by a decade in the US with a leisure technology group encountering a number of unsafe fiscal practices to the point we stopped anti trust practices and shut businesses down.
Delivery in this environment is a matter of IT Audit. It Audits are not meant to toe the company line or be popular.
I am incredulous any UK financial institution signed off on the Horizon functionality in the first place. The apparent absence of regulatory compliance is extraordinary.
(I have if you are interested recounted in the subsequent post one specific bank major processing error which positions comparable challenges. Read it , don’t read it your choice.)
The naivety on display from the Post Office speaks to a basic misunderstanding of the responsibility of handling other people’s money extends to electronic transactions. Handling people’s money real or electronic doesn’t get more personal.
As many suggest Fujitsu have a very great deal to answer for. The whole system registers as flawed from design, technical and user documentation, to implementation, to audit trails, training, to the level of user support and ultimately maintenance.
NB. If there is a pin pad subject to judiciary consideration who in the hell re-programs it without a reason?
That said ownership & oversight of operations reeks of gross mismanagement by Post Office executives.
I am astonished Mr Bates stood alone for so long. To anyone with a smattering of financial management knowledge the whole process screams unsafe and unsound. He deserves huge credit simply for standing his ground ( where the Emperor truly had no clothes) at this nonsense at the outset, let alone all the subsequent campaigning and support for others.
The more damaging failure is his stance should have had Post Office Auditors alarm bells ringing from the outset. No matter whether it was 1, 10 or 100 users they had a responsibility to dig up the drains.
I repeat Auditors are not there to toe the party line or be popular.
The pursuit of due diligence in such matters does not start with the end user. It starts with the service provider, in this case Fujitsu acting in the name of the Post Office.
Had they possessed any meaningful professional standards this could and should have been stopped almost immediately. They had been put on notice and had a duly of care to protect the organisation, its users and its customers.
Brand protection starts with them, not with executives allegedly lying through their back teeth. They should pending their research have either suspended use of Horizon immediately or secured commercial sanction to underwrite a level of losses to a reasonable level.
It is not as if Post Offices did not have well established albeit laborious manual procedures to fall back on.
I cannot overstate my anger a) such gross technical incompetence was allowed in the first place, b) at the abdication of Auditor responsibility for failing to control matters arising c) the apparent subsequent self serving corporate malpractice if not malevolence which shames the entire organisation.
The politics of it all? Stinks, whether it be corporate, industry or within whatever Westminster ideological shade you prefer. I find the blustering indignation now evident nauseating and no, suddenly coming up with special legislation and random compensation WITHIN THE YEAR absolves nobody from this fiasco.
This matter has been hiding in full sight for over a decade. There are no winners here nor will there be.
Will any official anywhere face any serious consequence? Do pigs fly
An interesting and informative post, however there are penty of winners here, imo. The executives who have continued to take salaries and bonuses, whist allegedly failing to understand they had a massive IT problem and to resolve it in a satisfactory manner. Didn't the Post Office pay bonuses for executives' attendance / assistance with the enquiry? Include politicians who have taken ministerial salaries, but failed to perform in a competent manner by understanding what their role entails, preferring not to get involved until the TV documentary blew the lid off. Then a plethora of weasel words and blame shifting. This despite the facts being in the public domain for over a decade. Both groups will continue to be winners unless forced to repay salaries and / or bonuses and prosecuted, where appropriate. I expect this number to be very small and limited to a few scapegoats, if at all. And it won't include any politicians.
The CPS is refusing to disclose whether Starmer had any involvement in the cases they prosecuted postmasters (believed to be 37) when he was head of the CPS.
Shock horror..all big corporations have been downing it for years…Sky are trying to knock me for £300..no doubt I am one of the many thousands that they are doing it to…the next in line are the mobile phone companies with their contracts
The CPS is refusing to disclose whether Starmer had any involvement in the cases they prosecuted postmasters (believed to be 37) when he was head of the CPS.
Didn't the Post Office undertake its own prosecutions?
The CPS is refusing to disclose whether Starmer had any involvement in the cases they prosecuted postmasters (believed to be 37) when he was head of the CPS.
Didn't the Post Office undertake its own prosecutions?
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life .. the Post Office brought cases before the courts that were fit ups, either through incompetence or malice .. and as mentioned on here previously, no 'legal expert' or 'watchdog' either noticed or brought to attention the ridiculous fact that a high number of Sub Postmasters were being convicted of theft/false accounting. Perhaps this was noticed and swept well under the carpet. Someone else's problem m'lud Some of these cases are decades old, those erroneously found guilty have waited far too long for recompense and 'justice', many are old and/or skint, they do not have time to sit around waiting for a bunch of waffling wigs paid by the hour not by results to eventually reach a conclusion in their case which might still be wrong due to arse covering or to preserve the reputation of incompetent legal eagles. Fuck due process, get this scandal sorted
As I understand it, the vast majority of those who got guilty verdicts pleaded guilty. There's nothing a judge or magistrate can do in those circumstances - he doesn't hear any evidence one way or the other. And judge can *never* direct a jury to find someone guilty (only not guilty).
There are numerous problems with the judicial system but the quality of judges isn't one of them.
The limitations on who can get legal aid and the dreadful rates for legal aid lawyers (well below the minimum wage in many instances) means that there is a serious equality of arms issue.
Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that so many postmasters had no access to legal representation because of changes to legal aid since the Coalition government came to power in 2010. It's worth noting that the Justice department has had a 40% cut (real terms) in spending since 2010 - more than any other Government department.
If you want a properly functioning justice system, it costs money. Ill-informed whining about judges is avoiding the systemic problems we have.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life .. the Post Office brought cases before the courts that were fit ups, either through incompetence or malice .. and as mentioned on here previously, no 'legal expert' or 'watchdog' either noticed or brought to attention the ridiculous fact that a high number of Sub Postmasters were being convicted of theft/false accounting. Perhaps this was noticed and swept well under the carpet. Someone else's problem m'lud Some of these cases are decades old, those erroneously found guilty have waited far too long for recompense and 'justice', many are old and/or skint, they do not have time to sit around waiting for a bunch of waffling wigs paid by the hour not by results to eventually reach a conclusion in their case which might still be wrong due to arse covering or to preserve the reputation of incompetent legal eagles. Fuck due process, get this scandal sorted
As I understand it, the vast majority of those who got guilty verdicts pleaded guilty. There's nothing a judge or magistrate can do in those circumstances - he doesn't hear any evidence one way or the other. And judge can *never* direct a jury to find someone guilty (only not guilty).
There are numerous problems with the judicial system but the quality of judges isn't one of them.
The limitations on who can get legal aid and the dreadful rates for legal aid lawyers (well below the minimum wage in many instances) means that there is a serious equality of arms issue.
Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that so many postmasters had no access to legal representation because of changes to legal aid since the Coalition government came to power in 2010. It's worth noting that the Justice department has had a 40% cut (real terms) in spending since 2010 - more than any other Government department.
If you want a properly functioning justice system, it costs money. Ill-informed whining about judges is avoiding the systemic problems we have.
Ill informed whining ? .. is that the best you can do ? .. and all the whining from you about the legal aid system is irrelevant when it comes to the real issue .. which is get the cases sorted and compensation paid. I REPEAT that bogus prosecutions brought before incompetent judges and/or magistrates have led to multiple miscarriages of justice, and we have no idea of the evidence the Post Office prosecutors laid before the court in question, evidence it seems that was never or rarely (I assume) properly queried or put to the test. 'Computer says so' with nothing else to back up that claim seemed to suffice to send people to prison or to subject them to paying huge fines, compensation and/or costs.. an acquaintance of mine works as a clerk to magistrates .. he tells me and I have seen other clerks do the same thing, when a defendant pleads 'guilty' the clerk asks 'are you sure' so at least the defendant is often given the chance to change his/her mind, not good I admit but better than zilch .. and as for judges 'directions' .. have you ever done jury service ? .. in my own experience, a judge will not say 'find this person guilty' all too often they will drop subtle, sometimes even strong hints about his (i.e. the judges) opinions as to guilty or not guilty. All judges are 'good quality' according to you, if that wasn't so pathetic it would be worth a belly laugh of derision
An interesting and informative post, however there are penty of winners here, imo. The executives who have continued to take salaries and bonuses, whist allegedly failing to understand they had a massive IT problem and to resolve it in a satisfactory manner. Didn't the Post Office pay bonuses for executives' attendance / assistance with the enquiry? Include politicians who have taken ministerial salaries, but failed to perform in a competent manner by understanding what their role entails, preferring not to get involved until the TV documentary blew the lid off. Then a plethora of weasel words and blame shifting. This despite the facts being in the public domain for over a decade. Both groups will continue to be winners unless forced to repay salaries and / or bonuses and prosecuted, where appropriate. I expect this number to be very small and limited to a few scapegoats, if at all. And it won't include any politicians.
Excellent points - quite how you would get to grips with penalising those you mention I am not sure. If the Financial Crash of 2008 is anything to go by where certain market makers walked away millions I am not sure I will hold my breath
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life .. the Post Office brought cases before the courts that were fit ups, either through incompetence or malice .. and as mentioned on here previously, no 'legal expert' or 'watchdog' either noticed or brought to attention the ridiculous fact that a high number of Sub Postmasters were being convicted of theft/false accounting. Perhaps this was noticed and swept well under the carpet. Someone else's problem m'lud Some of these cases are decades old, those erroneously found guilty have waited far too long for recompense and 'justice', many are old and/or skint, they do not have time to sit around waiting for a bunch of waffling wigs paid by the hour not by results to eventually reach a conclusion in their case which might still be wrong due to arse covering or to preserve the reputation of incompetent legal eagles. Fuck due process, get this scandal sorted
As I understand it, the vast majority of those who got guilty verdicts pleaded guilty. There's nothing a judge or magistrate can do in those circumstances - he doesn't hear any evidence one way or the other. And judge can *never* direct a jury to find someone guilty (only not guilty).
There are numerous problems with the judicial system but the quality of judges isn't one of them.
The limitations on who can get legal aid and the dreadful rates for legal aid lawyers (well below the minimum wage in many instances) means that there is a serious equality of arms issue.
Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that so many postmasters had no access to legal representation because of changes to legal aid since the Coalition government came to power in 2010. It's worth noting that the Justice department has had a 40% cut (real terms) in spending since 2010 - more than any other Government department.
If you want a properly functioning justice system, it costs money. Ill-informed whining about judges is avoiding the systemic problems we have.
Ill informed whining ? .. twat
Sorry but if you think judges can direct guilty verdicts then you are ill-informed. But thanks for the intelligent response anyway.
Lot of info about Fujitsu here, political links to all parties. Details of contracts and how they sue when things go wrong. Despicable company, they and their executives must be held to account and never given contracts in this country again.
To continue - This experience occurred some decades ago.
I speak to the building of 4 UK businesses around;
- the launch of the Switch debit card and the explosion of EFTPOS.
- electronic transaction capture/ processing from retailer/ bank suppled equipment.
- cross border multi currency transaction processing/ settlement
Does it sound boring? It does but I need to stress there are a huge range of rules, regulations, data standards, domestic & international technical specifications as to how you do this stuff.
If you ever wanted to suffer pain ploughing through interbank minutes & specifications for launching the Switch Debit card hits the spot.
Why do I need stress it? To 90% business executives it is a foreign language …and one many fought and fight to ignore at every opportunity. The executive fast track career path is rarely blessed with such attention to detail.
My career elevation was built around translating between the technical & commercial towers of modern financial business.
When my bank chose to step into the space it had its own IT staff (on line internal electronic processing of transactions had operated since the 1970s) and a wholly owned data processing company. It proved a fortuitous & successful combination.
It started badly. A project scoped to cost £10m and take 2yrs saw the Bank sanction £5m and 18 months. The stuff pulled out of development to meet the launch date released a palpably poor product.
The reputation damage to the rest of the bank was painful. We spent a further £6m and 12 months putting back in what had been descoped before launch. it cost the Head of Business his job.
His successor in a political masterstroke wrote his ticket before he stepped in the building. He refused to accept the cost of any of it arguing it was a strategic error by the board. They acquiesced.
Charged with market share targets and free of the cost of development he could undercut competitors to buy market share at will. Barely having to lift a finger, he was a winner, with bonuses to match. The hard work had been done before he arrived. As he basked in the success nobody batted an eyelid
Functionally, with the explosion of EFTPOS the bank recruited 15 specialists (overseen by bank staff) as an IT audit, to sign off every merchant EFTPOS terminal. Bank IT staff at the time were pleasingly anal.
Put simply the functionality, financial & technical disciplines, specifications, business requirement, external design, internal design and user documentation for this industry had been in place for a decade or more before Horizon.
In the matter of remote POS on line transactions it doesn’t get more basic.The security around UK electronic financial transactions is governed by definitive controlled access, a secure encrypted message set and a secure accessible evidential transactional audit trail.
NB. Any unaudited remote open access to any financial process is a licence for potential fraud. Even the most basic process has to have user identification.
Introducing the use of new technology is fraught with confusion. In the early days of ATMs bank staff even stood outside branches to explain how to use them.
Structured in 3 Groups Commercial, Technical & Operational to our credit the efforts to support the end user could not have been more robust.
The major processing error involved the processing of transactions collected overnight from merchant POS via a bank of PCs before being processed into the banks mainframe. 99% of the time the process worked without a hint of a problem.
Doesn’t mean there were not issues where clients failed to complete the right end of day procedures, unplugged machines, network connection failures or related sales reconciliation errors. That is what help desks are there to resolve.
POS failures could be legendary notably within the petrol sector where they had range of technical forecourt equipment suppliers whose engineers to fix a problem invariably removed the POS memory boards to promptly chuck them in the back of a van. The recovery of the financial data thereon was in the lap of the gods.
Indeed one such POS supplier was infamous in, for every small « bug », releasing endless softwares upgrades without telling anyone. At one stage I believe they had 17 different versions of the same software in use. The industry stance was every upgrade had to be run against specific audits before use.
In these circumstances end users were liable for their losses. Their equipment, their technical supplier contracts, their financial procedures.
The processing error arose from a glitch in the bank of PCs collecting merchant transactions, which though providing all the correct reports to the end user chose not to process certain batches of transactions to the mainframe.
The selection of which batches of transactions appeared random whether by POS terminal session, POS terminal, merchant store etc., The failure to process appeared when clients did not receive the expected value to bank accounts which might be highlighted immediately, in days or on occasion weeks.
Initially the « system » was deemed to have randomly « lost » the transactions. Crucially there was always a clear local record of the transactions/ audit trail with the end users.
However what complicated the situation was a) the problem was intermittent b) the bank of PCs had not for the most part actually lost the transactions but merely misplaced them, because at some indeterminate point it randomly decided to find « the misplaced transactions » to process them, ….again and again and again.
Though technically in breach of industry compliance at this point we were marking our own homework.
(The actual failure was ultimately identified by a set of default programs everybody had forgotten about designed to protect the system when its processing capacity was overloaded.)
Over a period 6 months, a part of my duties, was to have teams of bank staff at major high street merchants working with their staff often late into the night correcting the errors.
At one stage one team calculated we owed one merchant £800k. Indeed we were on the point of being mentioned as a note in their published audited accounts. In a competitive industry where we were fighting for market share « Bank loses 1000s of customers transactions headlines » were palpably not a good look.
Knowing my style you will not be surprised to learn I wrote a 9 Chapter report. Across the first 8 chapters I listed a range of technical, operational, training failings by the merchant, the POS suppliers and bank staff.
Chapter 9 was my recommendation of financial compensation to the merchant.
No matter merchant errors it was our cock up.
I, though many colleagues were new to it all., had had at this point 15 yrs in banking. I secured sign off from the commercial executive to release all 9 chapters to ALL relevant parties.
Unbeknownst to me the furore that rose up through internal channels most certainly had my name in « lights » Over the next weeks I was increasingly asked about aspects of the report to the point I had to ask my Operations Director « Is someone saying they did not know this report was being released …..to All Parties?». There came no reply.
Fortunately I held not only a copy of my internal memo requesting authority to release the full report but an A4 page of hand written comments by the commercial executive.
I chose to get on with my job leaving it a couple of days before casually providing this paperwork to Operations Line Management. I am not sure I had ever seen anyone so joyfully run down the corridors of power wildly brandishing a piece of a paper. It would have done justice to Eden on the airport tarmac waving his « peace accord » with Hitler.
The release of my report to all parties had rattled cages across operational, technical and commercial departments.
There was no escaping it was our technical service failure but it became apparent nobody wanted to own it and everybody was running for cover. I can only imagine the back stabbing that went on behind the scenes. Such is corporate politics.
Despite whispers of being too close to the customer I was never challenged. There was little point, every gory detail was there in print for people to read. The facts will out. The only comment, beyond the merchant who thanked my staffs efforts, was a weak memo from the Chief Executive asking everybody to work more closely together. However
- The failure to the client belonged to our technical group.
- The failure to the business brand belonged to our commercial executive who had failed to contractually tie down the right service levels for the provision of in-house internal technical services and data processing to the end client.
I met the Chief Executive on many occasions. He knew where the failures lay but had I not had that A4 page my career could have followed a very different path.
Lo and behold some weeks later I was walking to a meeting with another senior executive discussing another major cock up where he was expressing his thoughts on how we might manage away that problem. It was simply for us to stand our ground and deflect responsibility.
My reply? « Just exactly in which newspaper would you like to read the headline? »
I note all this not as any display of personal integrity but in the knowledge ingrained from my first day in those then 15yrs in the bank where whatever the problem the bank was always likely going to have to pay. I cut my teeth on dozens of bank agreements with clients which were 100% there to cover our asses.
This business executive had run away from « the foreign language » and been negligent in not understanding nor protecting the business from technical risk
There is a suggestion that Fujitsu lied in court so I would imagine there are potential massive claims against the company, alongside the Post Office, who were not only responsible for Horizon but who tried to hide the miscarriages of justice it caused.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life .. the Post Office brought cases before the courts that were fit ups, either through incompetence or malice .. and as mentioned on here previously, no 'legal expert' or 'watchdog' either noticed or brought to attention the ridiculous fact that a high number of Sub Postmasters were being convicted of theft/false accounting. Perhaps this was noticed and swept well under the carpet. Someone else's problem m'lud Some of these cases are decades old, those erroneously found guilty have waited far too long for recompense and 'justice', many are old and/or skint, they do not have time to sit around waiting for a bunch of waffling wigs paid by the hour not by results to eventually reach a conclusion in their case which might still be wrong due to arse covering or to preserve the reputation of incompetent legal eagles. Fuck due process, get this scandal sorted
As I understand it, the vast majority of those who got guilty verdicts pleaded guilty. There's nothing a judge or magistrate can do in those circumstances - he doesn't hear any evidence one way or the other. And judge can *never* direct a jury to find someone guilty (only not guilty).
There are numerous problems with the judicial system but the quality of judges isn't one of them.
The limitations on who can get legal aid and the dreadful rates for legal aid lawyers (well below the minimum wage in many instances) means that there is a serious equality of arms issue.
Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that so many postmasters had no access to legal representation because of changes to legal aid since the Coalition government came to power in 2010. It's worth noting that the Justice department has had a 40% cut (real terms) in spending since 2010 - more than any other Government department.
If you want a properly functioning justice system, it costs money. Ill-informed whining about judges is avoiding the systemic problems we have.
Ill informed whining ? .. twat
Sorry but if you think judges can direct guilty verdicts then you are ill-informed. But thanks for the intelligent response anyway.
apologies for my rudeness and knee jerk response .. look up the page you will see a MUCH better reply
And it is interesting that the former Post Office CEO discovered the evidence through the TV programme which caused her to return her CBE. There is a premise that these people get paid a lot of money for the responsibility of their roles. Something many of them try to escape doing so at the expense of others when things go wrong.
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life .. the Post Office brought cases before the courts that were fit ups, either through incompetence or malice .. and as mentioned on here previously, no 'legal expert' or 'watchdog' either noticed or brought to attention the ridiculous fact that a high number of Sub Postmasters were being convicted of theft/false accounting. Perhaps this was noticed and swept well under the carpet. Someone else's problem m'lud Some of these cases are decades old, those erroneously found guilty have waited far too long for recompense and 'justice', many are old and/or skint, they do not have time to sit around waiting for a bunch of waffling wigs paid by the hour not by results to eventually reach a conclusion in their case which might still be wrong due to arse covering or to preserve the reputation of incompetent legal eagles. Fuck due process, get this scandal sorted
As I understand it, the vast majority of those who got guilty verdicts pleaded guilty. There's nothing a judge or magistrate can do in those circumstances - he doesn't hear any evidence one way or the other. And judge can *never* direct a jury to find someone guilty (only not guilty).
There are numerous problems with the judicial system but the quality of judges isn't one of them.
The limitations on who can get legal aid and the dreadful rates for legal aid lawyers (well below the minimum wage in many instances) means that there is a serious equality of arms issue.
Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that so many postmasters had no access to legal representation because of changes to legal aid since the Coalition government came to power in 2010. It's worth noting that the Justice department has had a 40% cut (real terms) in spending since 2010 - more than any other Government department.
If you want a properly functioning justice system, it costs money. Ill-informed whining about judges is avoiding the systemic problems we have.
Ill informed whining ? .. twat
Sorry but if you think judges can direct guilty verdicts then you are ill-informed. But thanks for the intelligent response anyway.
apologies for my rudeness and knee jerk response .. look up the page you will see a MUCH better reply
No probs - that's the internet and I've done the same! Thanks for the apology, it's appreciated. As a lawyer I know a lot of judges and the vast majority are very hard working, intelligent and diligent. Every one of them has taken a pay cut (sometime a big one) to become a judge, although not necessarily through altruism.
There's a natural human desire to blame individuals and that's right in a scandal like this one. But if we want to prevent future injustices then we have to think about our institutions and our systems and how we can make sure thwy work properly.
And it is interesting that the former Post Office CEO discovered the evidence through the TV programme which caused her to return her CBE. There is a premise that these people get paid a lot of money for the responsibility of their roles. Something many of them try to escape doing so at the expense of others when things go wrong.
she is now hoping for a quiet life when she can concentrate on counting her money and bewailing her misfortune
a retired high court /appeal court judge was interviewed y/day on R4 World at One .. of course he defended the legal system and was totally against any legislation to speed up appeals against or combined squashing of convictions .. he also stated that a few appeals had already been rejected on grounds that it could not be proved that Horizon was at fault for the 'defendants' shortages !, implying that some sub postmasters were indeed thieves .. Another useless old duffer sticking up for the status quo and probably advocating more big pay days for bullshitting and useless barristers .. with dickheads like him sitting in judgment how can we all have serious faith in the higher UK courts (I say UK, there must be cases falling under Scottish law)
It's a complex issue, Lincs.
I can understand the need for swift restitution of integrity for the innocent Postmasters and due compensation, but we also have a judicial system based on due process on a case by case basis. This is the Government attempting to overrule the constitution with a blanket overturning of convictions and there will be some of those convictions that were safe - and in fact one of the Postmasters who was successful on appeal stated the other day that she was not in favour of a blanket approach for that very reason. Due process for the appeals means that all quashed convictions are safe to quash, and that was her point - she was exonerated following due process without anyone able to say "yes, but .....".
Speed up the appeals process by all means, but best to do so on a case by case basis - otherwise it could set a dangerous precedent (or in fact a dangerous President in the case of Trump trying to obtain a blanket immunity from any form of criminal conviction).
Those unfair convictions are down to lying bastards from the Post Office and Futitsu - not the courts or judges.
Edit: Rizzo beat me to it with a much more succinct post.
the Post Office prosecuted individuals, magistrates (presumably) juries (at the direction of a judge) and judges were responsible for guilty findings .. don't give me the old tosh about a 'robust judicial system' .. too many judges and magistrates are lazy, incompetent time servers just as there are in every walk of life .. the Post Office brought cases before the courts that were fit ups, either through incompetence or malice .. and as mentioned on here previously, no 'legal expert' or 'watchdog' either noticed or brought to attention the ridiculous fact that a high number of Sub Postmasters were being convicted of theft/false accounting. Perhaps this was noticed and swept well under the carpet. Someone else's problem m'lud Some of these cases are decades old, those erroneously found guilty have waited far too long for recompense and 'justice', many are old and/or skint, they do not have time to sit around waiting for a bunch of waffling wigs paid by the hour not by results to eventually reach a conclusion in their case which might still be wrong due to arse covering or to preserve the reputation of incompetent legal eagles. Fuck due process, get this scandal sorted
As I understand it, the vast majority of those who got guilty verdicts pleaded guilty. There's nothing a judge or magistrate can do in those circumstances - he doesn't hear any evidence one way or the other. And judge can *never* direct a jury to find someone guilty (only not guilty).
There are numerous problems with the judicial system but the quality of judges isn't one of them.
The limitations on who can get legal aid and the dreadful rates for legal aid lawyers (well below the minimum wage in many instances) means that there is a serious equality of arms issue.
Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that so many postmasters had no access to legal representation because of changes to legal aid since the Coalition government came to power in 2010. It's worth noting that the Justice department has had a 40% cut (real terms) in spending since 2010 - more than any other Government department.
If you want a properly functioning justice system, it costs money. Ill-informed whining about judges is avoiding the systemic problems we have.
Ill informed whining ? .. twat
Sorry but if you think judges can direct guilty verdicts then you are ill-informed. But thanks for the intelligent response anyway.
apologies for my rudeness and knee jerk response .. look up the page you will see a MUCH better reply
No probs - that's the internet and I've done the same! Thanks for the apology, it's appreciated. As a lawyer I know a lot of judges and the vast majority are very hard working, intelligent and diligent. Every one of them has taken a pay cut (sometime a big one) to become a judge, although not necessarily through altruism.
There's a natural human desire to blame individuals and that's right in a scandal like this one. But if we want to prevent future injustices then we have to think about our institutions and our systems and how we can make sure thwy work properly.
your last paragraph sums up the REAL issue .. thing is who is going to bite the bullet and bring about the means to change things ?, especially when (excuse my cynicism) it's likely that those in a position to implement inquiries/change are involved in the cronyism and the old boy (or increasingly nowadays, girl) network which is (i m o ) the main drag on proper societal change for the general betterment and the cracking down on incompetence and corruption ?
I started viewing phase 4 hearings and I was amazed at the shameful incompetence, stupidity, wilful bad faith and self-denial of the few I have had time to view in full (some take place over several days). The most extraordinary was Elaine Cotter. Initially appearing just a rather confused little lady it rapidly descends into farce as she denies seeing or recalling every single email and signed Court Statement produced to the Inquiry. I surmise that as she has clearly committed perjury she is attempting to create a defence of insanity. Amnesia is a serious affliction that seems to afflict Post office management.
Amazingly, the head of the Post Office legal department Jarnail Singh, responsible for committing cases to prosecution had no experience in criminal law having spent his whole career in property conveyancing before joining the Post Office!!
If you want to understand how this scandal could have happened it's all here.
I started viewing phase 4 hearings and I was amazed at the shameful incompetence, stupidity, wilful bad faith and self-denial of the few I have had time to view in full (some take place over several days). The most extraordinary was Elaine Cotter. Initially appearing just a rather confused little lady it rapidly descends into farce as she denies seeing or recalling every single email and signed Court Statement produced to the Inquiry. I surmise that as she has clearly committed perjury she is attempting to create a defence of insanity. Amnesia is a serious affliction that seems to afflict Post office management.
Amazingly, the head of the Post Office legal department Jarnail Singh, responsible for committing cases to prosecution had no experience in criminal law having spent his whole career in property conveyancing before joining the Post Office!!
If you want to understand how this scandal could have happened it's all here.
I made the "mistake" of starting to watch his testimony online - and before I knew it I was something like 2 hours in.
His lack of awareness was shocking - professional and personal. At one point he even tried to suggest that he'd had just a bad a time of it as those he helped prosecute - which clearly annoyed the questioner as he immediately pulled him up on it.
Bloke was clearly so far out of his depth it was unreal. He even somehow found the time to run his own little conveyancing business on the side and didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it.
Edit: I wouldn't suggest anyone watches the whole thing - unless you want to get really angry about it - but as a flavour it's worth watching the first few minutes of his testimony where he starts by asking to make some corrections to his written statement. He then goes on to make a bewildering series of statements where he confuses everyone, including himself, about wtaf it is he is trying to say. Clown!
Another thing - and sorry, this is just about the show - it’s not a huge deal or even to do with the story, but I just thought about it - did anyone else find Nadhim Zahawi playing himself a bit jarring? I just didn’t see the need for it and it felt like a crass bit of PR. Nobody else played themself, why just him?
Trying to show he’s the good guy…
I imagine the production company must have approached him and not the other way around and also his words are in the public record of the committee?
My guess was that given Zahawi's typically pugnacious behaviour in the select committee, they were worried that any actor trying to portray him would veer dangerously close to parody, and a brief cameo from the man himself was the lesser of two evils.
I started viewing phase 4 hearings and I was amazed at the shameful incompetence, stupidity, wilful bad faith and self-denial of the few I have had time to view in full (some take place over several days). The most extraordinary was Elaine Cotter. Initially appearing just a rather confused little lady it rapidly descends into farce as she denies seeing or recalling every single email and signed Court Statement produced to the Inquiry. I surmise that as she has clearly committed perjury she is attempting to create a defence of insanity. Amnesia is a serious affliction that seems to afflict Post office management.
Amazingly, the head of the Post Office legal department Jarnail Singh, responsible for committing cases to prosecution had no experience in criminal law having spent his whole career in property conveyancing before joining the Post Office!!
If you want to understand how this scandal could have happened it's all here.
I don't think that's an issue in and of itself tbh, not all heads of local authority legal services will have a background in criminal law for example. What they will have is appropriately qualified and experienced lawyers in place relevant to the area they are practicing in e.g. criminal law, family law, conveyancing, civil litigation etc.
Someone, somewhere at the level of front line investigator and/or prosecuting solicitor has deliberately, (or being very charitable, inadvertently), completely failed in their disclosure duties under the CPIA with these cases. Whether that's been compounded by false statements under oath appears to be what the police are looking into.
Given the level of public interest, rightly and understandably, in what's turned out to be a massive miscarriage of justice I'm a little fearful that we're not far off calls to remove the ability to prosecute from other agencies as a result (or further, disproportionate, legal hurdles introduced).
That really would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I started viewing phase 4 hearings and I was amazed at the shameful incompetence, stupidity, wilful bad faith and self-denial of the few I have had time to view in full (some take place over several days). The most extraordinary was Elaine Cotter. Initially appearing just a rather confused little lady it rapidly descends into farce as she denies seeing or recalling every single email and signed Court Statement produced to the Inquiry. I surmise that as she has clearly committed perjury she is attempting to create a defence of insanity. Amnesia is a serious affliction that seems to afflict Post office management.
Amazingly, the head of the Post Office legal department Jarnail Singh, responsible for committing cases to prosecution had no experience in criminal law having spent his whole career in property conveyancing before joining the Post Office!!
If you want to understand how this scandal could have happened it's all here.
Given the level of public interest, rightly and understandably, in what's turned out to be a massive miscarriage of justice I'm a little fearful that we're not far off calls to remove the ability to prosecute from other agencies as a result (or further, disproportionate, legal hurdles introduced).
That really would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I suggest you watch a few days proceedings and you might change your mind.
The removal of status as a Prosecuting Authority from the Post Office should be the first outcome of this Inquiry. Had the police, overseen by the CPS been involved, none of the cases would have gone to Court. I suggest you watch the testimonies of the investigators who prosecuted the cases. Over-promoted counter clerks with no proper legal training or supervision, ignorant of their statutory duties and the laws in relation to obtaining evidence or duty to pursue lines of investigation that might prove innocence. Overseen by lawyers who simply processed the investigators’ forms and relied on third party third rate legal firms to manage the technical Court processes.
Other agencies are probably in a slightly different position where the frauds are committed by mainly the public and not employees and often more clear cut. Evidence is probably easier to obtain if it exists and less likely to have as draconian consequencies for those found guilty.
Unlike the Post Office, others are not a profit making employer pursuing an employee where the Post Office is the victim, investigator gatherer of evidence and prosecutor. Conviction can lead to bankruptcy and ruin the life of a sub-postmaster forever so needs the highest level of due diligence in pursuing a correct prosecution..
Comments
The point about potential perjury in terms of false statements in the cases of prosecution is well made but probably difficult to prove
The early political debate here speaks to the entire problem.
It is frankly pathetic it has taken a well produced and well delivered TV docudrama to motivate Government to act. It is in reality no more than a case of Deflection, deflection & deflection where no one has wanted to put their name on this from day one.
Any defence a problem started on somebody else’s watch does not excuse any subsequent failure to act. Whatever actions taken/ not taken under predecessors, if a situation remains current, it is in your in tray. Don’t want the responsibility? Don’t take the pay check.
Governments have appointed Ministers to oversee the Post Office for decades. Since 2010 such appointments have fallen to the Conservative (Coalition or not) Government. It has had 13yrs to get this right. Why are we still here? Nobody has wanted to own it.
I have no knowledge of the events involving Fujitsu, the Post Office or any Postmaster. I have operated in this space and after 40yrs in the major corporate financial world I can speak to corporate culture. Much of what has happened is unlikely to be far from your own corporate environment.
I spent 30yrs in UK banking, much of it building new businesses involving the delivery of IT business solutions followed by a decade in the US with a leisure technology group encountering a number of unsafe fiscal practices to the point we stopped anti trust practices and shut businesses down.
Delivery in this environment is a matter of IT Audit. It Audits are not meant to toe the company line or be popular.
I am incredulous any UK financial institution signed off on the Horizon functionality in the first place. The apparent absence of regulatory compliance is extraordinary.
(I have if you are interested recounted in the subsequent post one specific bank major processing error which positions comparable challenges. Read it , don’t read it your choice.)
The naivety on display from the Post Office speaks to a basic misunderstanding of the responsibility of handling other people’s money extends to electronic transactions. Handling people’s money real or electronic doesn’t get more personal.
As many suggest Fujitsu have a very great deal to answer for. The whole system registers as flawed from design, technical and user documentation, to implementation, to audit trails, training, to the level of user support and ultimately maintenance.
NB. If there is a pin pad subject to judiciary consideration who in the hell re-programs it without a reason?
That said ownership & oversight of operations reeks of gross mismanagement by Post Office executives.
I am astonished Mr Bates stood alone for so long. To anyone with a smattering of financial management knowledge the whole process screams unsafe and unsound. He deserves huge credit simply for standing his ground ( where the Emperor truly had no clothes) at this nonsense at the outset, let alone all the subsequent campaigning and support for others.
The more damaging failure is his stance should have had Post Office Auditors alarm bells ringing from the outset. No matter whether it was 1, 10 or 100 users they had a responsibility to dig up the drains.
I repeat Auditors are not there to toe the party line or be popular.
The pursuit of due diligence in such matters does not start with the end user. It starts with the service provider, in this case Fujitsu acting in the name of the Post Office.
Had they possessed any meaningful professional standards this could and should have been stopped almost immediately. They had been put on notice and had a duly of care to protect the organisation, its users and its customers.
Brand protection starts with them, not with executives allegedly lying through their back teeth. They should pending their research have either suspended use of Horizon immediately or secured commercial sanction to underwrite a level of losses to a reasonable level.
It is not as if Post Offices did not have well established albeit laborious manual procedures to fall back on.
I cannot overstate my anger a) such gross technical incompetence was allowed in the first place, b) at the abdication of Auditor responsibility for failing to control matters arising c) the apparent subsequent self serving corporate malpractice if not malevolence which shames the entire organisation.
The politics of it all? Stinks, whether it be corporate, industry or within whatever Westminster ideological shade you prefer. I find the blustering indignation now evident nauseating and no, suddenly coming up with special legislation and random compensation WITHIN THE YEAR absolves nobody from this fiasco.
This matter has been hiding in full sight for over a decade. There are no winners here nor will there be.
Will any official anywhere face any serious consequence? Do pigs fly
To continue - This experience occurred some decades ago.
I speak to the building of 4 UK businesses around;
- the launch of the Switch debit card and the explosion of EFTPOS.
- electronic transaction capture/ processing from retailer/ bank suppled equipment.
- cross border multi currency transaction processing/ settlement
Does it sound boring? It does but I need to stress there are a huge range of rules, regulations, data standards, domestic & international technical specifications as to how you do this stuff.
If you ever wanted to suffer pain ploughing through interbank minutes & specifications for launching the Switch Debit card hits the spot.
Why do I need stress it? To 90% business executives it is a foreign language …and one many fought and fight to ignore at every opportunity. The executive fast track career path is rarely blessed with such attention to detail.
My career elevation was built around translating between the technical & commercial towers of modern financial business.
When my bank chose to step into the space it had its own IT staff (on line internal electronic processing of transactions had operated since the 1970s) and a wholly owned data processing company. It proved a fortuitous & successful combination.
It started badly. A project scoped to cost £10m and take 2yrs saw the Bank sanction £5m and 18 months. The stuff pulled out of development to meet the launch date released a palpably poor product.
The reputation damage to the rest of the bank was painful. We spent a further £6m and 12 months putting back in what had been descoped before launch. it cost the Head of Business his job.
His successor in a political masterstroke wrote his ticket before he stepped in the building. He refused to accept the cost of any of it arguing it was a strategic error by the board. They acquiesced.
Charged with market share targets and free of the cost of development he could undercut competitors to buy market share at will. Barely having to lift a finger, he was a winner, with bonuses to match. The hard work had been done before he arrived. As he basked in the success nobody batted an eyelid
Functionally, with the explosion of EFTPOS the bank recruited 15 specialists (overseen by bank staff) as an IT audit, to sign off every merchant EFTPOS terminal. Bank IT staff at the time were pleasingly anal.
Put simply the functionality, financial & technical disciplines, specifications, business requirement, external design, internal design and user documentation for this industry had been in place for a decade or more before Horizon.
In the matter of remote POS on line transactions it doesn’t get more basic.The security around UK electronic financial transactions is governed by definitive controlled access, a secure encrypted message set and a secure accessible evidential transactional audit trail.
NB. Any unaudited remote open access to any financial process is a licence for potential fraud. Even the most basic process has to have user identification.
Introducing the use of new technology is fraught with confusion. In the early days of ATMs bank staff even stood outside branches to explain how to use them.
Structured in 3 Groups Commercial, Technical & Operational to our credit the efforts to support the end user could not have been more robust.
The major processing error involved the processing of transactions collected overnight from merchant POS via a bank of PCs before being processed into the banks mainframe. 99% of the time the process worked without a hint of a problem.
Doesn’t mean there were not issues where clients failed to complete the right end of day procedures, unplugged machines, network connection failures or related sales reconciliation errors. That is what help desks are there to resolve.
POS failures could be legendary notably within the petrol sector where they had range of technical forecourt equipment suppliers whose engineers to fix a problem invariably removed the POS memory boards to promptly chuck them in the back of a van. The recovery of the financial data thereon was in the lap of the gods.
Indeed one such POS supplier was infamous in, for every small « bug », releasing endless softwares upgrades without telling anyone. At one stage I believe they had 17 different versions of the same software in use. The industry stance was every upgrade had to be run against specific audits before use.
In these circumstances end users were liable for their losses. Their equipment, their technical supplier contracts, their financial procedures.
The processing error arose from a glitch in the bank of PCs collecting merchant transactions, which though providing all the correct reports to the end user chose not to process certain batches of transactions to the mainframe.
The selection of which batches of transactions appeared random whether by POS terminal session, POS terminal, merchant store etc., The failure to process appeared when clients did not receive the expected value to bank accounts which might be highlighted immediately, in days or on occasion weeks.
Initially the « system » was deemed to have randomly « lost » the transactions. Crucially there was always a clear local record of the transactions/ audit trail with the end users.
However what complicated the situation was a) the problem was intermittent b) the bank of PCs had not for the most part actually lost the transactions but merely misplaced them, because at some indeterminate point it randomly decided to find « the misplaced transactions » to process them, ….again and again and again.
Though technically in breach of industry compliance at this point we were marking our own homework.
(The actual failure was ultimately identified by a set of default programs everybody had forgotten about designed to protect the system when its processing capacity was overloaded.)
Over a period 6 months, a part of my duties, was to have teams of bank staff at major high street merchants working with their staff often late into the night correcting the errors.
At one stage one team calculated we owed one merchant £800k. Indeed we were on the point of being mentioned as a note in their published audited accounts. In a competitive industry where we were fighting for market share « Bank loses 1000s of customers transactions headlines » were palpably not a good look.
Knowing my style you will not be surprised to learn I wrote a 9 Chapter report. Across the first 8 chapters I listed a range of technical, operational, training failings by the merchant, the POS suppliers and bank staff.
Chapter 9 was my recommendation of financial compensation to the merchant.
No matter merchant errors it was our cock up.
I, though many colleagues were new to it all., had had at this point 15 yrs in banking. I secured sign off from the commercial executive to release all 9 chapters to ALL relevant parties.
Unbeknownst to me the furore that rose up through internal channels most certainly had my name in « lights » Over the next weeks I was increasingly asked about aspects of the report to the point I had to ask my Operations Director « Is someone saying they did not know this report was being released …..to All Parties?». There came no reply.
Fortunately I held not only a copy of my internal memo requesting authority to release the full report but an A4 page of hand written comments by the commercial executive.
I chose to get on with my job leaving it a couple of days before casually providing this paperwork to Operations Line Management. I am not sure I had ever seen anyone so joyfully run down the corridors of power wildly brandishing a piece of a paper. It would have done justice to Eden on the airport tarmac waving his « peace accord » with Hitler.
The release of my report to all parties had rattled cages across operational, technical and commercial departments.
There was no escaping it was our technical service failure but it became apparent nobody wanted to own it and everybody was running for cover. I can only imagine the back stabbing that went on behind the scenes. Such is corporate politics.
Despite whispers of being too close to the customer I was never challenged. There was little point, every gory detail was there in print for people to read. The facts will out. The only comment, beyond the merchant who thanked my staffs efforts, was a weak memo from the Chief Executive asking everybody to work more closely together. However
- The failure to the client belonged to our technical group.
- The failure to the business brand belonged to our commercial executive who had failed to contractually tie down the right service levels for the provision of in-house internal technical services and data processing to the end client.
I met the Chief Executive on many occasions. He knew where the failures lay but had I not had that A4 page my career could have followed a very different path.
Lo and behold some weeks later I was walking to a meeting with another senior executive discussing another major cock up where he was expressing his thoughts on how we might manage away that problem. It was simply for us to stand our ground and deflect responsibility.
My reply? « Just exactly in which newspaper would you like to read the headline? »
I note all this not as any display of personal integrity but in the knowledge ingrained from my first day in those then 15yrs in the bank where whatever the problem the bank was always likely going to have to pay. I cut my teeth on dozens of bank agreements with clients which were 100% there to cover our asses.
This business executive had run away from « the foreign language » and been negligent in not understanding nor protecting the business from technical risk
How about the bank change your bank statement too if we are going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes !!
The point is a smart meter is NOT really connected to this PO issue - any more than say your metered internet usage or minutes on a mobile phone contract or any other number of things we all pay for.
Hence a proper review is the right way forwards IMO.
the Post Office brought cases before the courts that were fit ups, either through incompetence or malice .. and as mentioned on here previously, no 'legal expert' or 'watchdog' either noticed or brought to attention the ridiculous fact that a high number of Sub Postmasters were being convicted of theft/false accounting. Perhaps this was noticed and swept well under the carpet. Someone else's problem m'lud
Some of these cases are decades old, those erroneously found guilty have waited far too long for recompense and 'justice', many are old and/or skint, they do not have time to sit around waiting for a bunch of waffling wigs paid by the hour not by results to eventually reach a conclusion in their case which might still be wrong due to arse covering or to preserve the reputation of incompetent legal eagles.
Fuck due process, get this scandal sorted
The executives who have continued to take salaries and bonuses, whist allegedly failing to understand they had a massive IT problem and to resolve it in a satisfactory manner. Didn't the Post Office pay bonuses for executives' attendance / assistance with the enquiry?
Include politicians who have taken ministerial salaries, but failed to perform in a competent manner by understanding what their role entails, preferring not to get involved until the TV documentary blew the lid off. Then a plethora of weasel words and blame shifting. This despite the facts being in the public domain for over a decade.
Both groups will continue to be winners unless forced to repay salaries and / or bonuses and prosecuted, where appropriate. I expect this number to be very small and limited to a few scapegoats, if at all. And it won't include any politicians.
They were not all private prosecutions.
The limitations on who can get legal aid and the dreadful rates for legal aid lawyers (well below the minimum wage in many instances) means that there is a serious equality of arms issue. Nobody seems to be talking about the fact that so many postmasters had no access to legal representation because of changes to legal aid since the Coalition government came to power in 2010. It's worth noting that the Justice department has had a 40% cut (real terms) in spending since 2010 - more than any other Government department. If you want a properly functioning justice system, it costs money. Ill-informed whining about judges is avoiding the systemic problems we have.
I REPEAT that bogus prosecutions brought before incompetent judges and/or magistrates have led to multiple miscarriages of justice, and we have no idea of the evidence the Post Office prosecutors laid before the court in question, evidence it seems that was never or rarely (I assume) properly queried or put to the test. 'Computer says so' with nothing else to back up that claim seemed to suffice to send people to prison or to subject them to paying huge fines, compensation and/or costs..
an acquaintance of mine works as a clerk to magistrates .. he tells me and I have seen other clerks do the same thing, when a defendant pleads 'guilty' the clerk asks 'are you sure' so at least the defendant is often given the chance to change his/her mind, not good I admit but better than zilch ..
and as for judges 'directions' .. have you ever done jury service ? .. in my own experience, a judge will not say 'find this person guilty' all too often they will drop subtle, sometimes even strong hints about his (i.e. the judges) opinions as to guilty or not guilty. All judges are 'good quality' according to you, if that wasn't so pathetic it would be worth a belly laugh of derision
Lot of info about Fujitsu here, political links to all parties. Details of contracts and how they sue when things go wrong. Despicable company, they and their executives must be held to account and never given contracts in this country again.
There's a natural human desire to blame individuals and that's right in a scandal like this one. But if we want to prevent future injustices then we have to think about our institutions and our systems and how we can make sure thwy work properly.
I’ve got to get up in the morning! 😂
I only just released a public inquiry has been going on for months and all the witness examinations are online. https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/hearings
I started viewing phase 4 hearings and I was amazed at the shameful incompetence, stupidity, wilful bad faith and self-denial of the few I have had time to view in full (some take place over several days). The most extraordinary was Elaine Cotter. Initially appearing just a rather confused little lady it rapidly descends into farce as she denies seeing or recalling every single email and signed Court Statement produced to the Inquiry. I surmise that as she has clearly committed perjury she is attempting to create a defence of insanity. Amnesia is a serious affliction that seems to afflict Post office management.
Amazingly, the head of the Post Office legal department Jarnail Singh, responsible for committing cases to prosecution had no experience in criminal law having spent his whole career in property conveyancing before joining the Post Office!!
If you want to understand how this scandal could have happened it's all here.
His lack of awareness was shocking - professional and personal. At one point he even tried to suggest that he'd had just a bad a time of it as those he helped prosecute - which clearly annoyed the questioner as he immediately pulled him up on it.
Bloke was clearly so far out of his depth it was unreal. He even somehow found the time to run his own little conveyancing business on the side and didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it.
Edit: I wouldn't suggest anyone watches the whole thing - unless you want to get really angry about it - but as a flavour it's worth watching the first few minutes of his testimony where he starts by asking to make some corrections to his written statement. He then goes on to make a bewildering series of statements where he confuses everyone, including himself, about wtaf it is he is trying to say. Clown!
Someone, somewhere at the level of front line investigator and/or prosecuting solicitor has deliberately, (or being very charitable, inadvertently), completely failed in their disclosure duties under the CPIA with these cases. Whether that's been compounded by false statements under oath appears to be what the police are looking into.
Given the level of public interest, rightly and understandably, in what's turned out to be a massive miscarriage of justice I'm a little fearful that we're not far off calls to remove the ability to prosecute from other agencies as a result (or further, disproportionate, legal hurdles introduced).
That really would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The removal of status as a Prosecuting Authority from the Post Office should be the first outcome of this Inquiry. Had the police, overseen by the CPS been involved, none of the cases would have gone to Court. I suggest you watch the testimonies of the investigators who prosecuted the cases. Over-promoted counter clerks with no proper legal training or supervision, ignorant of their statutory duties and the laws in relation to obtaining evidence or duty to pursue lines of investigation that might prove innocence. Overseen by lawyers who simply processed the investigators’ forms and relied on third party third rate legal firms to manage the technical Court processes.
Other agencies are probably in a slightly different position where the frauds are committed by mainly the public and not employees and often more clear cut. Evidence is probably easier to obtain if it exists and less likely to have as draconian consequencies for those found guilty.
Unlike the Post Office, others are not a profit making employer pursuing an employee where the Post Office is the victim, investigator gatherer of evidence and prosecutor. Conviction can lead to bankruptcy and ruin the life of a sub-postmaster forever so needs the highest level of due diligence in pursuing a correct prosecution..