Breaking News: Post Office Scandal

[Furniture Restorer]

Police don't decide who to prosecute.
I've never come across the police going after software companies for supplying rubbish software.
Had the CPS been involved I suspect many cases would have been thrown out.

What would the charge Fujitsu with?
Only PCOJ if they have lied about known software bugs and remote access.

There's possibly a breach of contract between Fujitsu and PO but I reckon PO accepted the duff product. More millions to be creamed off by lawyers if they dispute it in court.

I'd be very surprised but pleased if the right people end up with criminal charges.

I suspect any sub-postmaster sentences will be quashed, compensation paid and some PO exec bonuses clawed back. Maybe some sackings to to feed some Christians to the lions.

I must admit I've never had any run ins with the police, but I thought it was their job to collect evidence then present it to the CPS who then decide if there is a case to answer? I fall back to my original reasoning. Where was the money the postmasters were supposed to have stolen?

How is it possible to find someone guilty of stealing something when they don't have it or never did? The monies never left the computer system at any point, because it never existed.

As for Fujitsu. Negligence, fraud, making false or vexatious accusations, possible obstruction, covering up the fact they knew their product had serious flaws, intimidation... The cover-up is a thousand times worse than the crime. Or would have been had they just owned up and worked with the post office employees to fix it.

As you say. The lawyers are in for a payday.

 

[Furniture Restorer]

The police weren't involved at all (apart from a handful of cases). The Post Office investigated these cases with their own investigation teams and brought the accused to court with their own prosecution lawyers via private prosecutions. They completely circumvented the police and the DPP.

Top lawyer urges MPs to review private prosecutions after Post Office scandal

It just gets worse and worse.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I must admit I've never had any run ins with the police, but I thought it was their job to collect evidence then present it to the CPS who then decide if there is a case to answer?

Not in the case of a private prosecution.

 

[Yorkieguy]

I watched most of the Covid inquiry the statement to Tell the truth The whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, went out the window before it even started.

Going off topic, for the sake of clarification 'So Help Me God' might be seen in films, and if varies from one country to another, but it isn't part of the Oath in UK Courts, and there's no requirement to mention God at all - anyone taking the oath can 'affirm' instead, or people of other religions can (for example) swear by Allah/by Waheguru/on the Gita.

In England, Wales and Australia:

Oath:

I" swear by [substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Jehovah) or the name of the holy scripture] that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

Affirmation:

"I do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

In the UK, a person may give testimony at any age, but won't be sworn-in unless 14 years old or over, and under 18. But they don't 'swear' (because children (at least a few) are taught that swearing is a bad thing to do. Instead, they 'promise:

Promise:
"I promise before Almighty God that the evidence which I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

In the 25 years I sat as a magistrate, surprisingly perhaps, the only people I can recall not 'swearing by almighty God' and instead who affirmed, were devout Christians and Quakers. Their decision was based on the Bible - James 5:12, which states:

‘Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “Yes” be yes and your “No” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation’.

A major study of 24 countries in 2022 found that Just under half (49%) of Britons said they believed in God – down from three-quarters (75%) in 1981. Of 24 nations in the study, only four are now less likely than the UK to say they believe in God, Sweden (27%), South Korea (16%), China (16%) and Japan (14%):

God, heaven and hell, and life after death: data reveals UK's low religious belief compared with other nations.

Sworn testimony is evidence given by a witness who has made a commitment to tell the truth. If the witness is later found to have lied whilst bound by that commitment, they can be charged with the crime of perjury, but there's no reminder of that risk to them in the oath.

Given the low level of 'religiosity' in the UK, it seems to me that it would be far better to update the oath by removing all religious references and instead, something on the lines of:

"I understand that the evidence which I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that if I do not tell the truth I commit the crime of perjury, which is an imprisonable offence".

Jurors don't give evidence - they listen to it, so take a different oath:

"I swear by almighty God/by Allah/by Waheguru/on the Gita"; for an affirmation the wording is "I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm". This is followed in both cases by: "that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence".

A recent study of British citizens found for the first time, that defendants who don't 'swear by almighty God' in Court are more likely to be found guilty by jurors who do.

Study finds jurors biased against those who don’t swear to god

Sorry to digress but I think this thread has (rightly), had so much input, and will doubtless continue to do so as the enquiry proceeds and justice at last prevails, that a little digression might be permitted.

A note to end on:

What would Jesus do?

'The Ballad of Paula Vennells':

https://www.postofficescandal.uk/newsletter/the-ballad-of-paula-vennells/

​

​

 

[Mikebart]

I do watch a lot of films

 

[Glitch]

Going off topic, for the sake of clarification 'So Help Me God' might be seen in films, and if varies from one country to another, but it isn't part of the Oath in UK Courts, and there's no requirement to mention God at all - anyone taking the oath can 'affirm' instead, or people of other religions can (for example) swear by Allah/by Waheguru/on the Gita.

In England, Wales and Australia:

Oath:

I" swear by [substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Jehovah) or the name of the holy scripture] that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

Affirmation:

"I do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

In the UK, a person may give testimony at any age, but won't be sworn-in unless 14 years old or over, and under 18. But they don't 'swear' (because children (at least a few) are taught that swearing is a bad thing to do. Instead, they 'promise:

Promise:
"I promise before Almighty God that the evidence which I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

In the 25 years I sat as a magistrate, surprisingly perhaps, the only people I can recall not 'swearing by almighty God' and instead who affirmed, were devout Christians and Quakers. Their decision was based on the Bible - James 5:12, which states:

‘Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “Yes” be yes and your “No” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation’.

A major study of 24 countries in 2022 found that Just under half (49%) of Britons said they believed in God – down from three-quarters (75%) in 1981. Of 24 nations in the study, only four are now less likely than the UK to say they believe in God, Sweden (27%), South Korea (16%), China (16%) and Japan (14%):

God, heaven and hell, and life after death: data reveals UK's low religious belief compared with other nations.

Sworn testimony is evidence given by a witness who has made a commitment to tell the truth. If the witness is later found to have lied whilst bound by that commitment, they can be charged with the crime of perjury, but there's no reminder of that risk to them in the oath.

Given the low level of 'religiosity' in the UK, it seems to me that it would be far better to update the oath by removing all religious references and instead, something on the lines of:

"I understand that the evidence which I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that if I do not tell the truth I commit the crime of perjury, which is an imprisonable offence".

Jurors don't give evidence - they listen to it, so take a different oath:

"I swear by almighty God/by Allah/by Waheguru/on the Gita"; for an affirmation the wording is "I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm". This is followed in both cases by: "that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence".

A recent study of British citizens found for the first time, that defendants who don't 'swear by almighty God' in Court are more likely to be found guilty by jurors who do.

Study finds jurors biased against those who don’t swear to god

Sorry to digress but I think this thread has (rightly), had so much input, and will doubtless continue to do so as the enquiry proceeds and justice at last prevails, that a little digression might be permitted.

A note to end on:

What would Jesus do?

'The Ballad of Paula Vennells':

https://www.postofficescandal.uk/newsletter/the-ballad-of-paula-vennells/

​

​

As I understand it perjury is lying under oath and that will apply to those who were witnesses in the court cases. Perhaps lying about the robustness of the system or remote access.

Perverting the course of justice (PCOJ) will apply to those who brought the cases to court in the knowledge that the system was flawed. That could apply to folks at both Fujitsu and definitely many at the PO.
Offering a plea bargain knowing that you'd struggle to prove the more serious charge of theft is surely PCOJ.

Where did the money go?
As far as I can make out the programme focused mostly the cash not balancing at the end of the day.
So they were accused of pocketing it.

Why they couldn't reconcile it against the transactions in the system is beyond me. There must have been duplicate transactions or the amounts were corrupted. I'm sure it must be explained in the 300 page judgment.

I know one case said they hit the enter key multiple times when it was running slow.

 

[flh801978]

There was an article in the papers this morning about a case of a postmaster murdering his wife and now hoping that the horizon problems will exonerate him..but he said that sometimes the system showed a surplus rather than a deficit...

 

[Glitch]

Found this podcast series interesting.

The great Post Office Trial

 

[MikeJhn]

In the "Spectator" today:

• The European boss of Fujitsu, Paul Patterson, apologised on behalf of the company for its role in the Post Office scandal and said that the firm had a ‘moral obligation’ to contribute to the compensation scheme for victims.

 

[Jacob]

In the "Spectator" today:

• The European boss of Fujitsu, Paul Patterson, apologised on behalf of the company for its role in the Post Office scandal and said that the firm had a ‘moral obligation’ to contribute to the compensation scheme for victims.

Moral obligation? They should have thought of that a bit sooner!
It's the least of their worries - more like an humongous legal obligation involving costs, damages, collapse of the Post Office and possibly Fujitsu itself folding.
But to be realistic - nothing much will happen, like Grenfell Tower or Windrush. If they drag it out long enough everybody will be dead anyway with the rest if us losing interest.
Interesting comment about Vennels Working with ‘dim’ Paula Vennells ‘like dealing with a mosquito’, former colleague claims

 

[Glitch]

Patterson's weasel words probably had to be checked by the firm's lawyers.

There must be an opportunity for criminal charges against Fujitsu for perjury or PCoJ.

Both him and the current PO CEO stonewalled most of the MPs questions today, saying they hope the truth comes out in the official inquiry. They must have seen the evidence and know what went on.

 

[Jacob]

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/hold-fujitsu-to-account-for-post-office-scandal

 

[Fergie 307]

Patterson's weasel words probably had to be checked by the firm's lawyers.

There must be an opportunity for criminal charges against Fujitsu for perjury or PCoJ.

Both him and the current PO CEO stonewalled most of the MPs questions today, saying they hope the truth comes out in the official inquiry. They must have seen the evidence and know what went on.

As I said in an earlier post the prosecution are obliged to disclose to the defence any material which might assist the defence, or which undermines the prosecution case. as far as I am aware this applies to the PO in exactly the same way as it does to the police, CPS or anyone else bringing a prosecution.
The known issues with Horizon clearly fell into both categories, and yet were not disclosed. To get to PCOJ I would think you would have to prove that whoever was responsible for this process deliberately withheld this material for the very reasons that should have obliged them to disclose it. Very probably the case, proving it is another matter.
The other possibility is that the investigators didn't understand these obligations, and so the material was not disclosed due to incompetence rather than anything else. I suspect this is the line the PO will adopt. Looking at the knuckle dragger of an "investigator" they had giving evidence, this argument does have some credibility.
Also possible that those responsible for this process were genuinely unaware of the problems, as this had been kept from them. Certainly their investigator's view seems to have been that he was told the Horizon system worked, and that evidence derived from it could be relied upon. He saw no reason to doubt that. If that is true then he certainly couldn't disclose something he didn't know about.
Of course it is now clear that there were plenty in senior management who did know of these issues, and ought to have seen the potential consequences of burying them, both legally and morally.
Plenty of occasions in the past where the Police had lost cases, or had them overturned on appeal for this reason, which is presumably why legislation was introduced to cover it in the first place.

 

[Fergie 307]

I was amused to hear an interview on Radio 4 with the current head of the Post Office Investigations Department, and the revelation that he was a former postman.
Mum worked for the Post Office for many years, working her way up from working on the counter. I can't recall her job title but by the time she retired she was running a number of large sites for them.
She often lamented the quality of their investigators. She told me that virtually all were former postmen or women, and it seemed to be regarded as a bit of a cushy job for the boys and girls as they neared retirement. They were given very little training, and little consideration appeared to be given to their aptitude for this very different job. The result was that, in her opinion, "most couldn't have investigated their way out of a paper bag".
In her opinion there was definitely a culture of not washing the laundry in public, things had to be kept in house. Calling in the Police for example was seen as very bad form.
She retired some 30 years ago, but It seems little has changed.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I found the response of both Post Office and Fujitsu bosses was evasive - intended to create the illusion being supportive of the truth and the the sub-postmaster case, but seeking to avoid saying anything which could give rise to future liability.

In the public sector, management effort required to lose staff who did not want to go was time consuming and resource hungry. I suspect most (including the PO) have departments to which such folk are routinely transferred. It is easier and less public than protracted unfair dismissal cases.

 

[Fergie 307]

Moral obligation? They should have thought of that a bit sooner!
It's the least of their worries - more like an humongous legal obligation involving costs, damages, collapse of the Post Office and possibly Fujitsu itself folding.
But to be realistic - nothing much will happen, like Grenfell Tower or Windrush. If they drag it out long enough everybody will be dead anyway with the rest if us losing interest.
Interesting comment about Vennels Working with ‘dim’ Paula Vennells ‘like dealing with a mosquito’, former colleague claims

I see that the overall boss of Fujitsu has also said much the same. Has to be a positive development, although I share your cynicism as to whether, and how quickly, they will put any money where their mouth is

 

[Glitch]

As I said in an earlier post the prosecution are obliged to disclose to the defence any material which might assist the defence, or which undermines the prosecution case. as far as I am aware this applies to the PO in exactly the same way as it does to the police, CPS or anyone else bringing a prosecution.
The known issues with Horizon clearly fell into both categories, and yet were not disclosed. To get to PCOJ I would think you would have to prove that whoever was responsible for this process deliberately withheld this material for the very reasons that should have obliged them to disclose it. Very probably the case, proving it is another matter.
The other possibility is that the investigators didn't understand these obligations, and so the material was not disclosed due to incompetence rather than anything else. I suspect this is the line the PO will adopt. Looking at the knuckle dragger of an "investigator" they had giving evidence, this argument does have some credibility.
Also possible that those responsible for this process were genuinely unaware of the problems, as this had been kept from them. Certainly their investigator's view seems to have been that he was told the Horizon system worked, and that evidence derived from it could be relied upon. He saw no reason to doubt that. If that is true then he certainly couldn't disclose something he didn't know about.
Of course it is now clear that there were plenty in senior management who did know of these issues, and ought to have seen the potential consequences of burying them, both legally and morally.
Plenty of occasions in the past where the Police had lost cases, or had them overturned on appeal for this reason, which is presumably why legislation was introduced to cover it in the first place.

I think the term 'Investigators' is used loosely by the PO.

AIUI they were financially incentivised to recover missing funds. They were not there to find the root cause of the discrepancies.

Sounds like the all different areas worked in silos. As you suggest they will no doubt claim ignorance of the full process and the relevance of data they had.

The knowledge must have converged at some point though. Vennells and some of her management team must have known. As would her predecessors involved since 1998.

They sacrificed sub-postmasters to protect the brand, especially in respect of massive contracts with the likes of DVLA and DHSS.

 

[Jacob]

....

They sacrificed sub-postmasters to protect the brand, especially in respect of massive contracts with the likes of DVLA and DHSS.

They also had a weak and feeble CEO on their side and are lining Vennels up as the scape goat.

 

[Fergie 307]

They also had a weak and feeble CEO on their side and are lining Vennels up as the scape goat.

No fan of Vennels, but she does appear to have been the one holding the parcel when the music stopped. She should certainly be in the dock herself, but alongside her predecessors and many others. Could get a little crowded

 

[selectortone]

Nobody ever went to prison for the Hillsborough disaster, nobody has been prosecuted for Grenfell, nobody has been prosecuted for the gross malice surrounding the Windrush deportations and many still haven't received their compensation. I'll put money on no one ever being prosecuted for the disgusting self-enrichment that surrounds the PPE scandal and Michelle Mone hasn't had to give any money back. And so on, and so on.There may be a few knuckles rapped. I'm not holding my breath for prison sentences.