ChatterBank1 min ago
Can Someone Explain To Me..........
30 Answers
https:/
...OK the IT system was a shilo pit and got it wrong but surely all you do is run all the transactions outside the system and demonstrate the arithmetic is wrong. If it was me getting accused I'd go through every transaction and verify the provenance and the arithmetic. No way I'd believe the system, so how come so many were prosecuted? Sure it would be simple enough to show the system was flawed?
...OK the IT system was a shilo pit and got it wrong but surely all you do is run all the transactions outside the system and demonstrate the arithmetic is wrong. If it was me getting accused I'd go through every transaction and verify the provenance and the arithmetic. No way I'd believe the system, so how come so many were prosecuted? Sure it would be simple enough to show the system was flawed?
Answers
The essential point of this appeal is that POL withheld the evidence that these people needed. So at the time there was no way out for the unlucky SPMs who were accused -- the defence they needed was unavailable. It's shameful, it betrays a lack of understandin
11:00 Fri 23rd Apr 2021
Many did. It didn't matter. The PO's position at the time was that the Postmasters were liable for any and all discrepancies; if any dared to challenge this they would be dismissed; and it was on the postmasters to prove their innocence, as the system was "robust" and assumed perfect. In those circumstances, it didn't matter if anybody ran the numbers independently, and indeed might even have hurt their case at the time: since there was a responsibility to record all transactions on Horizon, it follows (assuming the system had no errors) that if the numbers disagreed with any independent check, then either the independent check was wrong or the sub-postmaster had lied in entering the Horizon figures.
The more I type the angrier I get. It's despicable.
The more I type the angrier I get. It's despicable.
I agree jim, despicable, and yes no doubt the PO could ignore any challenge but surely if prosecutions are to follow, then a defence is allowed and that would involve both sides having to demonstrate the validity of their transactions. As I work in IT I find this doubly disgusting because if I worked on Horizon and this sort of thing was happening the first thing I'd do is investigate the cases to determine the issue. For that I'd call on the cooperation of those that were in this case being persecuted. No way I'd go straight to prosecution based only on a blind belief that the system was flawless. I work in a major bank, can you imagine if we did that every time things didn't add up!
The essential point of this appeal is that POL withheld the evidence that these people needed. So at the time there was no way out for the unlucky SPMs who were accused -- the defence they needed was unavailable.
It's shameful, it betrays a lack of understanding of the role of an employer, too. It seems to me that for the better part of two decades, the Post Office treated its own employees as criminals until proven otherwise, and was determined to throw the book at them. It beggars belief that anybody in that position could ever think such an approach even remotely appropriate. Where is the understanding of duty of care? Where is the compassion? Why is it naïve to ask these questions, given that in essence this is standard practice (see also the Uber ruling, and for that matter workplace relations since the dawn of time)?
It's shameful, it betrays a lack of understanding of the role of an employer, too. It seems to me that for the better part of two decades, the Post Office treated its own employees as criminals until proven otherwise, and was determined to throw the book at them. It beggars belief that anybody in that position could ever think such an approach even remotely appropriate. Where is the understanding of duty of care? Where is the compassion? Why is it naïve to ask these questions, given that in essence this is standard practice (see also the Uber ruling, and for that matter workplace relations since the dawn of time)?
It's just another example of profits before people - we are firmly under the control of Big Business, and this example shows just how difficult it is to fight back. Thank goodness is was ultimately successful, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but watch the Establishment rush to extinguish it (e.g. severe curtailment of Workers' Rights now we've "escaped" from those Commie Europeans).
This is nothing to do with workers' rights or with the EU. This is a matter of people being convicted of serious criminal offences as a result of an unfair trial. The trials were unfair because large amounts of material which would undermine the prosecution's case were withheld. In particular the Post Office contended throughout that only the individual postmasters had access to the part of the system which recorded their particular transactions whereas in fact it had been long known that many IT staff had unrestricted access to it and could alter it. What needs to happen is for an investigation to take place into the people who provided this evidence (that transactions were under the sole control of the postmasters) with a view to prosecuting them for either perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice.
I should say, in response to NJ, that the reason I'm touching upon workers' rights is related to, eg, the following, quoting Judge Fraser in his civil judgment a couple of years back:
"There can be no excuse, in my judgment, for an entity such as
the Post Office to misstate, in such clearly express terms, in
letters that threaten legal action, the extent of the contractual
obligation upon a SPM for losses. The only reason for doing so,
in my judgment, must have been to lead the recipients to believe
that they had absolutely no option but to pay the sums demanded.
It is oppressive behaviour."
See also this, from a 2010 internal report:
"It is also important to be crystal clear about any review [into possible Horizon failings] if one were commissioned – any investigation would need to be disclosed in court. Although we would be doing the review to comfort others, any perception that POL doubts its own systems would mean that all criminal prosecutions would have to be stayed."
A curious approach, in my view, to the pursuit of truth. It had in essence been decided that an independent review was too risky, because it might show that the convictions were unsafe. Well, if that were the case, isn't it in the interests of justice to say so?
I fully accept that, from a legal standpoint, the appeals were successful because of failure to disclose evidence. But it seems to me that the evidence wasn't disclosed because POL had decided that its employees were guilty, decided that it wasn't in their interests to investigate further, and decided that it was more important to show "strength" than to care about the truth.
"There can be no excuse, in my judgment, for an entity such as
the Post Office to misstate, in such clearly express terms, in
letters that threaten legal action, the extent of the contractual
obligation upon a SPM for losses. The only reason for doing so,
in my judgment, must have been to lead the recipients to believe
that they had absolutely no option but to pay the sums demanded.
It is oppressive behaviour."
See also this, from a 2010 internal report:
"It is also important to be crystal clear about any review [into possible Horizon failings] if one were commissioned – any investigation would need to be disclosed in court. Although we would be doing the review to comfort others, any perception that POL doubts its own systems would mean that all criminal prosecutions would have to be stayed."
A curious approach, in my view, to the pursuit of truth. It had in essence been decided that an independent review was too risky, because it might show that the convictions were unsafe. Well, if that were the case, isn't it in the interests of justice to say so?
I fully accept that, from a legal standpoint, the appeals were successful because of failure to disclose evidence. But it seems to me that the evidence wasn't disclosed because POL had decided that its employees were guilty, decided that it wasn't in their interests to investigate further, and decided that it was more important to show "strength" than to care about the truth.
Your last paragraph is spot on, Jim. I have been following this saga closely in Private Eye and they did an excellent synopsis of the affair when the criminal trials had concluded. It was clear from the outset that the PO was going to brook no resistance from their SPMs. I can understand them taking this stance (after a proper investigation) when the first one or two had reported shortfalls. But when large numbers did likewise they had a duty to investigate properly. Come to that so did the the CPS. There was far too much acceptance and defence of the system's integrity whereas thorough investigations should have been held.
// NJ what happens to the people who plead guilty to a lesser charge - is that expunged too? or is the fact the plead guilty proof of guilt?//
All convictions, including of those who pled guilty (whether to a lesser offence or not), have been quashed when the evidence was deemed to have been based entirely on Horizon data. In four cases, the Post Office conceded the appeal entirely, in part because the guilty pleas were often made on the basis of what amounts to a threat along the lines of "say Horizon was perfect or else we'll destroy you".
All convictions, including of those who pled guilty (whether to a lesser offence or not), have been quashed when the evidence was deemed to have been based entirely on Horizon data. In four cases, the Post Office conceded the appeal entirely, in part because the guilty pleas were often made on the basis of what amounts to a threat along the lines of "say Horizon was perfect or else we'll destroy you".
