I've Talked About This Before But I Trhink We Need To Revisit........

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60374182
It just beggars belief that anyone could have been prosecuted, surely all they had to do was produce a list of transactions and do the arithmetic independently. I just cannot see how any of these cases could possibly be proven. All I would do is get them to agree on the transactions then get the arithmetic done independently. It seems the PO chiefs were telling the courts that 2+2=5 and they were getting believed. The SPMs where even putting their own money in! FGS! shameful episode.

[tiggerblue10]

Fair enough.

[tomus42]

Software companies always know when they've got a product that isn't working properly. Bugs were being reported by the people training the users.

Essentially the people that knew stood by and let others they knew to be innocent go to prison.

They need to be named, charged, and hopefully imprisoned themselves.

[youngmafbog]

I'm with you on this TTT having also spent a lifetime in IT and like you say most of the big systems still run old mainframe languages, most cheques (and yes there are still many of them) for instance run on a Unisys!

The problem was the PO would not accept their system was wrong so I doubt they would release the data, probably hid behind 'privacy'.

The evil woman Vennells and others who partook in perverting the course of justice should be tried and where guilty sent to prison. They should also have their property confiscated (as happened to some of the submasters) to pay for the compensation. Evil people.

[ToraToraTora]

YMB: "The problem was the PO would not accept their system was wrong so I doubt they would release the data, probably hid behind 'privacy'. " - yes no doubt but surely the "theft" would have needed to be demonstrated and that would need the transactions to be available to the prosecution and by definition the defence. If they were withheld there is no evidence, no proof. I don't see how anyone pleading not guilty could have been convicted, even without a half decent brief.

[youngmafbog]

You would have thought so TTT, but need to look at what was said.

I suspect that the Jury was baffled with BS. The main problem with fraud and IT is the jury simply dont have the capacity or knowledge to understand. I doubt the prosecution and defence were much better either.

[vulcan42]

YMB You're absolutely right regarding lawyers. In a case my company was involved in, neither prosecution or defence knew anything about a technical issue. This resulted in the two lawyers and our expert leaving the court literally every few minutes to discuss a particular point. I don't see how anybody can do their job properly if they don't understand what they're talking about.

[jim360]

How many of the judgments surrounding the case have you read, TTT? As I posted before, I share your anger at this, so this isn't a criticism at all, but many of the answers to your questions lie there in the first instance. The leadership at HMPO decided very early on, with no apparent basis, that Horizon was correct and flawless, and decided to stick to this line for nigh on two decades, and to persecute anybody and everybody who dared to challenge that line. I don't think I'll ever understand why this was their decision: there's something incomprehensible to me in the mentality that led to the leaders at HMPO to do so. What is so dangerous about asking questions, about self-checking, about reflecting on a clear pattern that was emerging? Especially when the consequences of that pathetic lack of quality control were that hundreds of people lost their livelihoods, their reputation, and even their lives, dying in a disgrace that they did not for a second deserve. It's disgusting.

[ToraToraTora]

....but we've seen this before on tech subjects they call in tech experts, they would have given the data to independent experts etc. I'd love to see what actually took place in these trials.

[ToraToraTora]

jim: "The leadership at HMPO decided very early on, with no apparent basis, that Horizon was correct and flawless, and decided to stick to this line for nigh on two decades, and to persecute anybody and everybody who dared to challenge that line. " - yes indeed but there is an obvious defence I don't see why it wasn't taken by any of the 700 or so that were involved. As I said above, I'd love to know what happened in the court cases. Did the prosecution just say to the jury, "our system is perfect, therefore these people are thieves"? Surely they have the right to a defence to the same data the prosecution needed to convict? Something is just very wrong here, it's as if the PO were in cahoots with the courts. We later hear that the system was at fault, that must have been demonstrated at some point.

[jim360]

In a good number of these cases there was no trial. The PO threatened the defendants with a worse punishment if they dared to challenge the charges, so many backed down.

It goes without saying that threatening a defendant in such a way is itself a serious problem, and part of the reason that the sentences were not only overturned, but also the charges themselves, and the PO's conduct, described as "an affront to the conscience of the court". This is about as serious as such a judgment can be.

[ToraToraTora]

when said and done a PO system is simply a bookkeeping system, they all work on a ledger transaction basis, I'd a written a program to read the data independently and generate the answers according to the function spec, then compare with the Horizon system, then investigate and resolve any discrepancies. That, I suspect if what the Fujistu team probably did to find the bugs.

[jim360]

Here's the full judgment from the Court of Appeal:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Hamilton-Others-v-Post-Office-judgment-230421.pdf

I'll try to answer your questions later, I should be getting on with my day really. For a full context, you should perhaps also read Fraser J's judgement, but since it comes to some 200,000 words, ie the length of a typical novel, I'll not blame you for passing on that.

But the short of it is that POL withheld evidence, and withheld even the existence of such evidence, so that most defendants didn't even realise they could make a case for their defence. They were lied to. The courts were lied to. The jury were lied to.

[ToraToraTora]

Jim: "But the short of it is that POL withheld evidence, and withheld even the existence of such evidence, so that most defendants didn't even realise they could make a case for their defence. They were lied to. The courts were lied to. The jury were lied to. "
ok jim thanks, well then I look forward to prosecutions for perjury and PTCOJ.

[jim360]

I fear such prosecutions will never come. But I seriously, seriously hope they do.