How it Works0 min ago
The Post Office Scandal Continues
In this snippet from today’s proceedings at the Post Office scandal enquiry, the PO investigator revealed that despite thorough investigations as to where the missing money was that the post masters/mistresses had stolen (and not being able to find any) – he was asked if he investigated whether any money was actually missing (which he did not).
If the Horizon system was showing say a £50k shortfall, there must have been some record on the computer system as to what had been sold (e.g. loads of stamps or other items that had not been issued to the branch).
It should have been a very simple matter from any one of the Horizon discrepancy cases to determine that the computer system was at fault, with even a cursory examination of the computer records.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I can't understand it either. I can't see it would be enough to say "there's a shortfall of £10000 - we know because the system tells us". Was any sort of listing produced showing what was paid in and what was paid out and then an attempt made to reconcile it? Was it all cash? Was it one transaction they were deemed to have pocketed or lots of smaller ones? Did the legal defence teams never pursue this?
"I can't see it would be enough to say "there's a shortfall of £10000 - we know because the system tells us". "
They can. And they did.
To understand why, we need to look back to 1984 and s69 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act. When first enacted, this section said that if the prosecution were to rely on any documentation produced by a computer, they must prove that it was operating properly at the relevant time before a document produced by it could be admitted as evidence.
In 1984 that wasn’t too much of a problem. As the volumes of computer evidence increased, this requirement became burdensome and inconvenient. Reviewing the problems faced by prosecutors, the Law Commission considered the law to be unsatisfactory and expressed its view that PACE 1984 s69 served ‘no useful purpose’. It proposed that it should be repealed (and not replaced) with the effect that:
‘In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time.’
Accordingly, s69 was repealed by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the law now makes the presumption recommended by the Law Commission. This had a fundamental effect on the burden of proof – in fact it reversed it and it now rests with the defendant to prove that a computer is not working correctly if he wants to rebut any evidence provided by it.
Of course this made the task of those defending the SPMs virtually impossible. The prosecution relied on results produced by Horizon, which was deemed reliable unless it could be proved otherwise. The defence did not have access to the workings of Horizon and in any case it would probably take work from a team of experts to unpick the system and find faults.
Of course there’s plenty more besides, such as non-disclosure of evidence and the undoubted uttering of false evidence by some witnesses. But the 1999 change to PACE gave the prosecution a huge advantage. When the change was enacted the Law Society said it had been introduced alongside an assumption that it would operate fairly. They said they believed it “…would be interpreted in such a way as to ensure that the presumption did not result in a conviction merely because the defence had failed to adduce evidence of malfunction which it was in no position to adduce. We believe, …that such a regime would work fairly.”
The rest, as they say, is history.
Interestingly Mt Bates himself was not prosecuted, mainly because he refused to sign anything and continually asked for a list of all the transactions that were used to arrive at the claimed shortfall. Of course that was never provided because it would have made it clear that the software was wrong. He was hounded out of the post office of course but was not prosecuted. Most of those prosecuted were bullied into pleading guilty to avoid prison, sometimes of a lesser charge of false accounting.
James Arbuthnot (former MP, now Lord) on that C4 News link: "It is clear that the Post Office (Paula Vennells) lied to the Parliamentary Select Committee in 2015."
They have done the worst thing possible: they've cocked up and then, rather than confessing that they've cocked up, they've covered it up by lying at the highest level, making the cover-up worse than the original cock-up. Heads will roll ...
//there must have been some record on the computer system //
You would hope so but back then most systems had 'back doors'. Used many of them in different companies over the years. I worked at one major blue chip company where I could write untracked programs in production that changed figures. For my protection I always kept a paper trail but not everyone did.
Nevertheless they should have been able to audit what the Postmasters/Mistresses had entered pretty easily. Quick adhoc program (about 2 hours work) should have done it.
I can't believe nobody questioned why a piddling little village post office was supposedly taking in many thousands of pounds in a week, when records must show that their usual turnover would probably only be in the hundreds. Also why none of these so called fraudsters were not living a life of luxury with fast cars and foreign holidays, when in reality they were struggling to make the payments they were told were owed and took out loans to meet them.
“Nevertheless they should have been able to audit what the Postmasters/Mistresses had entered pretty easily. Quick adhoc program (about 2 hours work) should have done it.”
But the Post Office (as prosecutors) did not need to, youngmaf (see above) and the defendants didn’t have the access to the system which would have been required to perform such an audit.
“I can't believe nobody questioned why a piddling little village post office was supposedly taking in many thousands of pounds in a week, when records must show that their usual turnover would probably only be in the hundreds. Also why none of these so called fraudsters were not living a life of luxury with fast cars and foreign holidays, when in reality they were struggling to make the payments they were told were owed and took out loans to meet them.”
This is the one thing I cannot get my head round. Some of the sums that allegedly went missing in these post offices were quite large – tens of thousands of pounds. In some cases I imagine the sums involved probably exceeded their weekly turnover, maybe considerably so. As well as that, many, if not all of the SPMs were of impeccable previous good character. This, in fact was a requirement before they were granted their stewardship. Yet suddenly, and coincidentally with the introduction of Horizon, many hundreds of them were at it. A simple dose of common sense would have set alarm bells ringing but it is as if those factors were not considered.
There was also a huge deficiency in the investigations carried out by the Post Office. When the sub postmasters were being investigated the supposed missing cash was attempted to be found but it never was because there was no missing cash, it never existed hence in many cases the sub post masters were convinced to plead guilty to false accounting. In fact they were guilty of this, but only to their own detriment when they made up, from their own funds, cash which was never missing at all.
“Is it possible that they were creaming off funds themselves which is why the system didn't balance.”
It seems that the cash the SPMs paid to make good the false losses finished up in the PO’s profit and loss account. The profit (or reduced loss) indicated by that account was used to calculate the performance bonuses of senior executives.
This is a miscarriage of justice on an epic scale. Heads should roll, but somehow I have a nasty suspicion that they won’t. Furthermore there is lots of talk of compensation. As one SPM correctly pointed out, what they are firstly asking for is not compensation at all – it is repayment of sums which they paid under the threat of prosecution, to make good “missing” cash which was never missing at all.
Any sums paid out by the postmasters/mistresses must be returned as a matter of urgency.
And these sums must be completely ignored when calculating the amount of compensation due to those unfortunate to have been caught up in this scandal.
Gold-plated pensions, handshakes and the like must be withdrawn from those complicit in this embarrassment and used to pay-back those wronged.
This is a national scandal and every transgression needs to be exposed and publicised far and wide.
Thanks NJ for the explanation at 22.49.
That presumption of evidence is yet another thing that should change, the PO were judge and jury in these cases and the right to bring prosecutions should be permanently removed from them.
In future , is it feasible/possible for a team of independent IT experts to be established along the lines of DPP. I cant see the Police being in a position to do this or to have the reputational transparent capacity to do this.
The public outcry is well merited, I do hope something can be done to stop something like this happening again. Like a large number of people I would love to see criminal prosecutions for the top dogs in the PO but I suspect inaction will creep in
1 to 18 of 18
