Post Office - Horizon scandal

[Robster59]

Angela van den Bogerd, another one who didn't know anything about it. This is going to be the common theme. Admit no knowledge (despite the long time she worked there) and hope that ignorance will get them off.
I fear that those responsible will get off with nothing more than a slap on the hand and a large pension.

 

[Ross61]

I wish I could have had a job like Angela van den Bogerd. She didn’t need to read her emails, didn’t go to meetings. Didn’t need to follow up any thing. Just rake in the money and not have any responsibility for anything. Just assume somebody else was sorting out any problems. Cushy!

 

[Hobbit]

An interesting morning’s session with Angela van den Bogerd. Jason Beers KC really put her through the mill at around the 1 hour mark about when she was made aware of Fujitsu’s ability to remote access the Horizon system. The first email she received about it was in Dec 2010, and then one month later in Jan 2011. As various points were raised surrounding different aspects of cases, the messaging outwardly was it couldn’t be done. Years were to pass before that bombshell was shared with defence teams.

Without going through the 2+ hours of Jason Beers KC continually referring back to the Dec 2010 & Jan 2011 emails to prove she knew, he showed time and again that the messaging and abuse of legal privilege to hide damning evidence was well known by senior management.

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence, and one that @Billysboots can confirm, is the potential perjury in her witness statement given to the group litigation case. In Nov 2018, in her written statement, she said she’d only known about the remote access for about one year. Jason Beers KC led her down the path to that witness statement for over an hour, detailing a number of emails from Dec 2010 onwards in which she was clearly made aware of it and had numerous communications back and forth about it. And then asked why she’d said that in Nov 2018 when there are numerous examples that her knowledge predated that. Clearly, that witness statement is inaccurate on her part. Accidental by her?

 

[Billysboots]

An interesting morning’s session with Angela van den Bogerd. Jason Beers KC really put her through the mill at around the 1 hour mark about when she was made aware of Fujitsu’s ability to remote access the Horizon system. The first email she received about it was in Dec 2010, and then one month later in Jan 2011. As various points were raised surrounding different aspects of cases, the messaging outwardly was it couldn’t be done. Years were to pass before that bombshell was shared with defence teams.

Without going through the 2+ hours of Jason Beers KC continually referring back to the Dec 2010 & Jan 2011 emails to prove she knew, he showed time and again that the messaging and abuse of legal privilege to hide damning evidence was well known by senior management.

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence, and one that @Billysboots can confirm, is the potential perjury in her witness statement given to the group litigation case. In Nov 2018, in her written statement, she said she’d only known about the remote access for about one year. Jason Beers KC led her down the path to that witness statement for over an hour, detailing a number of emails from Dec 2010 onwards in which she was clearly made aware of it and had numerous communications back and forth about it. And then asked why she’d said that in Nov 2018 when there are numerous examples that her knowledge predated that. Clearly, that witness statement is inaccurate on her part. Accidental by her?

Not perjury as such, as the offence of perjury is committed when someone lies under oath - generally, therefore, once they have been sworn in to give evidence before a Court.

 

[D-S]

We watched for the first time today (inspired by Hobbit’s interesting reporting on it). Fascinating, watching the KC dismantle her ‘ignorance’ shield. The icing on the cake would have been her being arrested at the end. I also get the feeling that they are busy teeing up the even higher ups for some seriously difficult questions (and hopefully consequences) - hope so anyway.

 

[Hobbit]

We watched for the first time today (inspired by Hobbit’s interesting reporting on it). Fascinating, watching the KC dismantle her ‘ignorance’ shield. The icing on the cake would have been her being arrested at the end. I also get the feeling that they are busy teeing up the even higher ups for some seriously difficult questions (and hopefully consequences) - hope so anyway.

It’s been a very interesting 5 days, starting with Rodric Williams, senior solicitor for the PO. I just can’t square how someone can appear to be so Mr McGoo-ish yet rise to the position he did in such a big organisation. Gut feel; surely he can’t be that stupid, and he’s using stupidity to hide the truth.

Susan Crichton, General Counsel to the PO, followed Williams. At least she came across as more human and genuinely sorry for what transpired. Without going through a mountain of detail, her departure from the PO over the legal rules on Disclosure showed she was trying to be professional. Her legal advice followed the law without bias whereas others at board level wanted to manipulate the law, e.g. using legal privilege and confidentiality to limit disclosure. Gut feel; Guilty by association, and too weak at board level. Vennells supported her to her face but emails from Vennells to other board members painted that support as a lie.

Chris Aujard, Company Secretary & General Counsel to the PO, followed Crichton. TBH, I didn’t watch a huge amount from him. A very accomplished professional, probably close to being on a par with Jason Beers KC. He could put a glass eye to sleep. There didn’t seem to be much information to trip him up, and he was pretty much “untrippable.” Bearing in mind what we’ve seen in terms of dodgy emails etc, he’s got to have known what was going on. Gut feel; I don’t have one.

Which brings us to Angela van den Bogerd… more to follow.

 

[Billysboots]

Just spent 15 minutes watching Angela van den Bogerd being made to look like a hard nosed liar. I know this isn’t supposed to be entertaining in any way shape or form, but time and again the barrister is teeing her up, and time and again you can see what’s coming - yet more evidence that this odious woman could not lie straight in bed.

I genuinely don’t know whether to laugh, or to weep for the victims of this outrageous scandal. She should be behind bars.

 

[D-S]

The ‘tougher’ cross examination just before lunch would have been a joy to watch if it wasn’t for the tragedy these people caused.

 

[Billysboots]

The ‘tougher’ cross examination just before lunch would have been a joy to watch if it wasn’t for the tragedy these people caused.

And I’m genuinely wrestling with my emotions for that very reason.

Anyone who has ever seen barristers in action will understand their tactics, and can see precisely what they are doing - leading the person giving evidence towards an answer they already know. There’s no doubt that van den Bogerd can also see it. She knows where the line of questioning is taking her, she can do absolutely nothing to stop it, other than squirm and try and minimise the damage.

She’s very poor at it, and at every turn is simply making matter worse for herself and her employers.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Its blatantly obvious they all knew of the problems and they were persecuting innocent people, but their own pride refused to stop getting in the way. There needs to be some serious punishment for all involved, no matter what the rank, but I seriously doubt there will be meaninful punshiment handed out for any amount of reasons, some of which may be which Government ministers knew then and now.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Punishment.
Loss of liberty is what we have in this country.

It is right that these current proceedings are taking place, but it is giving the perpetrators of the misconduct some practice time at deflecting blame away from themselves before they are charged with criminal offences.
If these hearings lead to criminal charges it could be next year or the year after before we see any verdict or punishment of individuals.
Plenty of paid work for lawyers of course.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Punishment.
Loss of liberty is what we have in this country.

It is right that these current proceedings are taking place, but it is giving the perpetrators of the misconduct some practice time at deflecting blame away from themselves before they are charged with criminal offences.
If these hearings lead to criminal charges it could be next year or the year after before we see any verdict or punishment of individuals.
Plenty of paid work for lawyers of course.

Plus they should all have to repay any bonuses, saleries or any other monies they recieved whilst carrying out these deceitful actions. Infact, they should be made to repay everything they took from the persecuted and chased. If that means being homeless, so be it. Some they persecuted will never see justice or those so guilty getting their comupence but we have to show those in these powers of authority who run State organisations that they are accountable, will be punished and will loose everything just as they have done to those they went after.
We have to make a very big example of these theiving scum who have destroyed countless lives and reputations.

 

[chrisd]

Not perjury as such, as the offence of perjury is committed when someone lies under oath - generally, therefore, once they have been sworn in to give evidence before a Court.

I understand your post, but don't all the interviewees have to swear an oath before giving evidence? If it doesn't mean anything why would they do it?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Plus they should all have to repay any bonuses, saleries or any other monies they recieved whilst carrying out these deceitful actions. Infact, they should be made to repay everything they took from the persecuted and chased. If that means being homeless, so be it. Some they persecuted will never see justice or those so guilty getting their comupence but we have to show those in these powers of authority who run State organisations that they are accountable, will be punished and will loose everything just as they have done to those they went after.
We have to make a very big example of these theiving scum who have destroyed countless lives and reputations.

I understand your sentiments, but taking money away from individuals is not as straightforward as imposing a prison sentence for a crime.

It was/is a state-owned organisation, but run as commercial enterprise. Not exactly a state organisation.
Individuals will be treated the same under the law, whether it is private enterprise, state owned organisation or state organisation, one would hope.

 

[Hobbit]

The first hour or so is a very difficult ‘watch.’ Jason Beers KC does trip her up on a number of occasions, one of which is a beaut… Her evidence here, if just seen as a written statement, is vague enough in some areas to give her a little wriggle room. However, just as with Rodric Williams, she has amazing powers of recollection on some of the insignificant stuff but not for a large amount of the critical stuff. Sorry for my French but that’s…

As for her credibility, the judge in the General Litigation Order trial pretty much nailed it. What she says and what is the truth may vary… The judge says it better, and is brutal.

Below is the morning’s session. Don’t smash your laptop/ipad if you watch it, especially the first 45mins/hour.

 

[Billysboots]

I understand your post, but don't all the interviewees have to swear an oath before giving evidence? If it doesn't mean anything why would they do it?

The query related to a witness statement, Chris. A written statement is not provided under oath.

A person commits the offence of perjury if they lie under oath ie. once they have been sworn in to give evidence.

 

[chrisd]

The query related to a witness statement, Chris. A written statement is not provided under oath.

A person commits the offence of perjury if they lie under oath ie. once they have been sworn in to give evidence.

Let me understand this though

In front of the enquiry they swear an oath that the evidence they give shall be the the truth, blah blah ................
so isn't there a perjury taking place if they then lie with their verbal responses? Or is it that an enquiry doesn't have the power that a court has?

 

[Billysboots]

Let me understand this though

In front of the enquiry they swear an oath that the evidence they give shall be the the truth, blah blah ................
so isn't there a perjury taking place if they then lie with their verbal responses? Or is it that an enquiry doesn't have the power that a court has?

Perjury can certainly be committed in criminal and civil cases. I’m not sure about someone giving evidence before an inquiry such as this.

My gut instinct is that the offence doesn’t apply, but I say this only because so many witnesses have so openly told provable lies. Surely, given the likes of Angela van den Bogerd actually have legal representation at this inquiry, they cannot be so stupid as to tell such obvious lies.

 

[Hobbit]

Perjury can certainly be committed in criminal and civil cases. I’m not sure about someone giving evidence before an inquiry such as this.

My gut instinct is that the offence doesn’t apply, but I say this only because so many witnesses have so openly told provable lies. Surely, given the likes of Angela van den Bogerd actually have legal representation at this inquiry, they cannot be so stupid as to tell such obvious lies.

There are two types of inquiry. A non-statuary inquiry cannot compel witnesses to attend, nor is evidence given under oath. The PO inquiry is a statuary inquiry and has extra powers, including the ability to have subpoenas issued compelling witnesses to attend, which has happened with the PO inquiry, and have evidence given under oath.

Unlike a magistrate’s and Crown court sanctioning for contempt has to go a different route.

 

[Hobbit]

Helen Rose’s name crops up quite a few times in Susan Crichton’s evidence/questioning. I’d missed Helen Rose’s session at the Inquiry, so decided to give it a look over. Bearing in mind the position she rose to within the PO, including the trust shown in her by Paula Vennells, and the positions she has held since leaving the PO she is not a fool.

Watching her at the inquiry, like Rodric Williams, she comes across as a bumbling, full blown amnesiac. Just a side note on Williams, he often said that the mechanics of various investigations were outside of his remit, his area of responsibility being legal advice. Several emails shown in Angela van den Bogerd’s sessions clearly show Williams was very much front and centre in decision making, not just giving legal advice. A Mr McGoo he most certainly isn’t.

There is a report called the Helen Rose report, in which there’s a huge amount of detail around the Lepton Road Sub Post Office issues. She worked very closely with Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu’s (discredited) expert witness, on trying to find out where, or what, were the missing transactions. The report is quite forensic in its detail, and clearly shows that Horizon was creating, duplicating and/or reversing transactions. And it was this report and the actions that followed that led to the PO getting rid of Second Sight and the resignation of Susan Crichton around the PO playing fast and loose with Disclosures.

Below is Helen Rose’s session at the inquiry. For a flavour of Rose’s amnesia, it’s worth a look but you’ll be tearing your hair out at the continual “I can’t recall, I can’t remember.”