clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Can I add to that where is the money the PMs put in out of their own pockets.?
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
The black hole that is Post Office finances. Just absorbed into the pot.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Yes but to accuse and convict someone of fraud there must be a paper trail to show where the money is!
Mind you were talking corruption on a grand scale here.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I don't believe that is true.
The evidence is there to show that many postmasters paid money to the Post Office. What the Post Office did with that money upon receipt is not needed to be scrutinised.
Post Office took money from postmasters in a fraudulent manner. This should be provable.
Post Office senior managers knew that the software was at fault, but proceeded with bogus convictions and then tried to cover up the facts about their knowledge of the faulty software.
And they continue to tell lies.
The money recovered, falsely taken from the SPMR’s, went into what is called a suspense account as at that time it wasn’t revenue gained from trading. Once it had been in the suspense account for a period of time it was transferred into the general trading account and shown as an income.
Second Sight, the independent company brought by the PO to carry out a forensic audit, asked for details of the suspense account and how the money was differentiated from other monies that went into the suspense account. The PO wouldn’t tell them which has led to continued speculation about just how much was ‘recovered’ from the SPMR’s. And some SPMR’s, who have had their convictions overturned, still haven’t had their money back.
Bearing in mind this money had no buy in costs for product it went into the general trading account at 100% profit, and as it amounted to a significant amount every year it will have had a positive impact on the overall profit.
And guess what the senior management’s bonuses were calculated against? In theory, those bonuses need retrospectively adjusting to take into account the money that should be returned to the SPMR’s.
rulefan
Tour Winner
My question seems to have been hijacked.
Sorry, I missed it. In terms of transactions within a branch, no it would appear that there is a terminal I.D. but not a user I.D. It’s not been said specifically but what has been said was where branches had a number of staff it was hard to determine who was using the terminal at any given time. That suggests there wasn’t user ID’s.
In terms of who was making changes to branch accounts via the backdoor/key users at Fujitsu, it only showed up as being a change made in branch.
Also, one of the bugs actually changed and/or duplicated transactions. One of the Change Requests the PO I.T. requested was that system generated changes should also generate a unique transaction code that would show in the ARQ data as a system error. There was also a suggestion put forward that if a system transaction was generated that a subroutine would generate a transaction reversal but the idea was dropped from a legal/accounting issue. Unfortunately, having generated the Change Request the PO I.T. never pursued the request, and it was never implemented.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Thanks. That's the impression that I was getting. Basically no built-in system audit. 'Who did exactly what and when'.
A 20 minute snip from the questioning of Fujitsu’s boss. Another witness who, refreshingly, appears totally open and honest.
Perhaps his most damning response; all known bugs were reported to the PO immediately.
Typically of a large piece of software there are almost always bugs. In Horizon’s case there were 29 known bugs dating back to its initial launch in 1999. One of them was ‘in the system’ for between 6 & 10 years, impacting transactions. The PO knew of them from the outset, as evidenced by the questioning of David Miller, PO’s Operations Director & Programme Director.
Known by the PO but never shared to the defence teams. The PO was clearly in breach of the laws on Disclosure, and thus KNOWINGLY perverted the course of justice.
Perhaps his most damning response; all known bugs were reported to the PO immediately.
Typically of a large piece of software there are almost always bugs. In Horizon’s case there were 29 known bugs dating back to its initial launch in 1999. One of them was ‘in the system’ for between 6 & 10 years, impacting transactions. The PO knew of them from the outset, as evidenced by the questioning of David Miller, PO’s Operations Director & Programme Director.
Known by the PO but never shared to the defence teams. The PO was clearly in breach of the laws on Disclosure, and thus KNOWINGLY perverted the course of justice.
chrisd
Major Champion
Perjury too?
May 7th’s afternoon session with Belinda Cortes-Martin, Programme Director. Again, the impression is an awful lot of the day was building towards a brutal final 20 mins. Although she comes across more transparent than a number of previous witnesses there are a number of comprehensive trip ups that show her to be quite central in removing Second Sight from the review process, and the concerns raised by her about litigation against individual board members. Why would she even be concerned about that? What did she know, or perceive, that led her to that concern?
As Second Sight started to ask difficult questions, the strategy from the PO was to get rid of them and have an in-house team complete the review. The in-house review team would then only ask questions that wouldn’t lead to embarrassing answers. This would make Disclosure a lot easier as there wouldn’t be anything controversial to disclose.
Cortes-Martin’s openness and transparency is, in itself, very revealing when difficult questions are asked. Obviously she has a decent memory of events, evidenced by some comprehensive answers to easy questions which only serves to give a glaring contrast to how she answers the difficult questions - very much a rabbit in the headlight thing which reveals so much.
As Second Sight started to ask difficult questions, the strategy from the PO was to get rid of them and have an in-house team complete the review. The in-house review team would then only ask questions that wouldn’t lead to embarrassing answers. This would make Disclosure a lot easier as there wouldn’t be anything controversial to disclose.
Cortes-Martin’s openness and transparency is, in itself, very revealing when difficult questions are asked. Obviously she has a decent memory of events, evidenced by some comprehensive answers to easy questions which only serves to give a glaring contrast to how she answers the difficult questions - very much a rabbit in the headlight thing which reveals so much.
Quite a dry day in terms of the back and forth with Brian Altman KC, a very senior barrister who advised the PO. The morning session saw hints of the PO not giving all the info to him thus ensuring they got the (skewed) advice from him they wanted. He comes across very principled but there is the use of semantics by him in the afternoon session as to where he drew the line about elements of Disclosure. He felt very strongly about the rules on Disclosure but if the element of an appeals case he was dealing with didn’t require Disclosure he didn’t offer up new Disclosure evidence that had come to light since the initial prosecution.
Personally, I don’t know the rules around Disclosure for an appeal. I know the prosecution has a duty to disclose at the initial trial… Sam Stein KC went to town on Altman at around 1:30 in the afternoon session about that lack of Disclosure at appeal. Altman KC batted the inferences away very well. Beer KC & the Chair, Sir Wyn, made the point that the question had previously been asked and answered. Quite a tetchy interchange.
Edit; just to touch on my first paragraph above, I’ve just heard the closing minutes of the session. Mr Henry asks him the very question, was he set up to give specific advice by the way the PO played him. Altman’s response is quite interesting. It was almost a penny dropping moment. “Mmm, that’s an interesting proposition…”
Personally, I don’t know the rules around Disclosure for an appeal. I know the prosecution has a duty to disclose at the initial trial… Sam Stein KC went to town on Altman at around 1:30 in the afternoon session about that lack of Disclosure at appeal. Altman KC batted the inferences away very well. Beer KC & the Chair, Sir Wyn, made the point that the question had previously been asked and answered. Quite a tetchy interchange.
Edit; just to touch on my first paragraph above, I’ve just heard the closing minutes of the session. Mr Henry asks him the very question, was he set up to give specific advice by the way the PO played him. Altman’s response is quite interesting. It was almost a penny dropping moment. “Mmm, that’s an interesting proposition…”
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
Just to expand a little on did the PO with hold evidence from Brian Altman KC so as the advice he gave was skewed, see post#532 above.
If we rewind a little to the beginning of the morning session, Altman is led through how the PO came to the conclusion they needed a heavy hitter to be seen to be giving advice. They wanted someone who was revered in legal circles, who had great connections in high places and whose advice would almost be unquestionable. Altman’s CV is stellar, e.g. First Counsel to the Treasury, all laid out in his bio given to the Inquiry. This would allow the PO to say we’ve sought independent legal advice from xyz, who has reviewed the evidence…
As the morning session progressed, he was led through different advices he’d given, typically supported with showing different emails and minutes of the internal discussions he was having with the PO. On a number of occasions he was asked if he’d be given the evidence of X or Y to help him make that determination. Several times he was shown emails between different PO executives in which specific bugs/elements of evidence were discussed and asked if he’d been made aware of those bugs etc.
And it was this process that led me to believe he’d been played by the PO, the very question asked by Mr Henry KC late on in the afternoon session. Brian Altman KC is nobody’s fool, and if it was becoming an obvious, possible conclusion to those viewing his session, and for Mr Henry KC to ask it he will be asking it of himself too.
If we rewind a little to the beginning of the morning session, Altman is led through how the PO came to the conclusion they needed a heavy hitter to be seen to be giving advice. They wanted someone who was revered in legal circles, who had great connections in high places and whose advice would almost be unquestionable. Altman’s CV is stellar, e.g. First Counsel to the Treasury, all laid out in his bio given to the Inquiry. This would allow the PO to say we’ve sought independent legal advice from xyz, who has reviewed the evidence…
As the morning session progressed, he was led through different advices he’d given, typically supported with showing different emails and minutes of the internal discussions he was having with the PO. On a number of occasions he was asked if he’d be given the evidence of X or Y to help him make that determination. Several times he was shown emails between different PO executives in which specific bugs/elements of evidence were discussed and asked if he’d been made aware of those bugs etc.
And it was this process that led me to believe he’d been played by the PO, the very question asked by Mr Henry KC late on in the afternoon session. Brian Altman KC is nobody’s fool, and if it was becoming an obvious, possible conclusion to those viewing his session, and for Mr Henry KC to ask it he will be asking it of himself too.
Quite an interesting morning session with Simon Clarke, independent solicitor instructed by the PO to review ongoing prosecutions and to provide general advice. Quite open and transparent with his answers. His response early on to something he couldn’t recall was refreshing. He said that he might not remember something but if his name was against it in an email/advice then yes he most certainly sent it.
Some may remember that it was he who highlighted the shredding instruction sent out by John Scott, Head of Security. His (strong) advice was that was a massive no. It was Clarke that suggested that a central hub for all evidence so that nothing fell through the cracks. And it was him that very forcibly ensured that proper Disclosure should take place. It was he that found out that Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu’s expert witness for the prosecutions, had with held evidence in a number of cases but subsequently shared it with Second Sight for inclusion in their report. He also asked for, and got, a pause in prosecutions whilst proper Disclosure of the Second Sight & Helen Rose reports was actioned.
And, unsurprisingly, he was another independent advisor who the PO became uncomfortable with. Susan Crichton, who came across reasonably well two weeks ago, suggested he should be dropped. He gives a decent insight into what some of the senior players were really like, somewhat at odds to the forgetful, bumbling individuals we’ve seen in the Inquiry. Jarnail Singh, the Head of Criminal Law for the PO sold himself as just a bit part player, “just an articled clerk.” Yet he appears as a central contact and conduit into the PO for Clarke.
Some may remember that it was he who highlighted the shredding instruction sent out by John Scott, Head of Security. His (strong) advice was that was a massive no. It was Clarke that suggested that a central hub for all evidence so that nothing fell through the cracks. And it was him that very forcibly ensured that proper Disclosure should take place. It was he that found out that Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu’s expert witness for the prosecutions, had with held evidence in a number of cases but subsequently shared it with Second Sight for inclusion in their report. He also asked for, and got, a pause in prosecutions whilst proper Disclosure of the Second Sight & Helen Rose reports was actioned.
And, unsurprisingly, he was another independent advisor who the PO became uncomfortable with. Susan Crichton, who came across reasonably well two weeks ago, suggested he should be dropped. He gives a decent insight into what some of the senior players were really like, somewhat at odds to the forgetful, bumbling individuals we’ve seen in the Inquiry. Jarnail Singh, the Head of Criminal Law for the PO sold himself as just a bit part player, “just an articled clerk.” Yet he appears as a central contact and conduit into the PO for Clarke.
The first 20mins of the afternoon session sees Simon Clarke throw the senior leadership team of the Post Office under the bus. He goes further than Brian Altman in terms of saying that the PO deliberately withheld evidence from him so as to skew the advice he gave to the PO. He states that he has watched a number of the PO legal team being interviewed by the Inquiry and has seen a number of documents revealed at the Inquiry that he hadn’t seen previously, some of which he’d specifically asked for, which had he seen would have led to his advice being very different.
He’s not shy in owning his own actions and saying he got things wrong but caveats the level of blame by saying his actions were, in the main, determined by what was shared with him at the time. And he’s not shy in naming names as to who he sees as the main culprits from the PO side. The two top forgetful bumblers, Jarnail Singh & Rodric Williams, are well and truly thrown under the bus. He names 4 from the PO’s legal team, including those just mentioned. The other two seemed quite decent during their Inquiry sessions but Simon Clarke paints a different picture.
The evidence revealed in recent weeks, and no doubt that which is to come, should make the Police investigation and CPS’s decision to prosecute very easy. However, bearing in mind the first public hearing for the Inquiry was Feb 2022 and the last hearing is scheduled for the end of July, I can’t see a report being offered up before year end. I’d like to be proven wrong but I can’t see a trial starting till at least 2026.
He’s not shy in owning his own actions and saying he got things wrong but caveats the level of blame by saying his actions were, in the main, determined by what was shared with him at the time. And he’s not shy in naming names as to who he sees as the main culprits from the PO side. The two top forgetful bumblers, Jarnail Singh & Rodric Williams, are well and truly thrown under the bus. He names 4 from the PO’s legal team, including those just mentioned. The other two seemed quite decent during their Inquiry sessions but Simon Clarke paints a different picture.
The evidence revealed in recent weeks, and no doubt that which is to come, should make the Police investigation and CPS’s decision to prosecute very easy. However, bearing in mind the first public hearing for the Inquiry was Feb 2022 and the last hearing is scheduled for the end of July, I can’t see a report being offered up before year end. I’d like to be proven wrong but I can’t see a trial starting till at least 2026.
Receipts & mismatch bug…
The above bug appears in communications within the PO in late 2000, 24 years ago. David Miller, Operations Director spoke of a bug as early as 1999, the year of Horizon roll out. Bugs were given an I.D number, e.g. bug 14, bug 68. A decision was made to rename bugs, e.g the Callander Square bug, the Falkirk bug. The reason the bugs were renamed is quite revealing, and potentially embarrassing to the PO. For example, bug 68 was so called because it was the 68th bug found. Giving the bugs a number gave an inclination of the scale of the problem, but giving them a name didn’t.
The PO, following pressure from various sources, agreed to bring in Second Sight in late 2012. Second Sight spoke to Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu’s expert witness, who told them of bugs. Second Sight included that knowledge in the draft of their report. And it’s this report that triggered the PO’s desire to get rid of Second Sight. Simon Clarke also became aware of the bugs via the Second Sight report, which led to the discussion on Disclosure & not to shred evidence.
And what did Paula Vennells say to the Commons Select committee in 2015? She fully supported the integrity of Horizon, even though she was fully aware from emails and (taped) phone calls…
The above bug appears in communications within the PO in late 2000, 24 years ago. David Miller, Operations Director spoke of a bug as early as 1999, the year of Horizon roll out. Bugs were given an I.D number, e.g. bug 14, bug 68. A decision was made to rename bugs, e.g the Callander Square bug, the Falkirk bug. The reason the bugs were renamed is quite revealing, and potentially embarrassing to the PO. For example, bug 68 was so called because it was the 68th bug found. Giving the bugs a number gave an inclination of the scale of the problem, but giving them a name didn’t.
The PO, following pressure from various sources, agreed to bring in Second Sight in late 2012. Second Sight spoke to Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu’s expert witness, who told them of bugs. Second Sight included that knowledge in the draft of their report. And it’s this report that triggered the PO’s desire to get rid of Second Sight. Simon Clarke also became aware of the bugs via the Second Sight report, which led to the discussion on Disclosure & not to shred evidence.
And what did Paula Vennells say to the Commons Select committee in 2015? She fully supported the integrity of Horizon, even though she was fully aware from emails and (taped) phone calls…
rulefan
Tour Winner
Very impressed with Simon Clark's handling of the attacks at the end.
cliveb
Head Pro
If there is a criminal trial over this, are there any mechanisms for it to be heard only by judges, without a jury?
Because if not, and a jury is required, then I suspect the PO management might try to wriggle out of it by claiming everything that's gone on in the public eye means there's no way they can get a fair trial.
Possibly. If a prosecutor feels there might be jury tampering he can apply for a Section 44 which allows a trial to proceed without a jury. However, I’m not sure that applies where the concern for a fair trial is raised by the defence. I do remember that there was talk of having complex trials carried out similarly to “Bench trials” in the USA that are usually heard by a minimum of 3 judges. Don’t know if that ever became more than a talking point.
