Post Office - Horizon scandal

[chico]

I haven't been following this as closely as some on here but I find myself getting very angry about what I've heard on the news during this enquiry.
I feel that there can be no justice for all the sub postmaster's without some of these people facing criminal prosecution for what they have done.
Time and time again we see large companies ruining people's lives without anyone really facing serious consequences for their actions.

 

[Billysboots]

Yes, I was only dreaming.

It was not the weather, or other random events, that caused the suffering of so many Sub Postmasters.
The cause was the actions and inactions of other people.
If we have a system of justice that is worth more than nothing, arrests and convictions for crimes and misdemeanours should follow this inquiry.

One lawyer summed it up for me near the end with the rhetorical question that went something like, "You are responsible for your own downfall, are you not?"
She was rabbit-in-the-headlights at that one.
It follows that she was responsible for the downfall of others, the Sub Postmasters, and should face prosecution for a crime.

I’m with Hobbit in as much as there are others who are probably more culpable than Vennells. Whilst, ultimately, as the CEO the buck in many respects stops with her, there will be individuals at the coal face with an in depth, hands on knowledge of what was going on. They are perhaps the ones who should be in the crosshairs.

And I absolutely share your view that a full criminal investigation, with appropriate prosecutions, should follow this enquiry. I hope that this doesn’t end up like Hillsborough.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I’m with Hobbit in as much as there are others who are probably more culpable than Vennells. Whilst, ultimately, as the CEO the buck in many respects stops with her, there will be individuals at the coal face with an in depth, hands on knowledge of what was going on. They are perhaps the ones who should be in the crosshairs.

And I absolutely share your view that a full criminal investigation, with appropriate prosecutions, should follow this enquiry. I hope that this doesn’t end up like Hillsborough.

Lee Castleton and Janet Skinner were keen to express the same view today.
"We must not scapegoat one person. There must be prosecutions of several people." or words to that effect were said by Janet. She went to prison. She is worth listening to.

 

[Hobbit]

I’m with Hobbit in as much as there are others who are probably more culpable than Vennells. Whilst, ultimately, as the CEO the buck in many respects stops with her, there will be individuals at the coal face with an in depth, hands on knowledge of what was going on. They are perhaps the ones who should be in the crosshairs.

And I absolutely share your view that a full criminal investigation, with appropriate prosecutions, should follow this enquiry. I hope that this doesn’t end up like Hillsborough.

But what would the charges be for those in the crosshairs?

Failure to Disclose? Does that then run into perverting the course of justice? Destroying evidence(minutes of meetings) = perverting the course of justice? Expert witness testimony leaving out key evidence = perverting the course of justice?

The Michael Rudkin visit to Fujitsu is a big one for me - they destroyed evidence of his visit and then horrendously concocted charges of fraud/theft against him but shifted the charges onto his wife when it was found that he was away on union business when the supposed thefts occurred. There’s something deeply disturbing about that one… what charge for that?

 

[Voyager EMH]

But what would the charges be for those in the crosshairs?

Failure to Disclose? Does that then run into perverting the course of justice? Destroying evidence(minutes of meetings) = perverting the course of justice? Expert witness testimony leaving out key evidence = perverting the course of justice?

The Michael Rudkin visit to Fujitsu is a big one for me - they destroyed evidence of his visit and then horrendously concocted charges of fraud/theft against him but shifted the charges onto his wife when it was found that he was away on union business when the supposed thefts occurred. There’s something deeply disturbing about that one… what charge for that?

Extorting money from him and his wife with a knowingly wrongful accusation and prosecution - Fraud.

 

[Hobbit]

This goes a long way to summing up my views of the other major players. The vid is 22mins of Lord Arbuthnot’s evidence to the Inquiry. Lord Arbuthnot nails it full and centre at around minute 7.

 

[Beezerk]

We’d be buggered without your updates Brian, keep it up

 

[Hobbit]

Extorting money from him and his wife with a knowingly wrongful accusation and prosecution - Fraud.

I think proving the fraud would be tremendously difficult, unless there’s specific evidence that they trumped up the charges against him. Their process of recovering money, backed up by the SPMR’s contract to make good gives them the defence they need. Overturning that conviction only makes the verdict against him a miscarriage of justice and, possibly, a perverting the course of justice by failing to follow Disclosure rules.

Whatever happens, I’m not convinced that anyone will do jail time. Although if the Rudkin case can be shown as a conspiracy, I’d expect long sentences.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Oh how I would love to have an off the record 3-hour chat with Jason Beer.

By now, he must be the most knowledgeable person, but not allowed to express his own views publicly.

What a job he has done. And only 8 weeks more to do!
Perhaps we will hear from him one day, if we live long enough.

 

[Billysboots]

But what would the charges be for those in the crosshairs?

Failure to Disclose? Does that then run into perverting the course of justice? Destroying evidence(minutes of meetings) = perverting the course of justice? Expert witness testimony leaving out key evidence = perverting the course of justice?

The Michael Rudkin visit to Fujitsu is a big one for me - they destroyed evidence of his visit and then horrendously concocted charges of fraud/theft against him but shifted the charges onto his wife when it was found that he was away on union business when the supposed thefts occurred. There’s something deeply disturbing about that one… what charge for that?

The only offence which leaps out, and I stress it’s based on press/media reports, is one of perverting the course of justice. If it involves multiple parties then probably a conspiracy.

Fraud has to include an intent to gain for oneself, or to cause loss to another, usually financial. With the best will in the world, nobody at PO is going to have gained financially directly from the plight of the sub-postmasters. And equally, it’s a bit of a leap to suggest individuals within the PO intended for those sub-postmasters to make a loss. The Horizon system and application of it appeared to cause the losses. What the PO then appears to have engaged in was multiple unwarranted prosecutions. That’s not fraud.

 

[Billysboots]

I think proving the fraud would be tremendously difficult, unless there’s specific evidence that they trumped up the charges against him.

Trumped up charges do not amount to fraud. The key section of the legislation relating to fraud (by misrepresentation - there are other offences of fraud, but the underlying theme is the same) is as follows;

“A person is in breach of this section if he

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.”

The key elements are points (i) and (ii). It would require an extremely liberal interpretation of the law, and no small amount of poetic licence, to argue that PO management are guilty of fraud based upon those two points.

 

[Voyager EMH]

The only offence which leaps out, and I stress it’s based on press/media reports, is one of perverting the course of justice. If it involves multiple parties then probably a conspiracy.

Fraud has to include an intent to gain for oneself, or to cause loss to another, usually financial. With the best will in the world, nobody at PO is going to have gained financially directly from the plight of the sub-postmasters. And equally, it’s a bit of a leap to suggest individuals within the PO intended for those sub-postmasters to make a loss. The Horizon system and application of it appeared to cause the losses. What the PO then appears to have engaged in was multiple unwarranted prosecutions. That’s not fraud.

Hang on a minute.
Post Office forced Postmasters to pay money to the Post Office. That is the Post Office directly causing a personal loss.

The accounting loss was caused by the Horizon system. But this was not a real loss to anyone or anything.
The only real loss was the money taken fraudulently from the Postmasters' personal wealth and paid to the Post Office. This was done in full knowledge that it was wrong to do so.

 

[Billysboots]

Hang on a minute.
Post Office forced Postmasters to pay money to the Post Office. That is the Post Office directly causing a personal loss.

The accounting loss was caused by the Horizon system. But this was not a real loss to anyone or anything.
The only real loss was the money taken fraudulently from the Postmasters' personal wealth and paid to the Post Office. This was done in full knowledge that it was wrong to do so.

But for a considerable period of time that money was recouped in the belief that the PO were legally entitled to do so. You’ll never prove dishonesty on that basis.

I know you believe this is fraud. You’ve suggested so multiple times. There may be isolated cases where fraud is a possible charge. But I think it very, very unlikely that will be the focus of any prosecutions. It’s the prosecutions of the sub-postmasters, and the dishonesty which resulted in so many people being falsely processed by the courts despite so many individuals knowing that such prosecutions were without foundation, that should be the focus.

EDIT: And bear in mind that the offence needs to be proven on a case by case basis, against individual defendants. Proving that an individual has breached every part of the legislation would be extremely difficult.

 

[Billysboots]

Ultimately, there’s a danger of us losing focus ourselves here. I will say unreservedly that I will be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong and for every single person within the PO who has acted dishonestly to be prosecuted for whatever the prosecutors decide is the most appropriate offence.

I couldn’t care less whether that offence is fraud, perverting the course of justice, or anything else which fits the bill. The important thing is that they pay for what they have done to so many innocent people.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Ultimately, there’s a danger of us losing focus ourselves here. I will say unreservedly that I will be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong and for every single person within the PO who has acted dishonestly to be prosecuted for whatever the prosecutors decide is the most appropriate offence.

I couldn’t care less whether that offence is fraud, perverting the course of justice, or anything else which fits the bill. The important thing is that they pay for what they have done to so many innocent people.

I would just be happy for every personwho has contiributed to the SPM's losses, imprisonment and death to be forced to hand over every penny of bouns, salary or anything recived from the PO or Fujitsu for what they have or haven't done.
It's obvious no removal of civil libery will happen but to take their monies away to give to those affected would hurt them more. Leave them poor and desolate as they were happy to do to the SPM's

 

[GreiginFife]

I suppose that a case for false accounting can be made. IF the PO knew that the balances that were being declared were incorrect (due to numerous bugs) but yet they declared the income anyway.

It may also result in taxation issues.

I agree proving fraud might be difficult but the lesser seen charge of extortion might not be. The Post Office can be accused of using undue means of pressure to extract payments (if the evidence of how the “investigations team” conducted themselves is correct) from SPMs.

If it was the US of A they might be accused of racketeering in addition to extortion and acting with menace.

 

[ColchesterFC]

But for a considerable period of time that money was recouped in the belief that the PO were legally entitled to do so. You’ll never prove dishonesty on that basis.

I know you believe this is fraud. You’ve suggested so multiple times. There may be isolated cases where fraud is a possible charge. But I think it very, very unlikely that will be the focus of any prosecutions. It’s the prosecutions of the sub-postmasters, and the dishonesty which resulted in so many people being falsely processed by the courts despite so many individuals knowing that such prosecutions were without foundation, that should be the focus.

EDIT: And bear in mind that the offence needs to be proven on a case by case basis, against individual defendants. Proving that an individual has breached every part of the legislation would be extremely difficult.

What about the cases that happened after that period of time where it became apparent that the money being recouped was based on errors in the Horizon system? Isn't there a cut off date where it was known that it wasn't the postmasters at fault and yet the prosecutions continued? Surely after that date (to quote one of your previous posts) they are guilty of,

"(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation"

"(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss."

Once they became aware of the issues with the IT system and the ability to access it and make changes remotely, any prosecutions after that were false representations that caused a loss to another or exposed another to the risk of a loss?

 

[Hobbit]

Ultimately, there’s a danger of us losing focus ourselves here. I will say unreservedly that I will be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong and for every single person within the PO who has acted dishonestly to be prosecuted for whatever the prosecutors decide is the most appropriate offence.

I couldn’t care less whether that offence is fraud, perverting the course of justice, or anything else which fits the bill. The important thing is that they pay for what they have done to so many innocent people.

I was tempted a few hours back to dial things back to some basics, as you alluded to to offset the blurred focus.

• What is the issue here? Wrongly convicted SPMR’s.
• How did it happen? By not carrying out proper investigations of cash shortfalls. By the use of tainted evidence. By the non-Disclosure of ‘real’ evidence. By the bullying of SPMR’s into pleading guilty to lesser charges.
• How can things be put right? Quashing wrongful convictions. Returning money wrongly taken from SPMR’s. Properly compensating those harmed.

And then we come to has the Senior Leadership Team(SLT), and others, done anything illegal, or is it just rank, bad incompetence? If it’s incompetence, it’s bring in a new SLT, if it isn’t already there, and rebuild the PO with a structure and governance that won’t allow it to happen again.

If some of what’s happened is illegal, then justice should run its course. The whole issue is emotive - hell, even I’ve shouted at the footage from the Inquiry. But it must be justice, not vengeance. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If it gets that far I guess it’ll be fines and, maybe, a bit of jail time. Bonuses returned? The PO can only reclaim wrongly calculated bonuses. Reclaiming bonuses can’t be used as a punishment - that’s illegal.

 

[williamalex1]

Legit question, aren't all the witnesses under oath during this enquiry ?

 

[Voyager EMH]

But for a considerable period of time that money was recouped in the belief that the PO were legally entitled to do so. You’ll never prove dishonesty on that basis.

I know you believe this is fraud. You’ve suggested so multiple times. There may be isolated cases where fraud is a possible charge. But I think it very, very unlikely that will be the focus of any prosecutions. It’s the prosecutions of the sub-postmasters, and the dishonesty which resulted in so many people being falsely processed by the courts despite so many individuals knowing that such prosecutions were without foundation, that should be the focus.

EDIT: And bear in mind that the offence needs to be proven on a case by case basis, against individual defendants. Proving that an individual has breached every part of the legislation would be extremely difficult.

They would not have to build a case for every victim.
They prosecute a person. Then choose the two victims where the best case can be built to prove dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive.

Money was wrongfully taken from the SubPostmasters. Ian Hislop called it theft last night.
This must be a crime when it was known by senior management that the false accounts were Post Office false accounts and not SubPostmasters false accounts.
That is where the dishonesty lies.

The thing missing from this inquiry is the failure of Lawyers, Magistrates and Judges to see the truth. And they failed time and time again.
Ministry of Justice needs to conduct its own inquiry, I believe.