Many major enquiries deploy a full time disclosure officer, whose sole responsibility is the review, classification and disclosure of material. It’s a massive task in its own right.
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
Many major enquiries deploy a full time disclosure officer, whose sole responsibility is the review, classification and disclosure of material. It’s a massive task in its own right.
Sat pondering what charges could be brought against the PO senior managers… (one for @Billysboots )
Fraud has been suggested but there would be a need to prove financial gain by individuals. Knowing how executive bonuses are scheduled there may well be a direct link to receiving bonuses based on successful defence of the PO in Horizon cases. The fraud isn’t falsely recovering the money from the SPMR, that’s a contract issue between the PO and the SPMR’S, and would be too easy to defend using the T&C’s of the contracts. The fraud is illegally earning a bonus based winning court cases that prove to be wrongful convictions. Again, proving someone was deliberately focused on earning that element of their bonus at the cost of justice would be extremely difficult. Fraud is probably a non-starter.
Perverting, and conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
There appears to be a fair bit of evidence to suggest this route has some merit. Skewing the prosecutions by failing to Disclose evidence is a start. And there’s evidence of discussions amongst the senior managers to this end. Then there’s evidence tampering in issuing an instruction to shred meeting minutes and/or instructing not to take minutes. There’s a strong case for this.
Malicious prosecutions.
Some of the evidence heard during the Inquiry has included a desire to win prosecutions to shut the SPMR’s & MP’s down. In that respect, the prosecutions appear to have been weaponised as a tool against others. Then there is the prosecution of Michael Rudkin’s wife following his visit to Fujitsu. And we’ve heard the predisposition of senior managers to viewing the SPMR’s as guilty long before evidence has been stress tested. In general terms, it’s tenuous but in the case of Michael Rudkin there’s some serious evidence that needs confirming.
When will it happen? I can’t see a prosecution much before 2028, if at all.
Fraud has been suggested but there would be a need to prove financial gain by individuals. Knowing how executive bonuses are scheduled there may well be a direct link to receiving bonuses based on successful defence of the PO in Horizon cases. The fraud isn’t falsely recovering the money from the SPMR, that’s a contract issue between the PO and the SPMR’S, and would be too easy to defend using the T&C’s of the contracts. The fraud is illegally earning a bonus based winning court cases that prove to be wrongful convictions. Again, proving someone was deliberately focused on earning that element of their bonus at the cost of justice would be extremely difficult. Fraud is probably a non-starter.
Perverting, and conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
There appears to be a fair bit of evidence to suggest this route has some merit. Skewing the prosecutions by failing to Disclose evidence is a start. And there’s evidence of discussions amongst the senior managers to this end. Then there’s evidence tampering in issuing an instruction to shred meeting minutes and/or instructing not to take minutes. There’s a strong case for this.
Malicious prosecutions.
Some of the evidence heard during the Inquiry has included a desire to win prosecutions to shut the SPMR’s & MP’s down. In that respect, the prosecutions appear to have been weaponised as a tool against others. Then there is the prosecution of Michael Rudkin’s wife following his visit to Fujitsu. And we’ve heard the predisposition of senior managers to viewing the SPMR’s as guilty long before evidence has been stress tested. In general terms, it’s tenuous but in the case of Michael Rudkin there’s some serious evidence that needs confirming.
When will it happen? I can’t see a prosecution much before 2028, if at all.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Fraud need not be for personal gain. There is not any reason why a fraud conviction will need to prove personal financial gain.
A person might commit fraud for "the hell of it" or a malicious vindictive desire or whatever. The actions in a fraud are the same whatever the motivation or personal outcome.
The Fraud Act 2006 covers a number of offences, including:
Fraud by abuse of position;
Fraud by failing to disclose information;
Fraud by false representation;
Possession of articles for use in fraud;
Making or supplying articles for use in frauds;
Participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc;
Obtaining services dishonestly
In proving that fraudulent actions took place in the wrongful prosecutions, a prosecutor would clearly show the actus reus was for the proscribed result of a win for the Post Office.
A result crime.
There are four main types of actus reus:
Conduct crimes: where the actus reus is the performance of a particular kind of behaviour.
Result crimes: where the actus reus is causing some kind of proscribed result.
State of affairs crimes: where the actus reus involves the person existing in a defined state of affairs.
Crime of omission: where the actus reus is the failure to act or prevent a particular result/state of affairs.
A person might commit fraud for "the hell of it" or a malicious vindictive desire or whatever. The actions in a fraud are the same whatever the motivation or personal outcome.
The Fraud Act 2006 covers a number of offences, including:
Fraud by abuse of position;
Fraud by failing to disclose information;
Fraud by false representation;
Possession of articles for use in fraud;
Making or supplying articles for use in frauds;
Participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc;
Obtaining services dishonestly
In proving that fraudulent actions took place in the wrongful prosecutions, a prosecutor would clearly show the actus reus was for the proscribed result of a win for the Post Office.
A result crime.
There are four main types of actus reus:
Conduct crimes: where the actus reus is the performance of a particular kind of behaviour.
Result crimes: where the actus reus is causing some kind of proscribed result.
State of affairs crimes: where the actus reus involves the person existing in a defined state of affairs.
Crime of omission: where the actus reus is the failure to act or prevent a particular result/state of affairs.
Last edited:
I’ve only highlighted a bit of your post, not to support my point but to suggest why I might either disagree or that a more ‘solid’ charge might be applicable. I’ll caveat that by saying that although my education includes law, employment law, it isn’t at a level anywhere close enough to giving formal, legal ‘advice.’
On the first highlighted point it’s far easier to show conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The actions might be seen as a lie but conspiracy is far easier to prove and carries far greater penalties. There’s mountains of evidence for this.
Conduct crimes, Result crimes & crime of omission, all are covered, and linked in this case, to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Again, it comes back to how easy it to obtain a conviction. Fraud as a lie; many defendants that lie are guilty of that ‘fraud’ but are never charged with it. Failure to Disclose might be considered as fraud but, again, there’s better charges to cover that, especially in this instance.
State of affairs crime is a new one on me and I genuinely don’t know anything about it.
The sentencing matrix. Every crime has a prescribed sentence, all of which fit into “is it a fine or is it custodial.” Financial fraud carries hefty fines, especially corporate fraud, i.e. stealing FROM a business, and some decent custodial sentences. Conspiracy to Pervert can ‘earn’ you 10 years.
I’d say conspiracy to pervert, and perverting would be far easier to prove. And they carry greater sentences. There’s no reason why both couldn’t be brought as charges, just in case the conspiracy charges don’t fly, but if found guilty of the lesser charges I wouldn’t expect decent sentences.
As a side note, I’d like to see a charge of corporate manslaughter. 4 suicides… 4 SUICIDES!!! Even if those charges won’t stick, I’d love to see them tried for it but that’s just my anger and emotion taking over.
It’s impossible to be definitive without seeing evidence gathered relating to individual cases, but I’ve already stated that, in general, fraud just doesn’t seem a good fit. There may be a handful of cases of fraud, depending on circumstances, but I really don’t see that applying to senior executives - in most cases it requires some hands-on direct involvement, which would seem to be absent from what I’ve read/heard.
I’ve said all along that this carries the hallmarks of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The provable lies, and hideous failures in disclosure, are just two factors which would suggest there was an orchestrated attempt to pursue prosecutions in the full knowledge they were inherently unsafe. At the most basic level, sub postmasters were being offered plea bargains, and given the option to plead to false accounting in return for theft charges being dropped. That was surely because the PO side knew they would struggle to prove offences of theft.
One thing I would add is that the sentencing powers are significant for offences of perverting the course of justice. I believe it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Whilst that sort of sentence is likely to be extremely rare, it nevertheless gives an indication as to how seriously the offence is regarded by the judicial system.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Where there are multiple victims and the fraud was planned and prolonged, the sentencing guidelines for Fraud By Abuse Of Position is 6 to 10 years.
The usual type of sentence for perverting the course of justice is a few months to 3 years. Can be longer only for more serious offences.
I do not know if this fits the bill for wrongfully obtaining money from subpostmasters.
There was most certainly a conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice.
But the financial aspect, PO false accounting, blaming this on subpostmasters, making them pay, was a financial fraudulent act, once they knew that the accounting software was at fault.
The financial fraudulent act - obtaining money that they had no right to - came before the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
If they had not committed the financial fraud, but owned up to their own (or horizon's) mistakes, they would have had no need to pervert the course of justice.
Proceeding with wrongful prosecutions was the conspiracy.
The withholding, or failure to disclose, evidence in the prosecutions, was perverting the course of justice, but this was done to cover up their fraudulent financial acts.
The usual type of sentence for perverting the course of justice is a few months to 3 years. Can be longer only for more serious offences.
I do not know if this fits the bill for wrongfully obtaining money from subpostmasters.
There was most certainly a conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice.
But the financial aspect, PO false accounting, blaming this on subpostmasters, making them pay, was a financial fraudulent act, once they knew that the accounting software was at fault.
The financial fraudulent act - obtaining money that they had no right to - came before the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
If they had not committed the financial fraud, but owned up to their own (or horizon's) mistakes, they would have had no need to pervert the course of justice.
Proceeding with wrongful prosecutions was the conspiracy.
The withholding, or failure to disclose, evidence in the prosecutions, was perverting the course of justice, but this was done to cover up their fraudulent financial acts.
Regardless of what the law says, take a step back and think about this. I just cannot see multiple parties within the PO dishonestly causing sub postmasters to suffer financial losses over a considerable period of years. There are times within investigative and prosecution circles when something just doesn’t feel right, and for me this is one of those times.
For there to be a fraud by abuse of position, the position invariably has to be one where the defendant has a legal duty to safeguard the financial interests of the victim who suffers the loss. It is intended for individuals like financial advisors, solicitors and the like, who abuse their position dishonestly to either gain themselves, or cause another to suffer a loss. Again, it doesn’t feel right to suggest that a member of staff within the PO has an obligation to safeguard the financial interests of a sub postmaster, so to then go on to argue they have committed a fraud by abuse of that position does not sit right.
As I have said, there may be individuals within the PO who are held to have committed fraud, most probably by misrepresentation. But I just don’t see that this is a prolonged, planned fraud as you describe. I genuinely do not think that anyone in the PO is so stupid, or naive, to think that they can get away with a widespread and prolonged fraud involving multiple parties, depriving the sub postmasters of money the PO was not entitled to.
Trying to lie to avoid the consequences for their mistakes? I can absolutely see that happening. And it quite clearly has. You say that sentencing for this offence can only be longer than a few years for more serious offences. Well surely it doesn’t get much more serious than allowing multiple prosecutions, over many years, with the victims receiving custodial sentences, despite so many people within the PO having full knowledge of the fact that the Horizon system was not fit for purpose to the point it was that, and not the sub postmasters, which was causing shortfalls on their balance sheets.
Last edited:
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
PO forced people to give them money.
This was a crime, once they knew fault lay in the accounting software.
Sometimes it is very difficult to find individuals of a corporation guilty. This is a failure of the law and judicial system.
Individuals are guilty of this crime. It did not just happen as an unfortunate uncontrollable event like the weather.
People acted and behaved dishonestly and wrongfully deprived others of money.
I hope individuals will face prosecutions for the huge number of these crimes of obtaining money dishonestly.
Failure to prosecute on this charge will be another failure of the law and judicial system.
Ian Hislop called it theft and I called it fraud.
I don't really care much about what it is called, but I do want to see individuals charged with these crimes of obtaining money dishonestly.
The victims deserve to see it happen.
This was a crime, once they knew fault lay in the accounting software.
Sometimes it is very difficult to find individuals of a corporation guilty. This is a failure of the law and judicial system.
Individuals are guilty of this crime. It did not just happen as an unfortunate uncontrollable event like the weather.
People acted and behaved dishonestly and wrongfully deprived others of money.
I hope individuals will face prosecutions for the huge number of these crimes of obtaining money dishonestly.
Failure to prosecute on this charge will be another failure of the law and judicial system.
Ian Hislop called it theft and I called it fraud.
I don't really care much about what it is called, but I do want to see individuals charged with these crimes of obtaining money dishonestly.
The victims deserve to see it happen.
PO IT chief found. There’s elements of his story that don’t stack up chronologically. Worth getting him in front of the Inquiry.
www.mirror.co.uk
Former Post Office IT chief found after inquiry chair said he couldn't be traced
Former Post Office IT chief Mike Young insisted it would have been easy for the inquiry to find him and said he would give evidence as he accused Paula Vennells of trying to shift the blame
www.mirror.co.uk
Last edited:
Today’s hearing saw Chris Day, former Chief Financial Officer for the PO, giving evidence. Below is the morning session. Although, typically, quite dry for a CFO he is also very unambiguous in answering questions.
Just to pick out a ‘piece’ from the session; Ernst Young made mention in their annual audit that findings from the previous year’s report(2010) had not been adequately actioned. The action was that adequate controls had not been put in place surrounding backdoor access by Fujitsu of the Horizon system. That’ll be the very access that PO senior management said wasn’t possible, and yet it appears in consecutive annual audits… further to that, Rod Ismay(Head of Product & Branch Accounting) in an email, talks about getting the wording changed so as not to lay the PO’s prosecutions open to question.
Mention is also made of bugs in the system dating back to 2005 which weren’t systemic, i.e. wouldn’t be found in every branch but because of their nature could happen intermittently in any branch in which the Horizon system was used. This particular bug was still ‘in the system’ until Horizon Legacy was updated to Horizon Online in 2010.
It’s clear from the evidence given around 2hrs 10mins that the PO were aware of another 2 bugs, mentioned in Second Sight’s report, that would compromise the PO’s prosecutions. And although there were discussions by board members, senior managers and the legal team that prosecutions should be ‘stayed,’ and previous prosecutions reviewed, it was Paula Vennells that wanted to prosecutions to be continued to protect the PO brand.
Just to pick out a ‘piece’ from the session; Ernst Young made mention in their annual audit that findings from the previous year’s report(2010) had not been adequately actioned. The action was that adequate controls had not been put in place surrounding backdoor access by Fujitsu of the Horizon system. That’ll be the very access that PO senior management said wasn’t possible, and yet it appears in consecutive annual audits… further to that, Rod Ismay(Head of Product & Branch Accounting) in an email, talks about getting the wording changed so as not to lay the PO’s prosecutions open to question.
Mention is also made of bugs in the system dating back to 2005 which weren’t systemic, i.e. wouldn’t be found in every branch but because of their nature could happen intermittently in any branch in which the Horizon system was used. This particular bug was still ‘in the system’ until Horizon Legacy was updated to Horizon Online in 2010.
It’s clear from the evidence given around 2hrs 10mins that the PO were aware of another 2 bugs, mentioned in Second Sight’s report, that would compromise the PO’s prosecutions. And although there were discussions by board members, senior managers and the legal team that prosecutions should be ‘stayed,’ and previous prosecutions reviewed, it was Paula Vennells that wanted to prosecutions to be continued to protect the PO brand.
rulefan
Tour Winner
I thought I'd found it but it doesn't run to 2hrs 10 mins
Last edited:
Below is the afternoon’s session with Chris Day. The first part of the session deals with the independent report produced by Deloitte on the Horizon system’s integrity. What is clear from the board’s meeting minutes is that they wanted the report pitched in such a way as to fully support the integrity of the system irrespective of the truth around bugs affecting accounting issues. History repeating itself in that the PO wanted yet another independent company to find in favour of the Horizon system…
The initial draft of Deloitte’s report was criticised, just as the Second Sight draft was criticised, for highlighting errors and also mentioning backdoor access. There’s also mention of Chris Aujard, PO General Counsel, asking Deloitte to change their report. Just an aside on Chris Aujard; he resigned from the board of 5 different companies the day after he gave evidence to the Inquiry.
Chris Day also mentions that 4 separate legal advices (24minute) given to the PO were not shared with him. Edit; Chris Day mentions that someone must have been signing off some very expensive legal bills for the advice. I get the impression he’s a little incredulous that those large sign offs didn’t go across his desk from a financial aspect and also from a risk aspect as he would need to make the PO’s insurers aware of any new risks.
The Chair, Sir Wyn, concludes the Inquiry’s questions, before core participant’s solicitors ask theirs, by asking if competent people had reviewed the final draft of the Deloitte report. Chris Day details who should have seen it, including the Chief Information Officer. For those following the Inquiry, you may remember that Lesley Sewell, the PO Chief Information Officer, had been very much marginalised/excluded by Paula Vennells by the time the report was produced.
The initial draft of Deloitte’s report was criticised, just as the Second Sight draft was criticised, for highlighting errors and also mentioning backdoor access. There’s also mention of Chris Aujard, PO General Counsel, asking Deloitte to change their report. Just an aside on Chris Aujard; he resigned from the board of 5 different companies the day after he gave evidence to the Inquiry.
Chris Day also mentions that 4 separate legal advices (24minute) given to the PO were not shared with him. Edit; Chris Day mentions that someone must have been signing off some very expensive legal bills for the advice. I get the impression he’s a little incredulous that those large sign offs didn’t go across his desk from a financial aspect and also from a risk aspect as he would need to make the PO’s insurers aware of any new risks.
The Chair, Sir Wyn, concludes the Inquiry’s questions, before core participant’s solicitors ask theirs, by asking if competent people had reviewed the final draft of the Deloitte report. Chris Day details who should have seen it, including the Chief Information Officer. For those following the Inquiry, you may remember that Lesley Sewell, the PO Chief Information Officer, had been very much marginalised/excluded by Paula Vennells by the time the report was produced.
Last edited:
@rulefan Try a refresh… the media is there…
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
It seems all my MEDIA that I had previously watched has be replaced by something like
rulefan
Tour Winner
and I get a 'side' window saying "reading mode is not available on this page"
Does anyone know what has happened?
Weird. I’ve just clicked on the links, and they’re working fine for me.
rulefan
Tour Winner
I seem to have found the problem. Somehow something called 'reading' mode had been switched off or removed. I did have a big 'glitch' a couple of days ago and inter alia lost all my sign ons and passwords. I've just 'updated' chrome and 'reading mode' seems to be back and I can see the videos again.
Bingo
Last edited:
Below is today’s morning session with Alice Perkins, former Chair of the Post Office. Although the vast majority of the session covers old ground she brings the Chair’s perspective of events.
However, there’s a detailed report discussed at board level that Jason Beer KC maybe leaves hanging deliberately. Deloitte we’re in the process of producing a report at that time about the Horizon issues and risks. The report discussed today included actions and graded risks. The author is unknown but the level of detail is very invasive. The questioning touched on why was a report from an unknown author being given so much weight by the board, and how credible was the report. Alice Perkins agreed it was a bit strange when its independence couldn’t be verified. There’s something odd about it, and the line of questioning Jason Beer KC uses.
I’m three quarters of the way through the afternoon session - not sure I’ll post it up - what is becoming apparent is Alice Perkins made a number of errors of judgment that bring her competency into question.
However, there’s a detailed report discussed at board level that Jason Beer KC maybe leaves hanging deliberately. Deloitte we’re in the process of producing a report at that time about the Horizon issues and risks. The report discussed today included actions and graded risks. The author is unknown but the level of detail is very invasive. The questioning touched on why was a report from an unknown author being given so much weight by the board, and how credible was the report. Alice Perkins agreed it was a bit strange when its independence couldn’t be verified. There’s something odd about it, and the line of questioning Jason Beer KC uses.
I’m three quarters of the way through the afternoon session - not sure I’ll post it up - what is becoming apparent is Alice Perkins made a number of errors of judgment that bring her competency into question.
Below is this afternoon’s session with Alice Perkins. Jason Beer KC does an excellent job of showing Perkins that Susan Crichton was nothing but professional in carrying out her legal responsibilities, and that Perkins and the board’s treatment of her was questionable. Although it’s jumping in mid questioning, Perkins answers from around minute 50 for about 20 minutes are bordering on bizarre. There appears to be a severe lack of leadership from Perkins, allowing some chaotic management by various members of the board. Perkins goes into defence mode throwing board members and senior managers under the bus for not telling her what was going on.
Would a group of managers all behave like lemmings, all making similar career limiting decisions? Sorry but there’s elements of her evidence that are beginning to sound somewhat fanciful. She goes onto say that Chris Aujard passed on legal advice, attributed to a senior independent barrister, but that he made it up. And then appears to lose the plot, blaming various people for a number of actions.
If anyone has the appetite for it, the last hour is worth a watch. It just comes across as odd.
Would a group of managers all behave like lemmings, all making similar career limiting decisions? Sorry but there’s elements of her evidence that are beginning to sound somewhat fanciful. She goes onto say that Chris Aujard passed on legal advice, attributed to a senior independent barrister, but that he made it up. And then appears to lose the plot, blaming various people for a number of actions.
If anyone has the appetite for it, the last hour is worth a watch. It just comes across as odd.
Today was Alice Perkins second, and final, day before the Inquiry. It seemed to be a day of “I would have acted differently If I’d been told.” There was a thread of questioning around the Minister for the PO wanted Vennells sacking in 2014 but the timing wasn’t good. Perkins replies went from “I had every faith in Paula” to “she seemed to just echo whatever the board told her.”
The Inquiry did establish that the Deloitte report appeared to be a cut and paste, desktop report with no effort to genuinely ‘test’ the system. Needless to say neither Perkins, nor the board, had recognised this. She did say that she wished she’d seen through it at the time - really? A board full of very intelligent people didn’t recognise marketing language dressed up to form a report? Aye, right. Chair of the PO wasn’t her first gig at that level. Another one who almost certainly knew exactly what was going on.
There were some decent questions from the core participant’s legal teams but in reality it wasn’t easy to land a glove on her. She was very comfortable in front of the Inquiry, and did at times look like she was controlling the questioning. A very accomplished performer.
There was a bit of an odd finish to yesterday’s session. She said she was struggling to think straight due to tiredness, at which point Jason Beer KC said he felt it was a good time to end the day. The end of today’s session saw Perkins say she had brain fog, although the session was only one question from ending.
The Inquiry did establish that the Deloitte report appeared to be a cut and paste, desktop report with no effort to genuinely ‘test’ the system. Needless to say neither Perkins, nor the board, had recognised this. She did say that she wished she’d seen through it at the time - really? A board full of very intelligent people didn’t recognise marketing language dressed up to form a report? Aye, right. Chair of the PO wasn’t her first gig at that level. Another one who almost certainly knew exactly what was going on.
There were some decent questions from the core participant’s legal teams but in reality it wasn’t easy to land a glove on her. She was very comfortable in front of the Inquiry, and did at times look like she was controlling the questioning. A very accomplished performer.
There was a bit of an odd finish to yesterday’s session. She said she was struggling to think straight due to tiredness, at which point Jason Beer KC said he felt it was a good time to end the day. The end of today’s session saw Perkins say she had brain fog, although the session was only one question from ending.
