AussieKB
Well-known member
Watched it all and 'first of all LET ME APOLOGIZE' but these people should be going to jail.
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Apologies as an admission of guilt?
No apology necessary, if you've done nothing wrong.
They all apologised. All guilty of wrongdoing, in my view.
Do not pass Go. Do not collect £125,000.
No apology necessary, if you've done nothing wrong.
They all apologised. All guilty of wrongdoing, in my view.
Do not pass Go. Do not collect £125,000.
I find the apologies very hollow, and I feel they’re said for effect but carry very little sincerity.
Why?
Being retired, I have a fair bit of time on my hands. During the summer recess and since the public sessions have finished I’ve had time to (re)watch a good few sessions, often choosing them based on sessions that other witnesses have given evidence at. It’s been a joining the dots thing. One witness will say something and it triggers a memory of something another witness has spoken about. It’s been a huge, sometimes angering, revelation.
For me, the most annoying answer they give is, “I don’t remember/recall.” Yet if you watch a full session many of them recall some things in amazing detail but don’t recall things that are crucial. Perhaps the worst for this was Angela Van den Bogerd. She recalled some of the trivia in amazing detail, stunning clarity, even giving the impression she was quoting word for word. But when things got sticky… total amnesia.
They knew what was going on, and they could have stopped the prosecutions years ago. Sorry doesn’t cut it.
“20 years ago today, Mrs Gowri Jayakanthan returned home with her two small children from a family party.She found her husband, a young postmaster, hanged. Her husband had hanged himself following an extended “interview” by Post Office investigators. The interview concerned an alleged “shortfall” at the branch post office he had recently purchased.
It was accepted that he might have to sell the family home to cover the shortfall, as the Post Office immediately demanded. (No fault on his part was ever established, despite a long subsequent investigation by the Post Office, lasting several years.)
The Post Office Inquiry, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams, has received distressing evidence about how the Post Office conducted its "interviews". Some, like Janet Skinner, were prosecuted for theft (and imprisoned), even though Diane Matthews, the Post Office ‘investigator’ in her case, believed that she had not taken any money from the Post Office. Such niceties and details didn’t matter.
In 2020 Mrs Jayakanthan submitted a claim to the recently established HSS Compensation Scheme.More than 3 years later, at the end of November 2023, the Post Office with regret informed Mrs Jayakanthan "Without Prejudice" that she and her children would receive no compensation at all for the death of her husband.”
Above is an example of a number of instances in which the PO have rejected compensation claims.
It was accepted that he might have to sell the family home to cover the shortfall, as the Post Office immediately demanded. (No fault on his part was ever established, despite a long subsequent investigation by the Post Office, lasting several years.)
The Post Office Inquiry, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams, has received distressing evidence about how the Post Office conducted its "interviews". Some, like Janet Skinner, were prosecuted for theft (and imprisoned), even though Diane Matthews, the Post Office ‘investigator’ in her case, believed that she had not taken any money from the Post Office. Such niceties and details didn’t matter.
In 2020 Mrs Jayakanthan submitted a claim to the recently established HSS Compensation Scheme.More than 3 years later, at the end of November 2023, the Post Office with regret informed Mrs Jayakanthan "Without Prejudice" that she and her children would receive no compensation at all for the death of her husband.”
Above is an example of a number of instances in which the PO have rejected compensation claims.
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
I hope a charge of manslaughter is brought against the PO for this. It's absolutely disgusting how they have ridden over people, all with corporate protection as well.
There’s a section within the Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act(2008) called Management Failure Model. Basically, if an entity’s activities lead to a person’s death and those activities fall far below the the expected principles of good management a charge of Corporate Manslaughter may be considered.
The details surrounding the four suicides by ex-SubPostmasters are not widely reported. However, one of those cases did figure in the questioning of Angela Van Den Bogerd by Jason Beer KC at the Inquiry. A SubPostmaster was under investigation for a shortfall. Bogerd was in charge of Network Transformation, posh term for shutting down Post Offices branches. Rather than go through an expensive, and lengthy prosecution the SubPostmaster was offered a Hobson’s Choice, i.e. take the money to close your branch or we prosecute you.
The media got a whiff of it. Someone at the PO got wind of the media sniffing around, and PO Senior mgt went into overdrive. An offer was made to the family of a payment equal to what had been offered to close the branch. The offer was tied up with a Non-Disclosure Agreement, including not talking to the media. That offer was put forward by Bogerd in person in an offsite meeting with the daughter of the SubPostmaster. Agree or get nothing.
Why make an offer if the PO had done nothing wrong? Jason Beer KC went to town on Bogerd at the Inquiry. We know how brutal the PO investigators could be, and it could be argued that the payment was made without prejudice…. If only there wasn’t a string of emails that Jason Beer KC had to hand.
There’s also a section within the Act called Strict Liability. Where an employee’s actions lead to a death, and those actions bring a financial benefit to the organisation, a charge of Corporate Manslaughter may be applied.
I could see the Management Failure Model being applicable but I feel the Strict Liability section is too narrow.
And yet another ex-SubPostmaster has died before receiving full compensation. That’s 258(edit; 259) ex-SubPostmasters who have died whilst waiting exoneration and compensation.
Terry Walters, age 76, died last month 17 years after having his contract terminated for a perceived shortfall in the branch accounts. Following that termination he had to sell the family home, and him and his wife have lived in rented accommodation ever since.
Terry & his wife Janet received an interim payment last year in acknowledgment that they had a claim against the PO, the final sum was still to be decided. An offer was received just days after Terry died, the offer being significantly lower than the claim. Janet feels that the offer is a “slap on the face,” and has decided to go public about their experiences.
It’s over 5 years since since the Bates ‘v’ Post Office Group litigation case was won by a number of SubPostmasters. And it’s 3 years since the govt decided that the payments to the litigants was too low and too slow, and upped the compensation levels. To date, half of the Group Litigation ‘crowd’ have received any compensation… 5 years after the case was won!
The oldest SubPostmaster waiting on compensation is 92 year old Betty Brown. How much longer will she wait? And, brutally, how much longer can she afford to wait?
Terry Walters, age 76, died last month 17 years after having his contract terminated for a perceived shortfall in the branch accounts. Following that termination he had to sell the family home, and him and his wife have lived in rented accommodation ever since.
Terry & his wife Janet received an interim payment last year in acknowledgment that they had a claim against the PO, the final sum was still to be decided. An offer was received just days after Terry died, the offer being significantly lower than the claim. Janet feels that the offer is a “slap on the face,” and has decided to go public about their experiences.
It’s over 5 years since since the Bates ‘v’ Post Office Group litigation case was won by a number of SubPostmasters. And it’s 3 years since the govt decided that the payments to the litigants was too low and too slow, and upped the compensation levels. To date, half of the Group Litigation ‘crowd’ have received any compensation… 5 years after the case was won!
The oldest SubPostmaster waiting on compensation is 92 year old Betty Brown. How much longer will she wait? And, brutally, how much longer can she afford to wait?
Last edited:
To date, the PO has paid £768m in compensation, a £107m in the last month, to 5,100 claimants.
Some take outs from the numbers above.
On a separate note, as previously written there’s a number of journalists, bloggers etc that are picking through the Inquiry sessions. And there’s a multitude of short, juicy clips on YouTube of the main protagonists. There is a danger that in watching short clips a biased opinion could form. Equally, the questioning of the witnesses is so skilful, it’s hard to form an inaccurate opinion.
Using Jarnail Singh as an example. Bearing in mind the barristers asking the questions are exceptionally good at their job, the final picture when you join all the dots can be very revealing. There’s plenty of YouTube material to watch.
Starting with Singh’s CV and career progression, you don’t become Head of Criminal Law for the PO by being an idiot. And you don’t build successful businesses and directorships outside and after you leave the PO by being an idiot. But almost every clip of Singh being questioned seems to show the typical village idiot. But almost every clip… but by watching lots of clips you start to be able to see not only the ability of the questioner, and where they are going with a line of questioning, you get to see the real person behind the mask the witness puts on.
Jason Beer KC leads Singh onto what Singh feels is safe ground, the operation of issuing cautions by the PO. Singh’s answers become concise and have a lot of background. We get to see a different, intelligent Singh. You can see the jaws of a trap slowly closing but Singh is in full flow, digging a hole for himself. Beer KC asks what processes the PO had in issuing cautions, and what training the individual managing the issuing of cautions had received. He asks what criteria would lead to a caution and what was the threshold for a caution becoming a prosecution. And Singh is… singing with a clarity not seen earlier, or later.
Beer KC springs the trap. “By what authority does the PO have to issue formal cautions.” The penny drops and Singh realises he’s been royally screwed. And we see the return of the village idiot. Too late, we’ve seen the real Singh, i.e. a sharp, intelligent operator.
Just like when Angela Van den Bogerd is called out by Justice Fraser in his judgement in the GLO case, Singh has been shown that he is disingenuous, and worse. I hope Sir Wyn calls out Singh exactly the same as Justice Fraser did with Van den Bogerd.
Some take outs from the numbers above.
- 5,100 claimants when the PO would spin the line that “your the only one with the problem.”
- £768m of taxpayer’s money ‘supplied’ by the Treasury.
- £107m in the last month sounds like progress but how much of that was for interim payments and to how many claimants?
On a separate note, as previously written there’s a number of journalists, bloggers etc that are picking through the Inquiry sessions. And there’s a multitude of short, juicy clips on YouTube of the main protagonists. There is a danger that in watching short clips a biased opinion could form. Equally, the questioning of the witnesses is so skilful, it’s hard to form an inaccurate opinion.
Using Jarnail Singh as an example. Bearing in mind the barristers asking the questions are exceptionally good at their job, the final picture when you join all the dots can be very revealing. There’s plenty of YouTube material to watch.
Starting with Singh’s CV and career progression, you don’t become Head of Criminal Law for the PO by being an idiot. And you don’t build successful businesses and directorships outside and after you leave the PO by being an idiot. But almost every clip of Singh being questioned seems to show the typical village idiot. But almost every clip… but by watching lots of clips you start to be able to see not only the ability of the questioner, and where they are going with a line of questioning, you get to see the real person behind the mask the witness puts on.
Jason Beer KC leads Singh onto what Singh feels is safe ground, the operation of issuing cautions by the PO. Singh’s answers become concise and have a lot of background. We get to see a different, intelligent Singh. You can see the jaws of a trap slowly closing but Singh is in full flow, digging a hole for himself. Beer KC asks what processes the PO had in issuing cautions, and what training the individual managing the issuing of cautions had received. He asks what criteria would lead to a caution and what was the threshold for a caution becoming a prosecution. And Singh is… singing with a clarity not seen earlier, or later.
Beer KC springs the trap. “By what authority does the PO have to issue formal cautions.” The penny drops and Singh realises he’s been royally screwed. And we see the return of the village idiot. Too late, we’ve seen the real Singh, i.e. a sharp, intelligent operator.
Just like when Angela Van den Bogerd is called out by Justice Fraser in his judgement in the GLO case, Singh has been shown that he is disingenuous, and worse. I hope Sir Wyn calls out Singh exactly the same as Justice Fraser did with Van den Bogerd.
The clip below is a snipped piece from a 3 hour witness session with Jarnail Singh.
Basically, Jason Beer KC is getting Singh to confirm that a prosecutor has a responsibility to instruct their expert witness as to the expert witness’s role and responsibility to the court. Singh has no choice but to confirm that as that is the responsibility of the prosecutor, the PO in this case.
Not in the clip, unfortunately, is Beer KC catching out Singh in a subsequent lie. Having got Singh to confirm that as the prosecutor he had a responsibility to instruct their expert expert witness, Beer KC then asks about the PO using Gareth Jenkins as an expert witness.
Singh doesn’t know what’s coming but is wary of where the questions are leading. He replies that the PO didn’t see Gareth Jenkins as an expert witness but as a witness with expertise. Beer KC asks why did he consider Jenkins a ‘witness of fact,’ not an expert witness. And why would a prosecutor instruct a witness of fact? Cue waffle from Singh as he says he didn’t instruct Jenkins.
Bombshell time - Beer KC then shows Singh an email from Singh to the legal team, including the prosecuting barristers, in which it says he had instructed Jenkins. More waffle from Singh about the email being badly worded and that it should have said he’d spoken to him. Beer KC then shows another email relating to another case in which he had “instructed Jenkins.”
Beer KC then asks a throwaway, almost rhetorical, question. Why would the Head of Criminal Law for the PO with so many years of experience get such critical wording wrong on more than one occasion? He moves on before Singh can answer, who is sat with his head in his hands - nailed!
Basically, Jason Beer KC is getting Singh to confirm that a prosecutor has a responsibility to instruct their expert witness as to the expert witness’s role and responsibility to the court. Singh has no choice but to confirm that as that is the responsibility of the prosecutor, the PO in this case.
Not in the clip, unfortunately, is Beer KC catching out Singh in a subsequent lie. Having got Singh to confirm that as the prosecutor he had a responsibility to instruct their expert expert witness, Beer KC then asks about the PO using Gareth Jenkins as an expert witness.
Singh doesn’t know what’s coming but is wary of where the questions are leading. He replies that the PO didn’t see Gareth Jenkins as an expert witness but as a witness with expertise. Beer KC asks why did he consider Jenkins a ‘witness of fact,’ not an expert witness. And why would a prosecutor instruct a witness of fact? Cue waffle from Singh as he says he didn’t instruct Jenkins.
Bombshell time - Beer KC then shows Singh an email from Singh to the legal team, including the prosecuting barristers, in which it says he had instructed Jenkins. More waffle from Singh about the email being badly worded and that it should have said he’d spoken to him. Beer KC then shows another email relating to another case in which he had “instructed Jenkins.”
Beer KC then asks a throwaway, almost rhetorical, question. Why would the Head of Criminal Law for the PO with so many years of experience get such critical wording wrong on more than one occasion? He moves on before Singh can answer, who is sat with his head in his hands - nailed!
Lisa Allen, PO investigators & Disclosure Officer - an honest hero??? Wow!
Just thought I’d dip back to Inquiry sessions prior to when I first started listening to the hearings.
Lisa Allen joined the PO in ‘86 and became an investigator in 2000. She also took on the role of Disclosure Officer not long after. Around 2005 she was central in an investigation which led to the suspension of a SubPostmaster and the subsequent charging of the SubPostmaster. Allen wasn’t happy with some of the evidence, and even though the decision to prosecute had been made she kept digging into the Horizon data. And although she wasn’t an IT expert she kept requesting the transaction & error logs. She spotted a glitch, a non-IT non-Fujitsu engineer found what the Fujitsu IT team couldn’t find(allegedly).
Short version; the case was dropped & the SubPostmaster was reinstated. Well done Lisa Allen.
Maybe a worrying consequence of that, or my paranoia. Allen carried on working for the PO as an investigator for the next 6.5 years. Not one single request for error logs was fulfilled subsequent to the 2005 case. In early 2012 she switched to the Royal Mail Group.
Just thought I’d dip back to Inquiry sessions prior to when I first started listening to the hearings.
Lisa Allen joined the PO in ‘86 and became an investigator in 2000. She also took on the role of Disclosure Officer not long after. Around 2005 she was central in an investigation which led to the suspension of a SubPostmaster and the subsequent charging of the SubPostmaster. Allen wasn’t happy with some of the evidence, and even though the decision to prosecute had been made she kept digging into the Horizon data. And although she wasn’t an IT expert she kept requesting the transaction & error logs. She spotted a glitch, a non-IT non-Fujitsu engineer found what the Fujitsu IT team couldn’t find(allegedly).
Short version; the case was dropped & the SubPostmaster was reinstated. Well done Lisa Allen.
Maybe a worrying consequence of that, or my paranoia. Allen carried on working for the PO as an investigator for the next 6.5 years. Not one single request for error logs was fulfilled subsequent to the 2005 case. In early 2012 she switched to the Royal Mail Group.
Conspiracy to Pervert the course of Justice.
Earlier in the thread there’s the session with John Scott, Head of Security. Jason Beer KC walks him through his evidence surrounding an instruction sent out to senior managers not to create minutes for meetings in which Horizon issues are discussed, the intention being that if there isn’t a document there’s nothing that could be subject to a Freedom of Information request nor Disclosed. The questioning establishes the who was responsible for the instruction.
Sounds like sharp practice but, hey ho, if there’s no documentation, there’s nothing to Disclose. A bit whiffy. But… oh dear…
Jason Beer KC then walks Scott through the Code of Practice for minuting meetings in which the subject is the issue in a court case, in this case Horizon. The Code of Practice clearly states that where a conscious decision is made to NOT take minutes, a charge for Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice may ensue. And it also says that not taking minutes is against the law.
Scott replies that the meetings were documented via individuals keeping their own notes, minutes in effect. Beer KC then asks if these notes were formally collated and held centrally? No. But it’s pretty clear that Scott is dodging and weaving. From Scott’s perspective, at least he’s got it on record that the meetings were documented. But… oh dear… there’s more…
Beer KC then takes Scott through a subsequent email string in which Scott instructs PO staff to shred documents, minutes & notes. In effect, an instruction to destroy evidence.
Whether this behaviour became the catalyst to a wider practice of avoiding documenting communications, who knows, but I seem to remember that a maternity cover Company Secretary, giving evidence late November, was told 6 years later by the post holder to use WhatsApp to avoid producing documents that could be subject to Disclosure.
Earlier in the thread there’s the session with John Scott, Head of Security. Jason Beer KC walks him through his evidence surrounding an instruction sent out to senior managers not to create minutes for meetings in which Horizon issues are discussed, the intention being that if there isn’t a document there’s nothing that could be subject to a Freedom of Information request nor Disclosed. The questioning establishes the who was responsible for the instruction.
Sounds like sharp practice but, hey ho, if there’s no documentation, there’s nothing to Disclose. A bit whiffy. But… oh dear…
Jason Beer KC then walks Scott through the Code of Practice for minuting meetings in which the subject is the issue in a court case, in this case Horizon. The Code of Practice clearly states that where a conscious decision is made to NOT take minutes, a charge for Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice may ensue. And it also says that not taking minutes is against the law.
Scott replies that the meetings were documented via individuals keeping their own notes, minutes in effect. Beer KC then asks if these notes were formally collated and held centrally? No. But it’s pretty clear that Scott is dodging and weaving. From Scott’s perspective, at least he’s got it on record that the meetings were documented. But… oh dear… there’s more…
Beer KC then takes Scott through a subsequent email string in which Scott instructs PO staff to shred documents, minutes & notes. In effect, an instruction to destroy evidence.
Whether this behaviour became the catalyst to a wider practice of avoiding documenting communications, who knows, but I seem to remember that a maternity cover Company Secretary, giving evidence late November, was told 6 years later by the post holder to use WhatsApp to avoid producing documents that could be subject to Disclosure.
Last edited:
How so many PO documents were ‘hidden’ from defence teams. More Conspiracy???
If a document includes legal advice or a request for legal advice, it can be labelled legally privileged and confidential. Sounds reasonable…
The PO legal team issued an instruction that as much as is reasonably possible documents shouldn’t be created - conspiracy??
However, the legal team also issued an instruction that if a document must be created, a paragraph must be included that either requests legal advice or includes legal advice so that the document can be labelled legally privileged and confidential. Sharp practice, or conspiracy??
If a document includes legal advice or a request for legal advice, it can be labelled legally privileged and confidential. Sounds reasonable…
The PO legal team issued an instruction that as much as is reasonably possible documents shouldn’t be created - conspiracy??
However, the legal team also issued an instruction that if a document must be created, a paragraph must be included that either requests legal advice or includes legal advice so that the document can be labelled legally privileged and confidential. Sharp practice, or conspiracy??
Said pretty much from the get go that this isn’t fraud, theft or anything else. This is a huge conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. And with the sentencing powers available it is perhaps the best way to go.
Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu engineer/expert witness. Saint or sinner?
The guy has come in for some serious flak, especially about the evidence he gave at the Seema Misra trial. On the one hand he’d emailed Jarnail Singh on the Friday, 4 days before the start of the Misra trial, telling him that he’d found two bugs in Misra’s terminal. Singh didn’t pass that evidence on, even though he’d seen the email, saved the email to his computer and printed the email.
Singh didn’t stop the prosecution, and Jenkins didn’t make the court aware of the bugs when in the witness box. Jenkins has always said that all he did was answer the questions put to him.
I’ve just been watching a session I’d missed last year as it was an unscheduled call back of a witness, one of the PO’s investigators, to give evidence about a witness statement provided by Jenkins for use in a different investigation, i.e. of SubPostmaster in Chelmsford.
Short version; Jenkins was asked about a specific transaction failure. He gave 3 options of how this could occur, two of which were operator error, and easily identified by the coding it triggered. The third option given by Jenkins was “a system failure that was a normal occurrence in these circumstances.”
The investigator had the third option removed from the witness statement.
Jenkins has often said that he was manipulated by the PO. His reports often identified the real issues but the witness statements he signed didn’t have the issues identified in them. He could have said no to signing the witness statements, he could have spoken up from the witness box. And he was dropped as an expert witness because he told Second Sight about the bugs.
Saint? No. Sinner? No I don’t think he was. But I do think he was a cowardly fool for signing the statements and not speaking up at the trials.
The guy has come in for some serious flak, especially about the evidence he gave at the Seema Misra trial. On the one hand he’d emailed Jarnail Singh on the Friday, 4 days before the start of the Misra trial, telling him that he’d found two bugs in Misra’s terminal. Singh didn’t pass that evidence on, even though he’d seen the email, saved the email to his computer and printed the email.
Singh didn’t stop the prosecution, and Jenkins didn’t make the court aware of the bugs when in the witness box. Jenkins has always said that all he did was answer the questions put to him.
I’ve just been watching a session I’d missed last year as it was an unscheduled call back of a witness, one of the PO’s investigators, to give evidence about a witness statement provided by Jenkins for use in a different investigation, i.e. of SubPostmaster in Chelmsford.
Short version; Jenkins was asked about a specific transaction failure. He gave 3 options of how this could occur, two of which were operator error, and easily identified by the coding it triggered. The third option given by Jenkins was “a system failure that was a normal occurrence in these circumstances.”
The investigator had the third option removed from the witness statement.
Jenkins has often said that he was manipulated by the PO. His reports often identified the real issues but the witness statements he signed didn’t have the issues identified in them. He could have said no to signing the witness statements, he could have spoken up from the witness box. And he was dropped as an expert witness because he told Second Sight about the bugs.
Saint? No. Sinner? No I don’t think he was. But I do think he was a cowardly fool for signing the statements and not speaking up at the trials.
For me, the individuals really at the root of this whole saga are the PO investigators. They have been a disgrace to the role, as they clearly don’t understand their responsibilities. As I said many months ago, their most basic function is to pursue all lines of enquiry, whether they point towards the guilt of a suspect, or their innocence. What these investigators have done, when suspects have been identified, is build cases against them.
Had the early cases been investigated by independent and skilled police fraud investigators, who employ any number of forensic techniques, I remain convinced the Horizon issue would have been identified at the outset. That would have saved a world of pain for those caught up in this mess.
As regards Gareth Jenkins, I am minded to agree that he has danced to the tune being played by the PO. But that, in itself, is clear evidence that he doesn’t understand his position as an Expert Witness. He is not, and never was, an expert working on behalf of the PO. An Expert Witness does not answer to those who instruct them - they are there to inform the Courts. If Jenkins had identified failings in the Horizon system then, as an Expert Witness, his obligation was to say so.
Had the early cases been investigated by independent and skilled police fraud investigators, who employ any number of forensic techniques, I remain convinced the Horizon issue would have been identified at the outset. That would have saved a world of pain for those caught up in this mess.
As regards Gareth Jenkins, I am minded to agree that he has danced to the tune being played by the PO. But that, in itself, is clear evidence that he doesn’t understand his position as an Expert Witness. He is not, and never was, an expert working on behalf of the PO. An Expert Witness does not answer to those who instruct them - they are there to inform the Courts. If Jenkins had identified failings in the Horizon system then, as an Expert Witness, his obligation was to say so.
“Not one single prosecution is sound.”
Everyone and their dog knows that now. But the above is in quotation marks. Who said it, when was it said and what led them to that conclusion? Bearing in mind what went on, the answer is heartbreaking.
As the number of prosecutions started to rise around 2005-6, and SubPostmasters were saying that Horizon was at fault, the PO asked Fujitsu to do a deep dive into transaction and error logs. Not a ‘can you check x, y, z’ but a full on, in-depth investigation and for the results to be presented to the PO senior management team in a comprehensive report, including slides.
Fujitsu did as requested, right the way into the coding. What was found?
The PO asked the right questions. Fujitsu provided a comprehensive reply. And…
Countless lives ruined, some lost.
Everyone and their dog knows that now. But the above is in quotation marks. Who said it, when was it said and what led them to that conclusion? Bearing in mind what went on, the answer is heartbreaking.
As the number of prosecutions started to rise around 2005-6, and SubPostmasters were saying that Horizon was at fault, the PO asked Fujitsu to do a deep dive into transaction and error logs. Not a ‘can you check x, y, z’ but a full on, in-depth investigation and for the results to be presented to the PO senior management team in a comprehensive report, including slides.
Fujitsu did as requested, right the way into the coding. What was found?
- Transaction data was being lost without error codes being created.
- Error logs were being created but subsequently disappeared.
- Data transfers to the PO’s central servers were being corrupted.
- Data transfers were disappearing part way through transfers.
- The issues “are endemic throughout the network.”
- “Not one single prosecution is sound.”
The PO asked the right questions. Fujitsu provided a comprehensive reply. And…
Countless lives ruined, some lost.
Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu engineer/expert witness. Saint of sinner? - Take 2.
We know that Jenkins found two bugs in Seema Misra’s terminal, one of which was bug #64 the receipts & balance mismatch bug. We know he emailed that to Jarnail Singh. And we know from the court transcript & the recent questioning from Jason Beer KC that Jenkins did not mention them when in the witness box. Did…not…mention…them…in…court…
As well as the obvious implications for Seema Misra, the ‘did not mention in court,’ has jarred a nerve with me for a few days. There was something half hidden, half seen, in the mist that had other equally serious implications. Dots to be joined…?
Around 2 years later, Susan Crichton, General Counsel @ the PO, was becoming concerned by the number of SubPostmasters who were saying Horizon was at fault. A discussion was started between senior managers/directors about whether or not prosecutions should be paused. The hawks felt that a pause whilst an investigation into Horizon would weaken the previous prosecutions.
A compromise was reached. Crichton would contact Jenkins and ask about bugs. Jenkins’ reply was that the 2 bugs found in Misra’s terminal were brought up in her trial, a guilty verdict was still given and Horizon’s integrity was confirmed by the judge in his ruling.
Crichton shared Jenkins reply and although there were still some serious concerns, Vennells made the decision to continue prosecutions based on Jenkins’ reply. There was a win for Crichton though. It was agreed that an independent review of Horizon would take place, and Second Sight were brought in. However, Crichton’s support of Second Sight, and her refusal to go against her professional Code of Conduct, would ultimately see her unceremoniously booted from her job.
Just how many reviews & reports on Horizon’s integrity took place? A few I can remember…
- The deep dive requested by the PO in 2006.
- The Second Sight review.
- The Rod Ismay report.
- The Helen Rose report.
- The Deloitte review.
- The Swift review.
As for Jenkins, his reply to Crichton that the bugs had been raised in Misra’s trial emboldened the PO to continue prosecutions. He’s now in the sinner’s column.
Lee Castleton, ex-SubPostmaster, becomes the first individual to sue the Post Office & Fujitsu for fraud over the Horizon scandal.
I admire the guy’s courage but, without crowd funding, I seriously question whether or not it’s a wise move.
The background;
Lee Castleton was originally charged with theft when a shortfall of around £25k was found in his branch account. Bizarrely, the PO didn’t turn up for the hearing, and the case was dismissed. The PO then took the case to the Crown Court. As the costs for Lee Castleton started to mount he could no longer afford legal representation, and decided to conduct his own defence. The PO strung him out, and costs continued to rise.
Eventually, Lee just couldn’t continue. He agreed to an uncontested charge of false accounting. The PO then went after him for costs, the intention, evidenced by numerous internal emails at the Inquiry, was to (vindictively) completely and utterly break him so as to send a message to all the SubPostmasters. It wasn’t about justice, it was about spiteful posturing. Maybe bullying would be a better term.
The cost to Lee came to £321,000…
So why fraud? Fraud isn’t necessarily financial. In this case it’s about the lie that no bugs were found. Fujitsu found the bug. Fujitsu shared that with the PO, and a) the PO didn’t Disclose that to Lee, but more importantly b) the PO said that no issues were found with the Horizon terminal in Lee’s branch, and c) the Fujitsu expert didn’t Disclose it in their witness statement. The lie…
Why not Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice? I’d be guessing. In my humble, uneducated opinion proving conspiracy might be lengthy and expensive, but proving the lie is as easy as 1, 2, 3.
Does that let the PO off lightly? No, not really. The sentencing might be lesser but if this is an easy ‘hit,’ go for it. There’s enough evidence from numerous other sources for others, e.g. the Police, to pursue Conspiracy charges. And if Lee Castleton feels he needs to go there for his own reasons, maybe even cathartic, bring it on.
There’s a considerable number of SubPostmasters, journalists, politicians and bloggers that post up on X(Twitter) daily. Lee is often copied into those posts, and he always replies. And always expresses his gratitude to those who contact him. He is a genuine, nice gentle man. However, he wants to see those that wronged him so badly, in court.
I admire the guy’s courage but, without crowd funding, I seriously question whether or not it’s a wise move.
The background;
Lee Castleton was originally charged with theft when a shortfall of around £25k was found in his branch account. Bizarrely, the PO didn’t turn up for the hearing, and the case was dismissed. The PO then took the case to the Crown Court. As the costs for Lee Castleton started to mount he could no longer afford legal representation, and decided to conduct his own defence. The PO strung him out, and costs continued to rise.
Eventually, Lee just couldn’t continue. He agreed to an uncontested charge of false accounting. The PO then went after him for costs, the intention, evidenced by numerous internal emails at the Inquiry, was to (vindictively) completely and utterly break him so as to send a message to all the SubPostmasters. It wasn’t about justice, it was about spiteful posturing. Maybe bullying would be a better term.
The cost to Lee came to £321,000…
So why fraud? Fraud isn’t necessarily financial. In this case it’s about the lie that no bugs were found. Fujitsu found the bug. Fujitsu shared that with the PO, and a) the PO didn’t Disclose that to Lee, but more importantly b) the PO said that no issues were found with the Horizon terminal in Lee’s branch, and c) the Fujitsu expert didn’t Disclose it in their witness statement. The lie…
Why not Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice? I’d be guessing. In my humble, uneducated opinion proving conspiracy might be lengthy and expensive, but proving the lie is as easy as 1, 2, 3.
Does that let the PO off lightly? No, not really. The sentencing might be lesser but if this is an easy ‘hit,’ go for it. There’s enough evidence from numerous other sources for others, e.g. the Police, to pursue Conspiracy charges. And if Lee Castleton feels he needs to go there for his own reasons, maybe even cathartic, bring it on.
There’s a considerable number of SubPostmasters, journalists, politicians and bloggers that post up on X(Twitter) daily. Lee is often copied into those posts, and he always replies. And always expresses his gratitude to those who contact him. He is a genuine, nice gentle man. However, he wants to see those that wronged him so badly, in court.
I’ve been dipping in and out of the sessions from before the ITV document-drama, that programme being my start point for following the Inquiry & posting up the précis of the sessions. I’ve come across a clip of a session in which Jason Beer KC questions David McDonnell, one of the development managers @ ICL/Fujitsu.
McDonnell was interviewed, brought in around 1998. He was told at interview that he would be managing the development of the EPOS software, and have a team of around 7 code writers. He was also told in that interview that the product coming out of that team was very poor.
His answers to the questions are very open and very damning;
Bearing in mind when all this work was going on, and the view that the package would decay further from an already poor level - it’s truly shocking.
McDonnell was interviewed, brought in around 1998. He was told at interview that he would be managing the development of the EPOS software, and have a team of around 7 code writers. He was also told in that interview that the product coming out of that team was very poor.
His answers to the questions are very open and very damning;
- The team had 2 decent code writers, 2 capable of writing code & 3 that were nowhere near good enough.
- The EPOS code that was being written had… thousands… of bugs, not all of which were immediately obvious.
- The ‘patches’ that were being written would cure an issue but due to the nature of how they themselves were tested, would cause issues further down the line due to code decay.
- The EPOS software was “not fit for purpose.”
- His team created the software that allowed the Helpdesk to access the branches remotely, and the software also allowed balance mismatches to be dumped automatically but would trigger a code…
Bearing in mind when all this work was going on, and the view that the package would decay further from an already poor level - it’s truly shocking.
From minute 16:40 Fiona Paige, one of the Core Participants solicitors, interviewing Helen Rose, PO investigator.
Brace yourselves for this one. She and Steve Bradshaw, another investigator, interviewed a SubPostmaster, Michael Mann. Sadly, following the interview/investigation it was decided to prosecute. Michael Mann committed suicide. Rose is asked if she remembers the details around that - “I don’t recall.” She is then asked about the investigation and interview into her’s and Bradshaw’s aggressive interviewing of Michael Mann. “I didn’t even know it was a a disciplinary investigation.”
How on earth do you forget the details around the investigation into someone who, subsequently, committed suicide? How on earth do you forget about a disciplinary investigation into your behaviour when it’s linked to a suicide.
Earlier in the video she’s asked about her investigation report into Lee Castleton. She’s led through her conclusions that Castleton broke protocol in leaving the safe open, and her comment that Castleton smelled of alcohol. Having had her confirm it was her report and its contents, she was then asked why her co-investigator said that Lee Castleton’s safe protocols were fine, and there was no mention of alcohol.
And she goes onto say she remembers very little about the Helen Rose report, which carried so much weight with the board. It was a major part of getting Second Sight’s contract cancelled and in getting Susan Crichton, PO General Counsel, sacked. But she doesn’t recall…
Perhaps one of the very worst Alzheimer’s sufferers working for the PO.
Brace yourselves for this one. She and Steve Bradshaw, another investigator, interviewed a SubPostmaster, Michael Mann. Sadly, following the interview/investigation it was decided to prosecute. Michael Mann committed suicide. Rose is asked if she remembers the details around that - “I don’t recall.” She is then asked about the investigation and interview into her’s and Bradshaw’s aggressive interviewing of Michael Mann. “I didn’t even know it was a a disciplinary investigation.”
How on earth do you forget the details around the investigation into someone who, subsequently, committed suicide? How on earth do you forget about a disciplinary investigation into your behaviour when it’s linked to a suicide.
Earlier in the video she’s asked about her investigation report into Lee Castleton. She’s led through her conclusions that Castleton broke protocol in leaving the safe open, and her comment that Castleton smelled of alcohol. Having had her confirm it was her report and its contents, she was then asked why her co-investigator said that Lee Castleton’s safe protocols were fine, and there was no mention of alcohol.
And she goes onto say she remembers very little about the Helen Rose report, which carried so much weight with the board. It was a major part of getting Second Sight’s contract cancelled and in getting Susan Crichton, PO General Counsel, sacked. But she doesn’t recall…
Perhaps one of the very worst Alzheimer’s sufferers working for the PO.
