clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
I think the judges who put these people in jail have a lot to answer for if this was read out in court.!
No wonder there is no faith in the justice system in this country.
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
No wonder there is no faith in the justice system in this country.
A majority verdict after the judge summed up to the jury saying "its your signature on your weekly accounts sheet."
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
A jury convicting her is even worse.
She could not sign it if she was on holiday surley??
Just on your post is enough to cast a big dought.
But I have done jury service several times and nothing surprises me anymore.
Below is the first report from Sir Wyn’s Inquiry. It’s 166 pages long, fairly short really but a very tough read.
Re @clubchamp98 post about justice and the judicial system, one of the sections in it refers to a number of SubPostmasters, counter clerks & sub Post Office who were convicted & imprisoned. Each one just beggar’s belief.
The report also details the various compensation schemes set up by the PO, and the appalling, vindictive way they’ve been administered. Rather than go through a number of claims that just make the blood boil, I’ve already used a few as examples previously, I’ll touch on the Overturned Convictions Scheme.
The OCS was set up following the judgement against the PO in the Group Litigation Order case. Its name is self explanatory, i.e. it looks to compensate those whose convictions have been overturned. All good so far… BUT… first of all, we could split hairs on the level of compensation. Thankfully, following an intervention by the govt’s PO minister those levels are being increased. All good so far… BUT…
Brace yourselves. 3 of the SubPostmasters who were part of the GLO victory were told paying them compensation “wasn’t in the public’s interest.” Why? The PO didn’t agree with the court’s decision to overturn their convictions but as they’d served their sentence the PO wouldn’t be appealing. Surely that could be argued as contempt of court?
I’ve not bottomed it out yet but 2 of the 3 have since received compensation - I think I read somewhere that Sir Wyn had got involved… However, the third, Mr Patel, has not received anything. Mr Patel is getting on a bit now and isn’t in the best of health - hasn’t been for some time. Makes you wonder, cynically, if the PO are hoping for… Mr Patel’s son campaigns, quite loudly, on behalf of his father. The son’s victim’s impact statement is a tough read, as is Millie Castleton’s.
www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk
Re @clubchamp98 post about justice and the judicial system, one of the sections in it refers to a number of SubPostmasters, counter clerks & sub Post Office who were convicted & imprisoned. Each one just beggar’s belief.
The report also details the various compensation schemes set up by the PO, and the appalling, vindictive way they’ve been administered. Rather than go through a number of claims that just make the blood boil, I’ve already used a few as examples previously, I’ll touch on the Overturned Convictions Scheme.
The OCS was set up following the judgement against the PO in the Group Litigation Order case. Its name is self explanatory, i.e. it looks to compensate those whose convictions have been overturned. All good so far… BUT… first of all, we could split hairs on the level of compensation. Thankfully, following an intervention by the govt’s PO minister those levels are being increased. All good so far… BUT…
Brace yourselves. 3 of the SubPostmasters who were part of the GLO victory were told paying them compensation “wasn’t in the public’s interest.” Why? The PO didn’t agree with the court’s decision to overturn their convictions but as they’d served their sentence the PO wouldn’t be appealing. Surely that could be argued as contempt of court?
I’ve not bottomed it out yet but 2 of the 3 have since received compensation - I think I read somewhere that Sir Wyn had got involved… However, the third, Mr Patel, has not received anything. Mr Patel is getting on a bit now and isn’t in the best of health - hasn’t been for some time. Makes you wonder, cynically, if the PO are hoping for… Mr Patel’s son campaigns, quite loudly, on behalf of his father. The son’s victim’s impact statement is a tough read, as is Millie Castleton’s.
Volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry's final report | Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
The second half of the report looks at the various compensation schemes and how they are performing. It’s nice to get some good news-ish for once. Equally, there are still some deeply flawed aspects too. The what does come out in the report is that the schemes have been refined almost monthly in the last year.
Historically, there’s been some appalling actions, and inactions, in relation to the schemes. Deeply combative assessments, horrendous conditions applied to applicants, cynical actions, lack of speed and downright unprofessionalism. The one big aspect I feel has been missing throughout is the acceptance of a need for ‘natural justice.’ But also for me is a view that the (skewed) narrative that the compensation schemes act as a punishment. No they don’t. The schemes are funded by the Treasury, and it is the U.K. population that are paying. Another disappointing comment in the report is the mantra adopted by the Treasury, pedalled by the PO and accepted by Sir Wyn is that the schemes must achieve value for money… really? I thought it’s about full & fair compensation, not can we shave a few thousand off the payments?
Just on the full & FAIR compensation. A statistic has arisen that Sir Wyn has highlighted to the PO. Those claimants that use a solicitor are getting higher payments than those who don’t. Why? But there’s some good from Sir Wyn’s intervention. Those that didn’t use a solicitor are being written to by the PO, and a further assessment is taking place. And the PO are proactively advising new claimants to get a solicitor, and their costs are being added to their payouts.
So what’s the good?
Unfortunately, the payment of compensation to all is going to take quite some time. That’s because the number of claims is huge, over 10,000 with an expected 3,000+ still expected. It’s totally caught the PO by surprise.
Historically, there’s been some appalling actions, and inactions, in relation to the schemes. Deeply combative assessments, horrendous conditions applied to applicants, cynical actions, lack of speed and downright unprofessionalism. The one big aspect I feel has been missing throughout is the acceptance of a need for ‘natural justice.’ But also for me is a view that the (skewed) narrative that the compensation schemes act as a punishment. No they don’t. The schemes are funded by the Treasury, and it is the U.K. population that are paying. Another disappointing comment in the report is the mantra adopted by the Treasury, pedalled by the PO and accepted by Sir Wyn is that the schemes must achieve value for money… really? I thought it’s about full & fair compensation, not can we shave a few thousand off the payments?
Just on the full & FAIR compensation. A statistic has arisen that Sir Wyn has highlighted to the PO. Those claimants that use a solicitor are getting higher payments than those who don’t. Why? But there’s some good from Sir Wyn’s intervention. Those that didn’t use a solicitor are being written to by the PO, and a further assessment is taking place. And the PO are proactively advising new claimants to get a solicitor, and their costs are being added to their payouts.
So what’s the good?
- The schemes have been simplified, some merged.
- The conditions applied to the applicants to get on the schemes are a lot gentler.
- An independent review panel is in place to arbitrate appeals, but only for some of the schemes.
- The interim payments, whilst pending full assessment, has been very much increased.
- The Post Office are proactively writing to the SubPostmasters asking them to consider putting in a claim.
Unfortunately, the payment of compensation to all is going to take quite some time. That’s because the number of claims is huge, over 10,000 with an expected 3,000+ still expected. It’s totally caught the PO by surprise.
Ex-SubPostmaster Janet Skinner revealed offer the Post Office have made. A bit of the back story.
Janet Skinner was found guilty of theft, the sum being £59,000 and sentenced to 9 months in prison. The family home & business had to be sold. Her daughters had to go and live with relatives. Janet became paralysed due to stress, a year in a wheelchair and she lost the ability to talk.
Her conviction was quashed 4.5 years ago. The criteria set by the Post Office for a claim is quite restrictive, and includes using a forensic accountant to detail the claim. The Post Office insisted on a full medical report, and then requested 4 more medicals, obviously not trusting the first 4 doctor’s reports. It’s taken almost 4 years for the Post Office to come up with a figure.
Bear in mind that there is a set figure of £600,000 on the table for the more complex cases, which can be refused in favour of claiming more. We don’t know how much the figure is that Janet Skinner’s claim came to, nor do we know how much the PO offered. However, we do know what percentage of that claim the PO have offered. 15%.
What I don’t quite understand is if the criteria are so tight, why only pay out 15%?
Janet Skinner was found guilty of theft, the sum being £59,000 and sentenced to 9 months in prison. The family home & business had to be sold. Her daughters had to go and live with relatives. Janet became paralysed due to stress, a year in a wheelchair and she lost the ability to talk.
Her conviction was quashed 4.5 years ago. The criteria set by the Post Office for a claim is quite restrictive, and includes using a forensic accountant to detail the claim. The Post Office insisted on a full medical report, and then requested 4 more medicals, obviously not trusting the first 4 doctor’s reports. It’s taken almost 4 years for the Post Office to come up with a figure.
Bear in mind that there is a set figure of £600,000 on the table for the more complex cases, which can be refused in favour of claiming more. We don’t know how much the figure is that Janet Skinner’s claim came to, nor do we know how much the PO offered. However, we do know what percentage of that claim the PO have offered. 15%.
What I don’t quite understand is if the criteria are so tight, why only pay out 15%?
A senior Fujitsu executive’s response to volume 1 of Sir Wyn’s report, a report that includes 13 suicides.
“It’s not that bad.”
Does he think 13 suicides is “not that bad?” Does he think they’ve dodged a bullet? Does he think the Inquiry has missed something?
“It’s not that bad.”
Does he think 13 suicides is “not that bad?” Does he think they’ve dodged a bullet? Does he think the Inquiry has missed something?
The government’s response to Sir Wyn’s recommendations(19) in volume 1 of the report;
They’ve accepted every recommendation bar one. The one they haven’t accepted they’ve actually beefed up in favour of the SubPostmasters.
Great result!!!
They’ve accepted every recommendation bar one. The one they haven’t accepted they’ve actually beefed up in favour of the SubPostmasters.
Great result!!!
Last edited:
Following a number of negative appearances by prosecution technical witnesses, how did the PO & Fujitsu ‘hide’ those witnesses from the courts?
Following Gareth Jenkins sharing his findings to Second Sight, findings he didn’t share from the witness box, he was deemed to be a tainted witness. The danger of getting him into a witness box again and the defence asking awkward questions led to him being hid away. Several PO investigators also asked difficult questions, one even revealing something from the witness box that miraculously slipped by the defence team. They were moved sideways.
So how did Fujitsu provide technical reports in court cases going forward, especially as the PO had said they explicitly didn’t want to risk having Jenkins testify?
Fujitsu decided to employ an IT Analyst. Andrew Dunks was employed… his CV makes for interesting reading
He was a builder with no formal IT qualifications.
For 10 years Dunks sat with Fujitsu engineers, listened to their analysis of error logs and then regurgitated them in his own words. Personally, I’m not sure whether or not that would be hearsay. Maybe that’s one for the likes of @Billysboots
But if his regurgitation was an accurate retelling of what he was told… It wasn’t, it wasn’t even close. He omitted anything that might compromise the prosecution - let’s not forget, he was before the court as an independent technical witness.
In Seema Misra’s case he was told that further investigation was required. It didn’t happen. She went to prison. In Jo Hamilton’s case he was told there were critical errors. Jo was bankrupted. And this went on for 10 years, during which time prosecutions peaked at over 500 per year.
In the GLO case finding by judge Mr Fraser he said, Andrew Dunks had "expressly sought to mislead" the court. This isn't judicial criticism. It's a formal finding of deliberate dishonesty under oath. The Judge called Dunks "a very unsatisfactory witness" who presented "a very one-sided picture which was to omit any reference to important contemporaneous documents." Translation: Dunks lied to the court.
The above are already court findings that weren’t contested. ANDREW DUNKS IS STILL EMPLOYED BY FUJITSU….
Sounds like a slam dunk (
) prosecution in the making… I hope…
Following Gareth Jenkins sharing his findings to Second Sight, findings he didn’t share from the witness box, he was deemed to be a tainted witness. The danger of getting him into a witness box again and the defence asking awkward questions led to him being hid away. Several PO investigators also asked difficult questions, one even revealing something from the witness box that miraculously slipped by the defence team. They were moved sideways.
So how did Fujitsu provide technical reports in court cases going forward, especially as the PO had said they explicitly didn’t want to risk having Jenkins testify?
Fujitsu decided to employ an IT Analyst. Andrew Dunks was employed… his CV makes for interesting reading
He was a builder with no formal IT qualifications.For 10 years Dunks sat with Fujitsu engineers, listened to their analysis of error logs and then regurgitated them in his own words. Personally, I’m not sure whether or not that would be hearsay. Maybe that’s one for the likes of @Billysboots
But if his regurgitation was an accurate retelling of what he was told… It wasn’t, it wasn’t even close. He omitted anything that might compromise the prosecution - let’s not forget, he was before the court as an independent technical witness.
In Seema Misra’s case he was told that further investigation was required. It didn’t happen. She went to prison. In Jo Hamilton’s case he was told there were critical errors. Jo was bankrupted. And this went on for 10 years, during which time prosecutions peaked at over 500 per year.
In the GLO case finding by judge Mr Fraser he said, Andrew Dunks had "expressly sought to mislead" the court. This isn't judicial criticism. It's a formal finding of deliberate dishonesty under oath. The Judge called Dunks "a very unsatisfactory witness" who presented "a very one-sided picture which was to omit any reference to important contemporaneous documents." Translation: Dunks lied to the court.
The above are already court findings that weren’t contested. ANDREW DUNKS IS STILL EMPLOYED BY FUJITSU….
Sounds like a slam dunk (
) prosecution in the making… I hope…
What’s the ballpark percentage the PO are offering in compensation payments, bearing in mind that the claims are put together following strict criteria laid down by the PO?
You’d like to think that the percentage offered, based on the claimants following the criteria laid down would be well passed 50%, maybe close on 70%-80%.
Brace yourself…. Drum roll…. The vast majority of offers made are coming in, in the low teens.
Chris Head, the young SubPostmaster from the northeast, was offered 12.5% of the claim submitted. It was upped to 15%, then 20%, then 22%, then 25%. If Chris’s claim has been put together by a forensic accountant & solicitor, as laid down by the PO, it’s hardly likely to be extravagant. And if his claim was an outlier I’d expect it would be ‘bounced,’ but almost everyone’s claim, all 555 in the GLO scheme, are being offered in the low teens.
Chris has a major concern over his claim. He rejected the fixed sum payment as his calculated claim came out at a significantly higher figure but having rejected the £75,000 he is now at the mercy of the independent
Advisory panel. And the offer he’s received is significantly less than £75,000.
A question; if the govt determined that a figure of £75,000 is available to everyone in the GLO scheme, why isn’t that also considered to be the starting point for anyone whose calculated claim comes out higher?
You’d like to think that the percentage offered, based on the claimants following the criteria laid down would be well passed 50%, maybe close on 70%-80%.
Brace yourself…. Drum roll…. The vast majority of offers made are coming in, in the low teens.
Chris Head, the young SubPostmaster from the northeast, was offered 12.5% of the claim submitted. It was upped to 15%, then 20%, then 22%, then 25%. If Chris’s claim has been put together by a forensic accountant & solicitor, as laid down by the PO, it’s hardly likely to be extravagant. And if his claim was an outlier I’d expect it would be ‘bounced,’ but almost everyone’s claim, all 555 in the GLO scheme, are being offered in the low teens.
Chris has a major concern over his claim. He rejected the fixed sum payment as his calculated claim came out at a significantly higher figure but having rejected the £75,000 he is now at the mercy of the independent
Advisory panel. And the offer he’s received is significantly less than £75,000.A question; if the govt determined that a figure of £75,000 is available to everyone in the GLO scheme, why isn’t that also considered to be the starting point for anyone whose calculated claim comes out higher?
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
A great many wronged Sub-Postmasters, including Sir Alan, stated some time ago that they did not want to have submit "claims" to the body that wronged them as they have proved themselves to be untrustworthy and unscrupulous. They felt it would be more appropriate for an independent intermediary body to deal with the claims and for these to be presented to the Post Office as a "fait accompli".
What they most feared is occurring, causing more distress to the already wronged.
When will we see the same, or perhaps greater, amount of distress being rightly perpetrated on those who are responsible for the wrongdoing?
What they most feared is occurring, causing more distress to the already wronged.
When will we see the same, or perhaps greater, amount of distress being rightly perpetrated on those who are responsible for the wrongdoing?
Last edited:
The quoted post above is from less than two weeks ago. Quite what went on behind the scenes as this offer was made public…
Janet has now been made another offer, which she’s accepted. The interim payment is higher than the 15%, and she is now able to buy a house after 15 years in rented accommodation. Although she wouldn’t say what the value of the full offer is, she did say that she will be able to put things in place to help with her complex medical issues.
I must say I may have had a bit of dust in my eye hearing her speak.
How much has Fujitsu put in, in support of the growing bill for compensation and legal costs?
I remember being very impressed with the then U.K. CEO of Fujitsu, Paul Patterson, speaking very clearly about Fujitsu’s behaviour being “shameful,” and that they “will also support the children of SubPostmasters.” He didn’t hide from tough questions, and was very open in his answers.
Paul Patterson is now CEO Europe for Fujitsu. In a subsequent interview we saw a different side to him. A sharp, combative individual who, perhaps, went a little too far in his defence of Fujitsu.
So how much has Fujitsu compensated the victims & the PO for a product that isn’t fit for purpose? They’ve contributed nothing. They have received £230,000,000 from Japan as support but it’s not made it out of the door yet…
As for the Fujitsu executive who said Sir Wyn’s report “wasn’t too bad…” another quote from him, “this will all blow over in the next 12 to 18 months.”
I remember being very impressed with the then U.K. CEO of Fujitsu, Paul Patterson, speaking very clearly about Fujitsu’s behaviour being “shameful,” and that they “will also support the children of SubPostmasters.” He didn’t hide from tough questions, and was very open in his answers.
Paul Patterson is now CEO Europe for Fujitsu. In a subsequent interview we saw a different side to him. A sharp, combative individual who, perhaps, went a little too far in his defence of Fujitsu.
So how much has Fujitsu compensated the victims & the PO for a product that isn’t fit for purpose? They’ve contributed nothing. They have received £230,000,000 from Japan as support but it’s not made it out of the door yet…
As for the Fujitsu executive who said Sir Wyn’s report “wasn’t too bad…” another quote from him, “this will all blow over in the next 12 to 18 months.”
As mentioned earlier in the thread Fujitsu made a statement almost 2 years ago that they would pause bidding on new govt contracts. Also mentioned since then is the methods Fujitsu have employed to circumvent that promise.
Although there isn’t a published, definitive figure out for what they’ve banked from new business since the promise was made Computer Weekly reported a sum of £650,000,000 for the last financial year.
I, originally, thought that Fujitsu were unwitting in what’s gone on but it soon became abundantly clear they’re very much culpable. The employment of Andrew Dunks as an IT analyst, see post 1,069 above, shows exactly what Fujitsu’s mindset was. Paul Patterson, now CEO Europe said all the right things during his first session at the Inquiry and when he was before Liam Byrne MP’s Commons Select Committee, including Fujitsu would pay. To date, the British taxpayer, via the Post Office has paid out over £1 billion, Fujitsu have paid £zero£.
Although there isn’t a published, definitive figure out for what they’ve banked from new business since the promise was made Computer Weekly reported a sum of £650,000,000 for the last financial year.
I, originally, thought that Fujitsu were unwitting in what’s gone on but it soon became abundantly clear they’re very much culpable. The employment of Andrew Dunks as an IT analyst, see post 1,069 above, shows exactly what Fujitsu’s mindset was. Paul Patterson, now CEO Europe said all the right things during his first session at the Inquiry and when he was before Liam Byrne MP’s Commons Select Committee, including Fujitsu would pay. To date, the British taxpayer, via the Post Office has paid out over £1 billion, Fujitsu have paid £zero£.
AussieKB
Well-known member
What happened to British Justice ?
I really feel sorry for all those innocent people and their family.
I really feel sorry for all those innocent people and their family.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
An awful lot of people in the UK don’t think there is any anymore.!
Money and power rule if your poor tough titty.
GreiginFife
Money List Winner
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Your right but it’s shown up more these days.
GreiginFife
Money List Winner
Has it? Or is it just that the pervasive nature of media is making it more apparent?
Maybe it’s also the little people not letting go of an issue.
All credit to the Hillsborough families for pushing and pushing.
All credit to Alan Bates and his justice for SubPostmasters group.
And there’s the contaminated blood scandal.
All have taken far too long but providing the Hillsborough Law actually has teeth and is respected…
