clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
I hope so.
What I have learned the last few months is just criminal.
They could have put a stop to it but chose not to lose face.
They deserve everything they get.
Open the Tower of London just for PO bosses.
Post Office - Horizon scandal
- Thread starter Jensen
- Start date
What I have learned the last few months is just criminal.
They could have put a stop to it but chose not to lose face.
They deserve everything they get.
Open the Tower of London just for PO bosses.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
For a very serious case of Fraud By Abuse Of Position, the sentencing guideline is 6 to 10 years.
What marks out a serious case is that it was planned and prolonged and not an opportunistic one off event.
A very serious case is one that has multiple victims who suffer life changing losses.
I shall copy and paste the next bit,
Fraud by Abuse of Position
Introduction
The offence of Fraud by Abuse of Position is contained within section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 (“the Act”). This offence is a variant of the offence of Fraud which is contained within section 1 of the Act. As the name suggests, it relates to circumstances where a person commits fraud by dishonestly abusing their position. The “position” could be, for example, an employee to an employer. This is illustrated by a recent case of Susan Bailey, a finical administrator at a power company who dishonestly gave herself a £33,000 pay rise as well as misappropriating funds from her employers to a total of £175,000.
The offence is known as an ‘either way’ offence which means that it can be heard either in the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court.
It is also worth noting that this offence can be committed by a company, not just by a person. If that situation occurs those involved in the company management who have consented to or conspired in the offence may also be guilty under s12 of Fraud Act 2006.
What is Fraud by Abuse of Position?
There are four elements to this offence. The defendant will commit fraud by abuse of position if they:
What marks out a serious case is that it was planned and prolonged and not an opportunistic one off event.
A very serious case is one that has multiple victims who suffer life changing losses.
I shall copy and paste the next bit,
Fraud by Abuse of Position
Introduction
The offence of Fraud by Abuse of Position is contained within section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 (“the Act”). This offence is a variant of the offence of Fraud which is contained within section 1 of the Act. As the name suggests, it relates to circumstances where a person commits fraud by dishonestly abusing their position. The “position” could be, for example, an employee to an employer. This is illustrated by a recent case of Susan Bailey, a finical administrator at a power company who dishonestly gave herself a £33,000 pay rise as well as misappropriating funds from her employers to a total of £175,000.
The offence is known as an ‘either way’ offence which means that it can be heard either in the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court.
It is also worth noting that this offence can be committed by a company, not just by a person. If that situation occurs those involved in the company management who have consented to or conspired in the offence may also be guilty under s12 of Fraud Act 2006.
What is Fraud by Abuse of Position?
There are four elements to this offence. The defendant will commit fraud by abuse of position if they:
- occupied a position in which they were expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person;
- abused that position dishonestly; and
- intended by that abuse to make a gain for themselves or another or to cause a loss to another or expose another to a risk of loss.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
I really don’t understand how they could not be remotely interested in why it was happening.. it’s that lack of humanity that makes me think lock them up .. don’t want to hear how sorry they are now , it’s too late
williamalex1
Money List Winner
Couldn't there be a case of the PO directors perverting the course of justice.
Big bosses in ivory towers, completely detatched from the nuts and bolts of the company? Seeing people as numbers on a spreadsheet.
An important lesson for similar level bosses. No matter the size of the company, don't lose touch with those on the shop floor. By doing that they lose that sense of humanity.
RichA
Well-known member
Yep. Many of those bosses adopt an attitude that they don't want to hear about problems - "I don't want any pushback on this."
Their immediate underlings are then afraid to tell them if the factory is on fire in case it harms their own prospects.
So catastrophes occur and coverups are born.
Sometimes it’s difficult to rationalise irrational behaviour. Some managers appear to be incompetent, whilst others appear to lack integrity. I expect pretty much every manager involved has a bit of everything. And I dare say some managers took the coward’s way out and ignored what they knew to be the truth because it wasn’t the line senior managers were taking.
As for locking them up, I’m all for a good old fashioned eye for an eye on this one. For every manager implicated in some way, a minimum term of 9 months in prison rising to a few years to those heavily implicated.
As an aside, I’d like to know why the union leaders sided with PO management, even proactively trying to shut SPM’s up. Wonder what incentives the union leaders received?
This isn’t a fraud.
There are reasons I say that which are perhaps too complicated to go into here, but it centres around what constitutes a loss, and more importantly whether those suspected of the offence in this case acted with the intention to cause others to sustain such a loss. There may be one or two individuals in the PO who may be held to have committed an offence of fraud, but it just doesn’t fit the wider circumstances.
As stated before, the actions of PO investigators, executives, managers, lawyers and Fujitsu officials and employees is more likely to be regarded as a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The offence allows far greater sentencing powers, and is a much better fit. Ultimately, if the actions of those involved culminated in multiple miscarriages of justice then that’s surely a more suitable charge than one of fraud.
Perhaps a more difficult one to prove, and more wishful thinking on my part, but bearing mind there were suicides attributed to the wrongful prosecutions, could a charge of corporate manslaughter be added to the mix?
Non starter, Bri. It would be nice if that could happen for the relatives of those who died by their own hand, but virtually impossible to prove. It’s a very rarely charged offence.
Returning to the fraud question, whilst I understand why, on the face of it, fraud may seem appropriate, and I have conceded that a few individuals may be guilty of it, it’s just not a fit for the circumstances.
It would be something of a leap of faith to consider anyone other than those involved in the hands on day to day Horizon management to be a suspect in an offence of fraud. The PO investigators most likely weren’t, and it would be a virtual impossibility to involve those at senior levels in a prosecution for fraud.
It seems far more likely that all those I referred to in my earlier post have been involved to some extent in the suppression of evidence and all that comes along with it. It’s for that reason that an offence relating to the Courts is the right fit.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
To be honest my experience of UK management is very similar. It’s a career choice, don’t rock the boat and a hierarchical progression will still be on the table.
My last management role was mid level, but it was heavily populated and we were the guys to be sacrificed by the senior managers for any of their shortcomings and also it was more political at this level.
So I feel you see the political players rise through the system and in the end knowledge and integrity is removed.
As for the union, they are no better they play the same games only it might be a little less subtle.
I know I am pessimistic but my view is you will find the ones you can trust and they will be the technically wise, understand and respect the work of others and have empathy..all characteristics you will rarely find at CEO or senior manager level. They are just looking for someone to throw under the bus so they can get to the next level.
Ross61
Challenge Tour Pro
PO investigator Longman was in the enquiry today and said that it was his role to do the disclosure of evidence, but he was not aware that he was named as the disclosure officer. My question is, why was an investigator in charge of the disclosures, surely a legally trained lawyer should have been in charge as they would know what needs to be disclosed to the defence by law, not some bloke who had had a short bit of training at Milton Keynes?
The proper way to do it is in layers. An investigator will act as a disclosure officer - in most cases it will be the case officer, but in bigger cases a dedicated disclosure officer may be appointed.
But there will then still be a lawyer with disclosure responsibilities. The rules are less than straightforward, but it has long been accepted amongst investigators that, if a case is going to come unstuck, mistakes with disclosure are one of the areas where things are likely to go wrong.
Today’s inquiry spent a lot of time on disclosure. The defence teams asked for disclosure of data surrounding error logs for the Horizon system. The PO said it was too expensive and laborious, offering only limited disclosure. Internal docs show that the PO would wait to see if the defence got a court order before they would give full disclosure, telling the defence teams it was up to them to fund the work with Fujitsu.
By that time the PO were aware of duplication of data entries spuriously triggered by the system but didn’t disclose them to the defence…
Were the PO legally obliged to provide full disclosure?
The PO, as prosecutors, were legally obliged to disclose any material which either undermined the prosecution case or assisted the defence. It’s a basic disclosure rule which all investigators should be aware of.
Oh eck! Screwed then…
The basic disclosure principles are detailed in the link below.
www.cps.gov.uk
Disclosure | The Crown Prosecution Service
And if anyone cares to read them, they will realise the PO appear to have failed at very basic levels. Their investigations, based upon what has been shared so far with the public, would seem to have been grossly incompetent. And that’s being kind.
Today’s session just continues to reinforce the totally lack of integrity displayed by the Post Office, its legal team & independent solicitors employed by the PO.
Second Sight, the independent forensic accounts employed by the PO to carry out an investigation, started their work in 2012. They issued an interim report to the PO in mid 2013. Within that report there are 3 known software bugs previously identified that impacted on the day-2-day accounting of the sub post office’s cash flow, in and out.
Jason Beer KC, the inquiry’s solicitor absolutely put the PO solicitor, Rodric Williams through the mill today, asking when were these bugs known about and how did the impact previous and the running prosecutions …. Cue lots of waffling by Williams. The full 2:16 hours is below in which Jason Beers KC just hacks lumps off Williams almost line by line… it’s shocking.
Second Sight, the independent forensic accounts employed by the PO to carry out an investigation, started their work in 2012. They issued an interim report to the PO in mid 2013. Within that report there are 3 known software bugs previously identified that impacted on the day-2-day accounting of the sub post office’s cash flow, in and out.
Jason Beer KC, the inquiry’s solicitor absolutely put the PO solicitor, Rodric Williams through the mill today, asking when were these bugs known about and how did the impact previous and the running prosecutions …. Cue lots of waffling by Williams. The full 2:16 hours is below in which Jason Beers KC just hacks lumps off Williams almost line by line… it’s shocking.
There are two vids shared by the inquiry, an afternoon session with SPM’s solicitors and morning session with Jason Beers KC, both with a senior solicitor, Rodric Williams, from the PO. The afternoon session was very good but the morning session was brutal. Rodric Williams continues to behave a bit like Mr McGoo, which I find hard to believe of a solicitor operating at that level in a major organisation. Jason Beers KC, at one point supported by Sir WYN Williams, the chair, absolutely shreds him.
Below is the first session.
Below is the first session.
Last edited:
