Post Office - Horizon scandal

[Hobbit]

From the post above it looks like there's around 700 convictions. But what is the true scale of those affected by Horizon?

Sir Wyn's report goes into great detail on the human impact, listing things from suicides, attempted suicides, alcoholism, bankruptcies etc.

But what is the scale? Just how bad was Horizon, and just how evil and ignorant were those managing the issue?

A couple of numbers to shock you... out of 11,500 branches the total number of claims is expected to reach over 10,000.

The 'cheapest' scheme in terms of payouts is offering a minimum of £75,000 per claim. The most 'expensive' in terms of payouts is offering a minimum of £600,000. If every claim was the cheapest the total paid out will exceed £750,000,000. And the legal costs are already in the hundreds of millions.

Just a reminder... a number of members of the board suggested in 2012 that prosecutions must stop. Paula Vennells said we must continue.

Apologies, I missed a very important issue highlighted in Sir Wyn’s report. A significant number of SubPostmasters that were found to have shortfalls were not prosecuted but they did have their contracts with the PO terminated. They still had to honour their contracts with the PO, and their (alleged) shortfall made good. And in losing their PO branch they lost the reason why so many customers visited them, which is especially crucial as so many of them were run as a corner shop/PO.

 

[Hobbit]

A bit of light relief for a change, mixed with a few barbs…

 

[Hobbit]

Dipped in and out of a few sessions this morning picking out some of the key witnesses for both sides.

Kay Linnell, forensic accountant for several SubPostmasters and worked with Alan Bates as part of the mediation team in one of the compensation schemes. She had some revealing observations of the difference in the PO’s attitude to mediation when Susan Crichton was General Counsel to the PO compared to Chris Aujard when he took over Susan’s role.

But the stand out answer from her was when Ed Henry KC asked her to give an insight into just how broke the SubPostmasters were. There were a number of occasions she paid for bank statements that were required to support claims. I do remember that she & Izzy Hogg, Seema Misra’s solicitor, did a lot pro bono.

Contrast that with the language used by Chris Aujard in a briefing document to the PO board. The topic was strategies for prosecution.

1. Delay, delay, delay to drain the defendants fighting funds.
2. Carry on prosecuting as is.
3. “Attack the vulnerable…”
4. Pass the cases to the CPS.
5. Stop prosecutions completely.

The “attack the vulnerable” got my goat. In giving the evidence about the above, Aujard said he favoured stopping the prosecutions completely. Is that the same Aujard who threatened Second Sight with bankruptcy, and was labelled a bully by Lord Arbuthnot? He very much supported Vennells’ desire to continue prosecutions.

I remember Aujard’s afternoon, closing session, to the Inquiry but it’s not listed on the Inquiry’s YouTube channel - it’s missing…it was brutal. And I also remember he resigned from 6 directorships the following morning.

 

[Hobbit]

I rewatched Lord Arbuthnot’s evidence to the Inquiry this morning. I didn’t really connect the dots first time round as some of it seemed out of context, but evidence from subsequent witnesses helped add that context and helped pull together various threads. It also corroborated points raised by other witnesses.

I’ll bullet point a period around 2013/14.

• When Lord Arbuthnot was a commoner/MP he became part of a cross party group of MP representing a number of SubPostmasters, some of which had been convicted.
• Second Sight had been given a remit to review a number of convictions and claims against the PO.
• Alan Bates and his group, the Justice For SubPostmasters alliance, were working quite closely with both the above.
• The Post Office decided to set up a mediation scheme managed by Susan Crichton, General Counsel at the PO.

The PO seemed to be committed, in good faith, to this working but…. As Second Sight started to find that a number of convictions were very suspect, and that there were some serious issues, the PO could see that far from supporting Horizon’s integrity Second Sight might well blew it out of the water.

A decision was made by the inner circle to dump Second Sight, who by then were central to the mediation scheme. And as Susan Crichton had championed Second Sight, and refused to go against her professional code of ethics, dumper too. Crichton was the first to go, her management of the scheme from the PO side being passed to Angela Van Den Bogerd & Chris Aujard, Crichton’s replacement.

The PO came to the table in a far more belligerent form. The PO revised the criteria for applicants to scheme, excluding a number that had already been accepted. They then dismissed 90% of the claims. James Arbuthnot MP called a meeting, which included several other MP’s, Alan Bates, Kay Linnel(Forensic accountant for the JFSA) and from the PO side, Vennells, Van Den Bogerd & Aujard.

Vennells admitted in the meeting that a number of applicants had been excluded. Uproar! Arbuthnot accused Vennells on going back on her word. There was a bit of back and forth but the meeting broke up early and acrimoniously. Subsequently, Arbuthnot & the MP’s withdrew from supporting what they thought as a sham scheme. Similarly, Alan Bates & the JFSA did likewise. Second Sight were virtually out of the door by then and the scheme fizzled to nothing.

However, as evidenced by a number of internal emails, the PO got something they thought very valuable. They’d interviewed almost every applicant with an intention to garner as much information as possible about the group’s evidence against the PO.

James Arbuthnot’s view of Vennell’s behaviour in the meeting; she seemed cowed by Bogerd & Aujard. Not the first time we’ve heard those two described as bullies.

Someone who seems to have escaped a lot of criticism is Alice Perkins, Vennells boss. Watching her before the Inquiry was a tough watch. She appeared disinterested and very supercilious towards the Inquiry. The level of arrogance was almost off the chart but she was also very difficult to break. A few (re)watches of the salient pieces of her testimony revealed a subtle cunning in how she tried, often with some success, to shift a line of questioning or break its rhythm. But let’s not forget, there’s some great evidence, courtesy of emails and subsequent testimony from others, about her part in the horrendous treatment & sacking of Susan Crichton and the dumping of Second Sight…

 

[Hobbit]

Lee Castleton brining a £4m+ suit against the Post Office and Fujitsu.

Could this be the first of many?

Actually, he’s not the first.

The first one will blow your mind.

One of the Post Office investigators put a claim in a good while back. His rationale was that he acted in good faith pursuing SubPostmasters some of which were convicted. The trauma of sending innocent people to prison has impacted his mental health, and he holds the PO responsible.

I can’t remember how that one finished…

 

[Hobbit]

Serious issues and a potential conflict of interest for the Met Police in their investigation. A bit convoluted but bear withe me. The Met has a contract with a company that supplies uniforms. That company uses a Fujitsu developed software package, and Fujitsu provide the technical support including direct access onto the live system.

The major issue is that officer’s details are held in the database, and for some bizarre reason that also includes the cases they are working on.

Honestly, you can’t make it up… how stupid…

On another note, I’ve watched a fair bit of Alice Perkins sessions, she’s Vennells’ boss. As per the last paragraph in post 1,044 she is a real tough cookie. There are holes in some of her answers but it’s almost needles in haystacks skipping between her evidence and that of other witnesses.

However, flipping from her first session through to her final, 3rd, session and back and forth you see a very different Perkins. Almost sweetness and light early on but very guarded and defensive. She’s almost helpful but transitions to seemingly bored and uninterested by the end.

On a separate note, where the amount of cash allegedly missing was below a certain figure the PO issued cautions rather than prosecute, and there are a lot of SubPostmasters with cautions. Jason Beer KC nailed Jarnail Singh by asking “who gave the PO the authority to issue cautions?” All the cautions are illegal and have zero standing.

 

[Hobbit]

Alice Perkins slips up. It’s taken me over a week of dipping in and out and back and forth between her sessions and corroborating evidence from other witnesses. I think I’ve spotted a major slip up…

Ed Henry KC questions her about whether or not she read the Deloitte report. The report raises a few questions about the integrity of Horizon. Perkins maintains she never read the report. Eventually, she admits to reading the briefing document, which is a short précis of the report. The back and forth between Henry & Perkins continues about what action she would have taken if she’d read the full report and realised how potentially damning it was. Her response was that of course she would have acted if she had read it. But as the back & forth continues she says she reread it in the evidence bundle that had been sent through to her prior to her appearance at the Inquiry.

‘Reread it…’

I’m not sure if Ed Henry picked up on her slip, although he did pause. He didn’t question her on the slip, maybe because having got the admission he didn’t want to give her the opportunity to correct her (Freudian) slip.

 

[Pants]

Brian. Whilst I really appreciate your insight and commitment to your almost forensic examination of this debacle, reading your posts is not good for my blood pressure.
I’ll be investing in a defibrillator if you post again this week

Keep it up though and don't forget to send your analysis to Sir Wynn.

 

[rulefan]

Hobbit

Many thanks for your time and effort in keeping us all up to speed. Appreciated

 

[Hobbit]

Brian. Whilst I really appreciate your insight and commitment to your almost forensic examination of this debacle, reading your posts is not good for my blood pressure.
I’ll be investing in a defibrillator if you post again this week

Keep it up though and don't forget to send your analysis to Sir Wynn.

You want to have your blood boil…

I’m part way through Sir Wyn’s report. There’s a section about a SubPostmaster called Martin Griffith. Martin, bless him, had been a SubPostmaster since ‘95 without any problems. He was quite proficient with Horizon. However, following the upgrade from Horizon Legacy to Horizon Online in 2009 balancing problems started to occur.

Ultimately, a decision to prosecute was made. Some of the following I’ve already covered but there’s a significant piece in Sir Wyn’s report I hadn’t heard. The ‘in bold & italics’ is new to me.

He decided to accept a deal of false accounting and give up his PO as part of a cutting back exercise. The PO agreed to pay what in effect was a redundancy but he would have to pay the shortfall. The PO still end up taking money, the balance of the shortfall.

Whilst this was being negotiated, including him going to court for false accounting, his branch was subject to an armed robbery and he was injured. The PO decided that he must pay for the majority of the money lost in the robbery. He committed suicide…

There’s a post earlier in the thread about how Vennells & Van Den Bogard looked to put the blame for the suicide on relationship problems at home.

 

[Pants]

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Do I read this right Hobbit? Sir Wyn himself is highlighting this part about poor Martin Griffith, ? In what must be a highly critical example of what went on, and what must be his view of who did what and when.
I only hope that Sir Wyn is as outraged as we are and that he ensures the highest possible action is taken against those responsible .

 

[Hobbit]

Do I read this right Hobbit? Sir Wyn himself is highlighting this part about poor Martin Griffith, ? In what must be a highly critical example of what went on, and what must be his view of who did what and when.
I only hope that Sir Wyn is as outraged as we are and that he ensures the highest possible action is taken against those responsible .

I do remember the Martin Griffith ‘incident’ coming up in several sessions, although I don’t remember the point about Martin being held liable for some of the money lost in the robbery.

Vennells was questioned about her asking the comms & PR director to dig up the dirt on Griffith’s home life, and to look for an angle that would deflect any issues away from the PO. Needless to say, the questioning at this point was brutal.

Angle Van Den Bogerd met members of the immediate family following Martin’s death. There are two versions of what happened, 1) from the family side she was a nasty bully, b) from Bogerd the meeting was about supporting the family. The offer Bogerd took to the family was no different to that offered before Michael’s death. Again, the (moral) questioning around this was brutal.

Just what action can Sir Wyn ensure happens? Short answer, he can’t ensure anything. Having the Inquiry made a Statutory Inquiry meant he could subpoena witnesses & issue mandatory notices requesting evidence. However, all he can do is issue recommendations for action. Once upon a time there was almost an unwritten rule that recommendations must be actioned. Nowadays govts just ignore recommendations they don’t like. Equally, ignoring recommendations can backfire…

The Martin Griffith example is just the first one highlighted in the report.

Here’s a very different one. One SubPostmaster had been ringing the Helpdesk and the area contracts manager on a very regular basis about her balance constantly showing an excess, not a shortfall, of around £30,000. Auditors went in and after an investigation they determined she was holding an excess of around £90,000+. A theft charge and 6 charges of false accounting ensued. She was found guilty on all charges, and imprisoned. The £90,000+ was taken by the PO, but she didn’t have it. She was sued for it…

 

[clubchamp98]

I do remember the Martin Griffith ‘incident’ coming up in several sessions, although I don’t remember the point about Martin being held liable for some of the money lost in the robbery.

Vennells was questioned about her asking the comms & PR director to dig up the dirt on Griffith’s home life, and to look for an angle that would deflect any issues away from the PO. Needless to say, the questioning at this point was brutal.

Angle Van Den Bogerd met members of the immediate family following Martin’s death. There are two versions of what happened, 1) from the family side she was a nasty bully, b) from Bogerd the meeting was about supporting the family. The offer Bogerd took to the family was no different to that offered before Michael’s death. Again, the (moral) questioning around this was brutal.

Just what action can Sir Wyn ensure happens? Short answer, he can’t ensure anything. Having the Inquiry made a Statutory Inquiry meant he could subpoena witnesses & issue mandatory notices requesting evidence. However, all he can do is issue recommendations for action. Once upon a time there was almost an unwritten rule that recommendations must be actioned. Nowadays govts just ignore recommendations they don’t like. Equally, ignoring recommendations can backfire…

The Martin Griffith example is just the first one highlighted in the report.

Here’s a very different one. One SubPostmaster had been ringing the Helpdesk and the area contracts manager on a very regular basis about her balance constantly showing an excess, not a shortfall, of around £30,000. Auditors went in and after an investigation they determined she was holding an excess of around £90,000+. A theft charge and 6 charges of false accounting ensued. She was found guilty on all charges, and imprisoned. The £90,000+ was taken by the PO, but she didn’t have it. She was sued for it…

I know it was a while ago but how has any legal system allowed that to happen.

I thought Judges were very intelligent people some of them must have done multiple PO trials.
Could they not see a pattern.

 

[4LEX]

I know it was a while ago but how has any legal system allowed that to happen.

I thought Judges were very intelligent people some of them must have done multiple PO trials.
Could they not see a pattern.

The legal system favours those with money. Always has, always will. Go back to any serious injustices and it's always those with money that benefit and those without that suffer.

 

[Hobbit]

I’ve found a couple YouTube channels put together by a couple of barristers, the art of law & the black belt barrister. Typically, they’re quite dry but they certainly know the law.

Amongst the vids they’ve done they’ve covered perjury, false witnesses, failure to disclose, withholding evidence, deliberately lying to their barrister to ensure he lied to the court, and telling the court that the evidence is ‘owned’ by a 3rd party, thus it can’t be presented, even though they’d had the evidence for over a year.

The list goes on & on. I’m sure that if these guys have spotted it, Sir Wyn and his team have absolutely nailed it.

For anyone interested, the vids are around 10-15 minutes in length. Personally, I found I skipped through them to the juicy bits without losing the thread of what they were putting across.

 

[rulefan]

I’ve found a couple YouTube channels put together by a couple of barristers, the art of law & the black belt barrister. Typically, they’re quite dry but they certainly know the law.

Amongst the vids they’ve done they’ve covered perjury, false witnesses, failure to disclose, withholding evidence, deliberately lying to their barrister to ensure he lied to the court, and telling the court that the evidence is ‘owned’ by a 3rd party, thus it can’t be presented, even though they’d had the evidence for over a year.

The list goes on & on. I’m sure that if these guys have spotted it, Sir Wyn and his team have absolutely nailed it.

For anyone interested, the vids are around 10-15 minutes in length. Personally, I found I skipped through them to the juicy bits without losing the thread of what they were putting across.

Do you have links?

 

[Hobbit]

Do you have links?

See below. The links are to both vloggers, and you can search YouTube using their channel name for plenty more.

 

[Hobbit]

I’ve revisited the evidence given by Warwick Tatford KC, the prosecuting barrister in Seema Misra’s trial. My first viewing, way back when it’s was ‘live,’ led me to believe he was quite open with his evidence and quite contrite in his apology. To a large extent my view hasn’t changed… to a large extent…

However, there are a couple of things that just fog the picture a little.

1. He seems to still hold a bit of subconscious bias as to the robustness of the Horizon system based on how many branches had Horizon, how many transactions were carried out daily and how few prosecutions there were. I do wonder that, if he’s been following the inquiry closely, he feels the same way now having heard that over 10,000 branches experienced balancing issues.
2. His written statement to the Inquiry, at times, doesn’t marry up to what he said at the Inquiry. Time and again parts of his statement are read out to him followed by a question about it, “do you mean…,” and time and again his reply is “that’s not what I meant.”

He does come across remorseful in his (2) apologies, and does question the motives of some senior PO staff in how and what evidence was presented to him. But that led to me going off at a tangent… how do the members of the various juries feel about the guilty verdicts, some of which led to imprisonment?

 

[Hobbit]

Not just subpostmasters.

Tracey Felstead was 17 years old when she joined the PO as a counter clerk at one of the larger Crown Offices. A year into the job she reported a small discrepancy. Her manager said don't worry about it. Several weeks later she called her manager over as her Horizon terminal was showing an £1,100. The manager logged in, pressed a few buttons and the shortfall jumped to £1,800 before her eyes.

A week later Tracey went on holiday, still with an £1,800 shortfall. When she came back her designated till tray was over £11,000 short, and two PO investigators were waiting for her.

Following an investigation and prosecution Tracey was sent to prison. Tracey refused a plea, insisting she was totally innocent.

But here's the kicker on this one. Whilst she was on holiday other members of staff used her log in and till tray. It was common practice...