The sub-postmasters scandal

[cjcregg]

The problem is the Post Office's untypical and unique status as a private prosecutor which dates back centuries. An entity that can be victim, investigator and prosecutor cannot possibly be free from conflicting interests and bias.

[cjcregg]

Gareth Jenkins, Fujitsu's 'expert' witness in lots of the earlier prosecutions, has been under investigation for 3 years for perjury. The idea of interviewing Ed Davey under caution is just silly. They should go after the real culprits. 

[cjcregg]

This isn't a political scandal, it's corporate.

[cjcregg]

So exactly what actual criminal offence do you believe he committed here? 

Think about it.

[cjcregg]

The problem is that although the ITV drama series has undoubtedly done a lot of good in raising the profile of the scandal, it's clearly had the negative effect of stirring hysterical emotions from people who think you can hold people criminally liable for making questionable political decisions. 

Ironically, calling for Ed Davey to be 'interviewed under caution' by the Metropolitan Police (for not agreeing to a meeting) mirrors the same criminal witch hunt mentality in prosecuting sub postmasters. 

If there's a need for any real political accountability then the focus should be on Labour's role and that is reflected in the Statutory Inquiry's decision to issue two section 9 requests for evidence from Tony Blair, who gave the go ahead for Horizon despite being told about concerns with the reliability and being reassured by Peter Mandelson that Horizon was ''robust''. Ring any bells? 

WITN06080100 Anthony Blair – Witness Statement 14112022.pdf (postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk)

As lousy as that was it wasn't a criminal offence.

The real criminal accountability should be aimed at those that actually did the prosecuting and not the nearest convenient politician. In particular people like Rob Wilson, head of criminal law at PO, John Scott, head of PO security (who is alleged to have shredded documents) and PO prosecuting solicitor Jarnail Singh.  

I would warmly encourage anyone who has an interest in knowing what went wrong and who was responsible to watch the car-crash testimony of Jarnail Singh at the inquiry. You only need to watch 10 minutes of it to wonder how this man ever qualified as a solicitor, let alone become the Post Office's prosecutor.

 

I also think some of the decisions of the criminal courts should be looked at when convicting victims of theft when there was no evidence of such.

      

[cjcregg]

For fear of stating the bleeding obvious, you were absolutely suggesting politicians broke the law by supporting the idea that Ed Davey should be interviewed under caution by the Met. 

Can't you see that? 

 

 

[cjcregg]

Fair enough and you're right about looking at Fujitsu too. Their employees are scheduled to be giving evidence to the inquiry the week after next, although Gareth Jenkins is yet to be scheduled due to ongoing late disclosure issues by PO.

There are lots & lots of different and separate issues that combined to make this scandal happen but I go back to my first post in this thread about the prosecution powers the PO has as being the key cause.

Although there are a few other bodies that have the powers to directly prosecute (without the involvement of the police investigating and Criminal Prosecution Service prosecuting), for example RSPCA, PO are in the unique position of not just being the investigator and prosecutor but also the 'victim'. This is a clear and fundamental conflict of interest which needs to be resolved to prevent this mess ever occurring again.

[cjcregg]

He's right.

[cjcregg]

Well that's a start at least. I think PO was originally granted the power to run prosecutions in the days of 'stand up & deliver' highway men mail robberies hundreds of years ago.

But it wouldn't have help the likes of Lee Castleton or Alan Bates as they were never prosecuted but still suffered. 

[cjcregg]

11 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

It has similarities to the Covid inquiry. They would rather appear to be idiots by claiming not to remember than to admit the truth.

I believe Vennells and other execs are appearing at the Horizon inquiry this year.

It's a very well run inquiry and Wyn Wlliams might look a bit passed it but he's as sharp as a knife. He had some health issues half way through it so now appears at the inquiry via video from home but I've got a lot of faith in him. Jason Beer, lead counsel, is utterly forensic and doesn't pull a punch. It started out  just as a judge led independent inquiry but then gained the status of a full public inquiry with all the powers that go with it.

Apparently the inquiry has recently obtained 80 covert recordings of discussions between PO execs including Venells. When she is eventually called to give evidence, clear your diary, order in popcorn.

Edited January 8 by cjcregg

[cjcregg]

The inquiry has only published the witness schedule for some of the remainder of the current phase (4) which deals with the actual prosecutions. I expect Venells etc will appear in phase 6 which deals with oversight of and response to the scandal, so sometime in late spring/summer.

[cjcregg]

So Paula Vennells has put her CBE in the post.

[cjcregg]

I see the press has tracked down Gareth Jenkins who has refused to comment. He is the architect of the Horizon computer system. He'll easily be the most significant witness when he finally shows up at the inquiry. He's currently under criminal investigation for perjury in numerous prosecutions and has twice unsuccessfully asked Wyn Williams for criminal immunity when it comes to giving his evidence. He has a defence barrister permanently stationed at the inquiry.

 In 2013 PO commissioned legal advice from an external senior barrister Simon Clarke KC on Jenkins' role as Fujitsu's expert witness in support of PO prosecutions. He concluded that, in colloquial terms, Jenkins had been lying to the courts through his teeth in saying that Horizon was robust when he knew it wasn't and PO should stop using him in cases and that past convictions might be unsafe. As the barrister concludes, this information and advice itself should have been disclosed in all past, current and concluded cases but PO sat on it until it was obtained and disclosed by the sub postmasters legal team in the GLO in 2019. 

Read the advice, especially the conclusions on the last two pages. 

This is, in a nutshell, what went wrong.

136028107_1_redacted.pdf (postofficescandal.uk)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cjcregg]

The Business Select Committee are hauling in the Fujitsu execs to answer question next week.

[cjcregg]

Yes Ann Chambers has already appeared at the inquiry but Gareth Jenkins had his 4 day session postponed (twice I think) due PO late disclosure and this is after Wyn Williams refused Jenkins to appeal to the Attorney General for criminal immunity.

Sir Wyn Williams gives second ruling on witness request for undertaking from Attorney General

WWW.POSTOFFICEHORIZONINQUIRY.ORG.UK

---

Chair responds to request to review previous refusal 24 October 2023

 

 

[cjcregg]

So it's just £75k for the GLO 555. Utterly staggering.

Another issue that's unresolved is the question of compensation payments to bankrupted sub postmasters going to their estates.

[cjcregg]

No, it's just what I saw Kevin Hollinrake announce in the Commons. I just saw Jo Hamilton's reaction - fuming.

[cjcregg]

It's £75k full stop but those who think they should get more 'can apply to have their case looked at' - which will just be more lengthy bureaucracy. He reckons only a third of the 555 will want more!

Obviously Alan Bates is one of the 555.

 

[cjcregg]

That question was covered by the inquiry's own expert counsel. It can only be done if the defendant asks the DPP to take over the prosecution from the PO, but of course none of the victims were ever told that.

[cjcregg]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

This is Jo Hamilton on Twitter, to Sunak and Zahawi.

'You still haven't paid to GLO group and the fact that you think throwing £75k at people will help, just shows how completely out of touch you are. Wouldn't even cover the interest on what has been stolen from them by POL'

I'm still not clear if the £75k is an interim payment or full & final.  Hollinrake said it was an 'upfront' payment so it could mean either. Either way it's a pittance in comparison to the £600k others are supposed to be getting.

[cjcregg]

Bradshaw's just a low-level investigator. The focus on his culpability in all this is being overblown. 

[cjcregg]

The £600k only applies to those that have convictions overturned. The vast majority of the 555 were never convicted.

[cjcregg]

Just now, honeybee13 said:

So you think the Graun has this wrong, CJ?

Well what does 'footprint' even actually mean?  

[cjcregg]

He's just an unsophisticated career yes man. The post office is full of them.

[cjcregg]

Not really but I have followed the inquiry quite closely from the start.