You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Meaning that if all convictions overturned for that period then potentially 78 (6 x 13) guilty people cleared.
Puts numbers to the concerns of (some) SPM's that unless their cases are individually re-examined there will always be a suspicion (and a 1/8, which is roughly 6/51 chance) against them that they actually were fiddling.
Better 78 guilty cleared than hundreds of the innocent found guilty. The problem of the guilty also being cleared is a consequence of the whole fiasco.
Currently watching the BBC Panorama docu. I nearly threw up when they played footage of Paula Vennels doing a speech where she said her faith informed her work at the Post Office and quoting from the bible.
Of course who is to say that the PO prosecutions were 100% accurate before Horizon?
her faith informed her work at the Post Office and quoting from the bible.
Instant red flag.
Yep, the likes of Vennels and May seem to regular fail the "what would Jesus do" approach.
Assuming there was no sudden frenzy of criminality among the country’s subpostmasters, we might reasonably assume, from those figures, that roughly 88% of those convicted were innocent.”
Having watched/read some of the inquiry where they have been asking the "investigators" and other PO staff questions I would be dubious about treating the other 12% as valid convictions.
They come across as an inept bunch of bullies so I wouldnt be surprised if a proportion of the previous cases were also badly flawed.
Better 78 guilty cleared than hundreds of the innocent found guilty. The problem of the guilty also being cleared is a consequence of the whole fiasco.
I agree, but that's not my point. Which is that (some of) the Horizon SPMs don't want the 78 guilty ones to be blanket let off, because it will always taint their true innocence knowing that there are some guilty being declared innocent as well*. To have such integrity and demand for justice when the easiest thing to do would be to suck it up and take the compensation, I'm still humbled by them.
* Which is the case anyway because of the beyond doubt principle, anyone found innocent in a trial knows there are plenty of guilty people that also were found innocent. Indeed, plenty being declared innocent who know THEY are guilty but got away with it!
I nearly threw up when they played footage of Paula Vennels doing a speech where she said her faith informed her work at the Post Office and quoting from the bible.
I take it that it wasnt one of the many verses about bearing false witness?
Given how many millions she took in (completely unjustified) bonuses, I'm guessing it wasn't the one about rich people passing into the kingdom of God and camels and eyes of needles and all that stuff either
because it will always taint their true innocence knowing that there are some guilty being declared innocent as well*.
Possibly. It seems a bit like benefit fraud - it's easier to taint everyone in receipt as guilty until proven innocent, leading to a societal demonising of 'dole scum/benefit scroungers'.
Making everyone look over their shoulder for the >1% of actual fraudulance is virtually Govt policy.
I agree, but that’s not my point. Which is that (some of) the Horizon SPMs don’t want the 78 guilty ones to be blanket let off, because it will always taint their true innocence knowing that there are some guilty being declared innocent as well*. To have such integrity and demand for justice when the easiest thing to do would be to suck it up and take the compensation, I’m still humbled by them.
I wonder if that position might have shifted somewhat given the public shift of opinion. Ultimately you can be acquitted by the appeal court and feel that you are innocent but for a lot of appeals, even when a conviction is overturned there is still a wiff about it - the law declares them not guilty because the process was wrong but society is thinking "aye, right". We actually have a 100% reversal of that now. Even if someone was to have a conviction upheld, I think the majority of the public would be "you can believe that if you want".
Is the "6 a year" prior to Horizon a "sub postmaster" type case or, because that was when Royal Mail and Post Office were together does that include posties nicking tenners out of birthday cards? Having seen some of the amazing evidence of the "senior criminal lawyer" at the enquiry (following up on the sterling performance of the investigator yesterday) I'm surprised he had time to work a second job on the side (thats right folks they guy who was supposed to be in charge of prosecutions and so overworked he had to outsource it to private firms was running conveyancing work on the side "as a hobby". Its a miracle any property sold, or anyone got prosecuted at all as every simple Yes/No question got a 5 minute, incoherent waffly answer - it reminded me very much of hearing a certain former PM talk, but worse.)
I can see that just after Horizon comes in, that the PO could believe that Horizon was helping them spot dodgy postmasters who were fiddling the books and perhaps always had been, so you might not immediately be alarmed about a 10x increase BUT surely in that situation you would be "promoting" the great work of the investigation and prosecution team to the SPMs to highlight as a deterrent than dipping the till would get you caught. Of course if you do that you can't use "you're the only one" as your argument.
Presumably it's not impossible to quash the convictions of those convicted solely on the basis of Horizon "evidence"?
To separate the genuinely innocent from the regular chancers.
Presumably it’s not impossible to quash the convictions of those convicted solely on the basis of Horizon “evidence”?
To separate the genuinely innocent from the regular chancers.
This is what’s currently happening through the Criminal Case Review Board and the Appeals Court. The problem is that they’re so poorly funded it’s going to take something like a decade to get through them all at current rates.
Presumably it’s not impossible to quash the convictions of those convicted solely on the basis of Horizon “evidence”?
Pretty much every case where actual cash has gone missing in the last 24+ years would have used Horizon "evidence". The issues come when trying to prove the glitches in the system Vs a physical theft of cash.
Presumably it’s not impossible to quash the convictions of those convicted solely on the basis of Horizon “evidence”?
To separate the genuinely innocent from the regular chancers.
You would think so - but agreeing what "solely on the basis of Horizon evidence" means is probably harder than you would think; especially when even in 2023 the PO seemed to be opposing appeals based largely on horizon evidence. The governments solution is to say all claimants will be required to sign a declaration that they did nothing wrong. Essentially that means any "regular chancer" is potentially able to claim just by lying again, but might expose themselves to the risk of new criminal prosecution by doing so.
irc
Full MemberOf course who is to say that the PO prosecutions were 100% accurate before Horizon?
Yup. The system problems came from Horizon but the odds that the organisational problems started at the same time are basically zero.
Whilst today trial was quieter since they had a professional lawyer in I did find it somewhat odd the PO lawyer whining about being expected to produce documents and how it was unreasonable for them to be expected to work day and night.
Which I think would have had some validity aside from the fact this is three years in and they are only now finding stuff.
Seems self inflicted.
@dissonance I thought the line of discussion about POL repeatedly sending duplicate documents was interesting. Lack of organisation or playing silly buggers?
It was a bit weird seeing one of my former business partners front and centre today. He’s actually a decent guy and Burges Salmon were only appointed in September so I have some sympathy. That said, being in big law is a 24/7 job some weeks that is what you sign up for. When it’s a big M&A deal or whatever it’s not even questioned that people have to work day and night to get the deal done, but of course this is different because it’s not a process being driven by billionaires or huge multinationals.
Good question. It says a lot about the PO that I wouldnt rule out either option.
As an aside another corporate "security" team got somewhat held to account today.
There has been a case ongoing for ebay for a few years now where their exec security harassed a couple for having the temerity of publishing a newsletter which was less than complementary about them.
ebay have had to cough up some cash today.
It (seemingly) gets worse for Post Office Ltd.
They might want to consider employing accountants who know something about tax law.
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1745920610893434993
It (seemingly) gets worse for Post Office Ltd.
Has their hr department had a rule of hiring village idiots and when they find someone only capable of being a hamlet idiot immediately promoted them to the board?
Read is a, newish, external hire but seems to have decided that the credit for this mess shouldnt be entirely attributed to his predecessors so is trying to make it his own as well.
martinhutch - was going to post about the PO's tax and accounting 'error' but...you beat me to it.
It's another from the '...you couldn't believe it' box.
I did find it somewhat odd the PO lawyer whining about being expected to produce documents and how it was unreasonable for them to be expected to work day and night.
This would suggest to me that the law firm isn't big enough, they don't have enough people working on the case or they under quoted/budgeted for the work. Having gone from a design / construction career, with regular late nights expected and required to running my po/shop this is one of the reasons I made the career move. Running my shop is 7 days a week, but no where near the levels I used to do Monday to Friday because of miss management.
gets worse for Post Office Ltd.
Back in 2015 when the first case was brought against the po, we were told that if the PO lost they would go insolvent. The PO lost, ran to the government who paid out the compensation from taxpayer money. The PO is still 100% publicly own company - not sure if it works this way, but it'll be odd for tax payers to bail out the PO again but this time pay the Tax shortfall back to ourselves?
There's a bunch of scandalous things yet to be exposed that the media could latch onto, but I doubt public interest will stay with the story much over the next week, let alone months, years. Fake giro payments in the mid 2000's being one of them. PV's threatening letter to all postoffices in 2013/14, backing up horizon and basically saying "don't bad mouth Horizon or we will take your business". Etc.
This week we've had a noticeable drop in the sales on the postoffice, many other offices are reporting the same. Media have now been requested to throw in lines about "please continue to support your local postoffice" as people have started boycotting. For my shop a significant drop in sales could mean Ill struggle to buy stock or pay bills. But for others who's main trade is postal, it could be wages or lively hoods.
Media have now been requested to throw in lines about “please continue to support your local postoffice” as people have started boycotting.
Just bumping this as it's individual businesses that will be harmed the most, please support your local PO.
Article on why private prosecutions are still in general necessary but more regulation and control is needed over what is allowed and more support so that it doesn't only become the wealthy that can use the power.
Interesting (for me) at the bottom -
How to bring a private prosecution
Gather evidence of the alleged crime, possibly using a private investigator.
Hand over evidence to a lawyer, who will review whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution.
Make an application at a magistrates court to bring a private prosecution. This will be reviewed and either granted or rejected by a district judge.
The CPS may review the case at any time if the case is referred by the defendant, the private prosecutor or the court. The CPS can take over cases, either to proceed or discontinue.
If you proceed privately, the case will (eventually) be heard in court.
At the end of the case your lawyers can apply for costs to be reimbursed from the defendant and/or the public purse.
Not sure if that means that if CPS decides to take on to then discontinues, do you have the opportunity to pick it up again, or can the CPS kill it dead? In which case there's two places AIUI, there or also when first reviewed by the judge to filter cases that shouldn't have gone through.
CPS say
The CPS policy about when to re-institute proceedings is summarised at paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors and is based on an undertaking given to the House of Commons on 29 March 1993 by the Attorney General. See the legal guidance on Reconsidering a Prosecution Decision for further information. The undertaking does not apply to private prosecutors, who are therefore generally free to start a private prosecution after a decision by the police or CPS not to prosecute or to stop a prosecution.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/private-prosecutions#:~:text=A%20private%20prosecution%20is%20a,a%20statutory%20power%20to%20prosecute.
Presumably that would also depend on what stage CPS stop it and double jeopardy laws - the changes to that arose after a failed private prosecution in the Lawrence case iirc.
Fujitsu's CEO Nick Read and Europe Director Paul Patterson, presently being questioned by the business select committee, are hardly covering themselves in glory
"I don't know" seems to summarise pretty much every answer
Some fujitsu bods are up for the inquiry this week unless they are all washing their hair again.
Should be interesting.
unless they are all washing their hair again
And continuing to wash their hands of it too...
Caught a bit of the current PO CEO on 5Live 'testifying'. He is either being as evasive as he thinks is possible, or is so incurious about the history and present liabilities of the organisation he runs that he shouldn't be in charge. I mean, when accepting the job, wouldn't the first question you ask be 'what did we know and when?'. It's fundamental to the job.
The present attitude of the Post Office to providing documents to the inquiry and its labyrinthine compensation process suggests it's pure evasion and self-interest. They have no interest in learning or changing and the entire management is not fit for its current purpose.
Fujitsu bloke is little better. They all know exactly what went on, but are claiming they need an inquiry report to tell them.
It's obvious listening to them that there is no change in culture whatsoever and they still don't actually give a flying ****
They're just using the inquiry to hide behind and drag it out for as long as possible by being obstructive and evasive
Caught a bit of the current PO CEO on 5Live ‘testifying’.
I find it baffling that he has pretty much doubled down on the behaviour rather than playing the "new broom". Trying to play games with the compensation, screwing around with documents disclosure and giving himself a nice bonus for "cooperating" with the inquiry which had the inquiry lawyers politely contact the PO pointing out that was for the inquiry team to decide.
The inquiry is a statutory enquiry which means that the Oath can (must?) be taken – is this the case because surely people could be lying under oath here and that could have consequences for them?
The strategy of the current top brass appear to be not to make any statement to the Commons committee which could then be examined further by the inquiry. They want to turn up there, full of fake contrition, and be shocked to find out just how terrible their organisation was. They'll give 'lessons will be learned' a try, along with 'the Post Office/Fujitsu is a very different place compared with back then', and waltz off with their knighthoods and billion pound contracts intact.
Nick Read is a classic journeyman senior manager, flitting from banking, to Thomas Cook, to convenience stores, to energy. He has no grounding or actual experience in any of these businesses, he is not there to understand them. He just has the right corporate patter.
The inquiry is a statutory enquiry which means that the Oath can (must?) be taken – is this the case because surely people could be lying under oath here and that could have consequences for them?
The issue is not so much lying to the inquiry, it is Fujitsu and PO employees may have perjured themselves in the trials of subpostmasters, and the possibility that, depending on who knew what and when, and how any cover-up was organised and co-ordinated, there may be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
I found some of Nick Reid's answers annoying to say the least, he cirtainly doesn't want to throw previous board members under the bus, and I can see why - PO ltd head office has had the vast majority of the same people people working there for decades.
The question about crown offices was worrying - he didn't know how many crown postoffices had had convictions, if any? Crown offices for those that don't know are generally the main office for a town or city, large multi counter offices, managed directly by postoffice ltd (not private individuals). This could be key to the investigation.
Again it wasn't asked how many offices had been affected by faults, only that 2000+ offices had been agreed compensation.
Again no one asked how many offices were operating in 1999, and how many had shut between 1999 and 2015 due to "operating losses", and if horizon could have been a contributing factor.
The enquiry is about so much more than 900 convictions, not that they shouldn't be investigated thoroughly. But I feel the cultural implications are far larger.
I've spoken to many a retailer who'll never work with or have a post office in their shops.
Crown offices for those that don’t know are generally the main office for a town or city, large multi counter offices, managed directly by postoffice ltd (not private individuals).
It was one of the things identified by campaigners.
The crown offices and those managed by big chains although they had errors didnt get the same treatment as the individuals with one or maybe a couple of offices.
The crown offices and those managed by big chains although they had errors didnt get the same treatment as the individuals with one or maybe a couple of offices.
Crown offices losses are liable to postoffice plc as far as I'm aware, not the postmasters. The staff also are on a wage Vs commission.
When I worked for coop, we had significant backup, both in management and legal for staff members that may have found shortfalls - as well as our own internal security investigation teams. The postoffice management within coop I'm sure we're fully aware of issues at between 1999 and 2015. The coop postoffice area managers I worked with always dreaded Wednesday's as they never knew which branches would call with issues.
In Scotland the Lord Advocate blames the post office.
"She said the Post Office had been a trusted investigating agency in Scotland and prosecutors had been entitled to take its assurances about Horizon at “face value”.She said the Post Office’s repeated failure to disclose problems and mislead prosecutors was a “truly exceptional” and “unique” scandal.She also said Scottish prosecutors took a cautious approach to the software system from 2013 to 2015, before ending prosecutions based on it, even though it was not until 2019 that a court action in England conclusively established it was defective."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24053742.scotlands-lord-advocate-apologises-post-office-victims/
She also said Scottish prosecutors took a cautious approach to the software system from 2013 to 2015, before ending prosecutions based on it
Which seems an attempt to confuse things since by 2013 anyone paying the slightest attention would be asking "so what about these Computer weekly, private eye, BBC reports and the mps and campaign group they reference? I would like you to explain why they are irrelevant in this case please" and in 2015 the PO gave up on the attack and switched to trying to confuse things long enough for everyone involved to die off.
The appalling thing is it took until 2019 anywhere in the UK for it to be reviewed in a court of law and then it needed funding by a litigation fund. If it hadnt looked like it could make a profit (minus the legal costs and the legal costs of other promising prospects which failed) then it could still be he said/she said.
Peter Sewell comes across as a slippery ****er doesn’t he?
Can't even manage a cover-up competently.
https://twitter.com/stugoo17/status/1748110717939528162
Ooops. PO Board aware of defects in the Horizon evidence being used to convict subpostmasters. In 2013, yet allowed prosecutions relying on this evidence to continue.
Vennells and her colleagues should be in for a very uncomfortable time in front of the inquiry, and hopefully in a police interview room at some point.
If you've not watched channel 4 news from last night, it is absolutely damning.
The post office management knew full well that the Horizon system was faulty, their 'star witness' was completely unreliable and that the evidence they were giving in court was unsafe, but they continued with the prosecutions regardless
They should be behind bars
Vennells became CEO in 2012 so this would suggest she knew that there could have been wrongful convictions in the past, yet continued to instruct po security to prosecute based on the same or similar evidence. As well as continuing to insist that Horizon was infallible - I still hear daily about issues with Horizon. A PO on a FB group yesterday said that a counter that hadn't been used for some time (essentially turned off) had just shown a £2.49 discrepancy.
I'm sure PO were aware at some level that Horizon had issues a significant time before 2013, this evidence is just follows the law team catching up and realising potential consequences of previous witnesses telling fibs.
If they are getting documented advice at board level which effectively says subpostmasters were convicted on the basis of faulty evidence, and continue to rely on this evidence to continue prosecuting, then that moves into the realm of criminal activity rather than just incompetence or indifference.
It goes from 'surely they must have known?', to 'look, this proves they knew'.
then that moves into the realm of criminal activity rather than just incompetence or indifference.
I agree with the sentiment. However I am pessimistic around what the law may say here. Any lawyers care to comment?
Radio 4 are revisiting the investigations they did some years back. Lawyers for the post office demanding hand written minutes of meeting instead of typed and emailed then asking for any to be shredded.
Nothing iffy at all then going on oh no.
Post office could have come clean 10 years ago and thrown the exc team righly under the bus the same with Fujitsu but nah stick it to the plebs and carry on quaffing on the teet of lies and corruption.
However I am pessimistic around what the law may say here.
This is a helpful run-through of the thresholds for the relevant offences. The law is pretty clear.
It's probably right to be pessimistic about what will actually happen once the scandal drops off the public radar again. I think Vennells' testimony to the inquiry under oath will include an awful lot of 'I don't recall'. Fujitsu CEO has the opportunity to drop the PO Board deep into the mire today.
Peter Sewell comes across as a slippery **** doesn’t he?
Every single one of the fujitsu/PO witnesses I have seen tick that box. Normally with a bonus character trait of bully or vindictive.
Fujitsu CEO has the opportunity to drop the PO Board deep into the mire today.
He does seem to be taking the approach of dropping both the PO and the Fujitsu staff at the time into the mire.
Going to be awkward for the new PO board who could have taken the same approach years ago and stopped playing games with compensation.
Tldr has there been any suggestion as to where or if money was disappearing to?
Tldr has there been any suggestion as to where or if money was disappearing to?
In most cases (there were various bugs) it simply didnt exist.
Examples given are:
Faulty rollbacks: So a transaction would show as errored but still be processed on the backend.
Faulty syncing with the central db: if the submission was interrupted it didnt track duplicates properly so would create another transaction again.
Although in those cases where the postmasters made up the "shortfall" out of their own pocket it eventually just got swept into the post office general profit account.
The end of each session tends to be quite interesting, the bit where lawyers representing the victims can ask the witness questions, these tend to be a bit more pointy.
One witness was grilled on why he didn't come forward 10ish years ago when he first learnt about these prosecutions based on evidence from a system he knew was a pile of crap. He was the "acceptance manager" who led the PO accepting Fujitsu's system into service despite known issues of accounting irregularities. Kept his mouth shut all this time hoping to avoid getting into trouble I bet.
Although in those cases where the postmasters made up the “shortfall” out of their own pocket it eventually just got swept into the post office general profit account.
Just to reiterate, it's not just the 900or so prosecuted SPM's that were affected. Of the remaining 11500 postoffices, 2960 have successfully claimed (of 3500 submitted) for erroneous weekly and monthly shortfalls totaling over 130million.
We took on our postoffice in 2015 and had shortfalls between then and 2017 so could technically claim but we've decided it's not worth the hassle. The couple we bought the po from had a 8k shortfall appear but disputed it as at that point po weren't taking people to court for less than 10k shortfalls.
Imo there wouldn't have been a postoffice in the country that wasn't affected by the Horizon scandal - there are 1000's of postoffices that have shut since horizons introduction in 1999, I really hope the inquest highlights how many closures had shortfalls as a factor.
More potential abuses of power from PO investigators coming out almost daily.
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1750137793311809838
IANAL, but even I know 'seizing' property from a different person than the accused is just plain unjust and unlawful...
I just find it a bit of a circus now, we've seen this before, and we know the outcome, the public will pay the damages, and those who were at fault will end up drawing their pension without any issues, if the worst we're talking about is taking back Vennells CBE then that's embarrassing.
IANAL, but even I know ‘seizing’ property from a different person than the accused is just plain unjust and unlawful…
Applying the POCA prior to not only conviction, but charging, and without a court order seems a tad over-zealous to my layperson's eyes...
if the worst we’re talking about is taking back Vennells CBE then that’s embarrassing.
She's handed it back. But there is a police investigation looking at, among other things, perjury, fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
With every day that passes the organised nature of the wrongful prosecution campaign and the cover-up seems more and more apparent. Vennells just got flat out accused of lying to Parliament in evidence by the person who sat next to her at that select committee.
Indeed, and as we already knew, this is beyond culture or mistakes, this was deliberate decisions and actions both before any awareness and after people were made aware.
My understanding of the Proceeds of Crime Act is that property/cash etc can only be recovered after someone is convicted and an order is granted at court. An investigator whether post office or police can not just seize it.
" Confiscation occurs after a conviction has taken place."
But there is a police investigation looking at, among other things, perjury, fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Watching channel 4 news last night, there seems to have been a big shift in the language being used. Instead of using typically vague legalise phrases about Vennells like 'she misrepresented the facts', the lawyers interviewed last night were bluntly saying 'she's a liar' and 'she lied to a parliamentary committee'.
Nice to see her being called what she is. Looks like the gloves are off
The way that these prosecutions were undertaken by PO can only lead to 2 conclusions:
1. The process was being directed at the highest level within the PO to protect their reputation (share price impact and directors’ bonuses)
or
2. The revenue protection team within the PO literally went feral, appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner unbeknown to senior management.
Expect concerted efforts to portray it as 2
My understanding of the Proceeds of Crime Act is that property/cash etc can only be recovered after someone is convicted and an order is granted at court. An investigator whether post office or police can not just seize it.
If this is the case, does the behaviour of this fine upstanding investigator using mention of the act as a means to extract valuables from a subpostmaster's home amount to fraud by deception or just plain theft?
If this is the case, does the behaviour of this fine upstanding investigator using mention of the act as a means to extract valuables from a subpostmaster’s home amount to fraud by deception or just plain theft?
I get the feeling through the proceedings that there is a couple of police officers watching - with the occasional 'Sarge, we have another one. Can we have an investigation started into this one now?' being uttered.... And at the end of the process we will see Police and CPS make a decision to investigate or even prosecute when the fullest picture is painted...
I watched over the weekend. As someone who works in IT, for a company that works on big government contracts i found it very sobering. I definitely had a bit of a reset moment, remembering just how important the work we do is, and how it impacts potentially millions of people.
Sadly, they mentioned my old friends dad in the last episode. Peter Holmes - died before he could clear his name, convicted for theft of 46k, terribly sad.
The way that these prosecutions were undertaken by PO can only lead to 2 conclusions:
1. The process was being directed at the highest level within the PO to protect their reputation (share price impact and directors’ bonuses)
The PO Ltd is owned by UK Governement. Whist technically there is a share price it is not on the market and so that does not make sense. BUT I have to wonder what ministers knew. If you've reached the point of warning your insurer, would you not also alert your primary shareholder?
or
2. The revenue protection team within the PO literally went feral, appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner unbeknown to senior management.
Expect concerted efforts to portray it as 2
I think there's enough evidence to contradict any claim that it was simply 2. What surprises me more is that there are not more senior internal figures willing to throw their leadership under the bus.
Yesterday's witness genuinely seemed to believe he had done nothing wrong and was just doing his job. He was more concerned that 65% financial recovery target was unachievable than believing that it drove a behaviour of trying to get the money back rather than do a decent investigation. He genuinely still seemed to be of the belief that "well a lot of these people admitted wrong accounting" so broke the law rather than any introspection to say, did we pressure them to admit that because proving actual theft was too hard if you can't follow the money.
"does the behaviour of this fine upstanding investigator using mention of the act as a means to extract valuables from a subpostmaster’s home amount to fraud by deception or just plain theft?"
I have no knowledge of English law. In Scotland there would need to be the intent to deprive the owner of it. So if the investigator genuinely believed he had the power to seize it and it was later returned after proper advice was taken there may not be a crime there. Mere incompetence not being criminal. It suggests that the training the investigators got was insufficient.
The bit that concerns me in the above email is where it says they are seeking in the first instance repayment of £52k. That reads a bit like they will are saying the jewellery will only be returned after the £52k is paid.
So maybe it was theft as it wasn't being returned until £52k was paid. But I am not a lawyer etc.r
Expect concerted efforts to portray it as 2
Doesnt really work since even if it had been true to begin with by 2012-13 there was evidence coming out and the managements response was to circle the wagons.
Good to see their latest "investigator" being interviewed is showing the quality we have come to expect. Still thinks someone was guilty and also didnt really see why the inquiry was wasting his time asking him to read documents and respond until they had some sheriffs pop round to explain it wasnt optional.
2. The revenue protection team within the PO literally went feral, appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner unbeknown to senior management.
Expect concerted efforts to portray it as 2
I would think that just the fact that the senior management were in touch with their insurers with their concerns about the safety of convictions/reliability of their main witnesses (in 2013?) and those documents are now in the public domain has put paid to that
Applying the POCA prior to not only conviction, but charging, and without a court order seems a tad over-zealous to my layperson’s eyes…<br /><br />
Seizure / detention of assets can be legal under POCA prior to conviction ;
(1)On being satisfied as mentioned in section 47B(1) an appropriate officer may seize any realisable property if the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that—
(a)the property may otherwise be made unavailable for satisfying any confiscation order that has been or may be made against the defendant, or
(b)the value of the property may otherwise be diminished as a result of conduct by the defendant or a
I think they would struggle to satisfy either of those 'reasonable grounds' in the case highlighted. It will be interesting to see whether the investigator bonus scheme for convictions which has been mentioned has any reward linked to asset seizure.
Either way, the culture stinks to high heaven, and the close link between the drive to convict, and to 'recover' assets is disturbing.
I have read of one case which appears to have been dropped because a failure to convict would jeopardize the POCA seizure of assets held by the previous postmaster at the shop, who had already been convicted.
Anyone consider it suspect that all the media talk regarding the Post Office has now moved onto a possible 3 day delivery system?, tin foil hat?
Anyone consider it suspect that all the media talk regarding the Post Office has now moved onto a possible 3 day delivery system?, tin foil hat?
the post office don't deliver mail. that's royal mail. a completely different company.
the post office don’t deliver mail. that’s royal mail. a completely different company.<br /><br />
Yeah that’s obvious to those with half a brain but to those with the other half the Post Office/Royal Mail are one and the same, that was my point.
Letter deliveries don't make royal mail any money, the price of a 1st/2nd class stamp is dictated to them by Ofcom and the government. The system is out dated based on a 20billion item per annum requirement, where as RM now only handles 7billion letters a year and it's declining year on year. There's a reason the likes of yodel and Hermes minimal cost is around £3+. Add to that the large redundancies at the start of the year RM made it's a bit of a twist of the knife to letter delivery. The current gov has said that they won't support a removal of sat letter deliveries, but that's almost certainly a political rather than commercial or social decision with the election coming up. 12-18 months time we won't have sat letters imo.
It's also one reason POL expanded it's business into banking, insurance etc because there's a year on year decline in stamps. We used to sell thousands of them at Christmas, it's hundreds now.
Good to see their latest “investigator” being interviewed is showing the quality we have come to expect.
todays guy moved us to another level! Everyone that has gone before must be thinking - hey at least I’m not the worst! The bizzare thing was he finished with a statement about the PO being terrible - and he could say that as he was no longer there, but he didn’t actually include that in the statement or the main part of his evidence!
Still thinks someone was guilty
I thought it was a shame that the KC didn’t finish by reasking the same question - so we could see whether he was just thick, didn’t understand the law or focussed on being right at all cost. Having agreed that various checks should have been made, if not by him then by his successor, I wondered if he could now see why the conviction was unsound.
and also didnt really see why the inquiry was wasting his time asking him to read documents and respond
whilst his attitude stinks he did actually have a valid point. They’ve had years to cite him to attend and provide those docs and instead give him less than 30 days to review 350 pages and write a witness statement. He’s not paid for that time; I assume he was entitled to travel and loss of earnings expenses for attending today. That said, I am sure if a civil discussion took place it may have been possible to reschedule later in proceedings. In any case he should have been able to answer the most basic questions like when he joined RM/PO, and the “CV” stuff.
until they had some sheriffs pop round to explain it wasnt optional.
sheriffs officers not sheriffs! A sheriff is a judge - similar in standing to county court judge in England, they don’t go knocking on people’s doors. Sheriff’s Officers are employed by private contractors and are bit like a Bailiff in England. The sort of people who wear a suit with trainers!
His departure from the PO was a bit weird - he was “made redundant” seemingly quite quickly as his cases were in a mess, but whilst he described it as “put on gardening leave” he was actually working in a post office branch for his notice period… …so I’m thinking he was basically sacked?
Rightly or wrongly, surely ALL the convictions have to be null and void now by default? and 'lots of' compensation paid unless there is real evidence of wrong-doing?
We know the system was flawed, it's a proven matter of fact.... so that sets a high bar of ambiguity.
God knows I've left jobs before, when I come across this kind of bollocks... I was lucky enough to be able to walk away rather than relying the job to pay my mortgage or whatever.
Some people can't afford to walk out of a job, and I don't really blame them for that. .they may be coerced into towing the company line, and thus, become part of the probelm.
Rightly or wrongly, surely ALL the convictions have to be null and void now by default? and ‘lots of’ compensation paid unless there is real evidence of wrong-doing?
Yes and no, no because our legal system doesn't work that way and every case should be reviewed. Yes compensation should be paid, but it's a complicated process that takes time, especially when there are thousands of cases. The most complicated cases (where convictions were made) are taking the longest time.
Some people can’t afford to walk out of a job, and I don’t really blame them for that. .they may be coerced into towing the company line, and thus, become part of the problem.
It seems many if not most of the POL investigation teams had worked at POL for all or most of their careers. Walking away from a job that pays well with a good pension is very difficult I would have thought.
Add to that POL have, imo, a high level of excess middle and upper management left over from prior to privatisation. For example when I did site meetings as a project manager for a large supermarket chain, there would be two of us representing the supermarket and 6-8 POL staff per meeting - we were managing the multimillion pound development of supermarket, POL were putting in one postoffice counter. I must have attended 100's of meetings like that.