Sorry, I've confused matters!Originally Posted by adrianw
It was the inquiry counsel that was referring to documents which contained these criminal cases. He was trying to further shed light on the failures of the Horizon system, but I just found it strange that these documents were brought up. Of course the inquiry counsel is not a judge or there to 'try' the interviewee and is just trying to get to the bottom of things. I guess I just found it a little shocking that, given everything so far has been all about the innocence of the SPMs, that there actually were some that were not innocent after all.
They can’t all be innocent. But I am certain the guilty percentage did not increase because they installed a new computer system. The frustration I feel is the contempt that maybe led some to believe they were uncovering a mass of hitherto undiscovered miscreants and were on a righteous path to justice. I could be wildly off the mark but I fail to see how else they justified it to themselves? Have any of the PO/Fujitsu mob ever articulated anything of that nature?
There were some who were sort-of innocent, in that losses were caused by Horizon, which were then covered up (criminally) by the postmaster. In these cases there were guilty pleas - strictly speaking, correctly, as the postmasters really had committed a crime - but only as a result of the Horizon fuck-up. In such cases, it's easy for the prosecuting barrister to be sucked into believing they were guilty of all charges.
A good barrister, obviously, would not make this assumption, but a mediocre one (such as one that I know of personally who has appeared at the enquiry in recent days) certainly might, and in this case did.
I only listened for a short while, think it was a couple of days ago now, but one line of inquiry was to evidence the PO's over reliance on the accuracy of Horizon data; the example was along the lines that just prior to one SPM admitting guilt based on Horizon data, the PO were aware that the new SPM was having similar issues with Horizon and had established ongoing theft by an employee's son but that wasn't disclosed or factored in by the PO.
Many pleaded to a charge of false accounting, in preference to being prosecuted for theft. Many or all did so because of the helplessness of their situation - basically a confession was beaten out of them (without physlcal injury).
Many had covered up the losses, assuming that there had been 'actual' losses and that they would hopefully ride it out without being prosecuted.
I don't see anything morally or legally wrong in either scenario.
In terms of their actions or their being prosecuted?
They were unfairly, unjustly, even maliciously treated at every turn seems to me.
Their actions
The solicitor now in the dock, doesn’t seem to have a good recollection of very much at all…
Mr Stein gave him a right kicking.
I'm not sure how some of these lawyers can turn up to work again. Williams is still employed by the Post Office. Flemington seems to have a decent job, although I'm not sure his employer is going to be too impressed. Looks like Aujard might have just jacked it in and Smith doesn't appear to feature on the website of the practice which bears his name.
Mr Henry gets his chance now.
Last edited by BillyCasper; Yesterday at 15:24.
A kicking! A specialism, according to his chambers website:😀
Sam Stein KC uses “advocacy like a stiletto in a velvet glove” and he “has an encyclopaedic legal knowledge combined with street wise savvy”.
All these 'professionals' - who need to be sharp as fcuk in their careers and every day work............................. don't remember anything.
I bet the ones not directly employed by PO kept for a few years - their timesheets and billable hours, charging at 2hrs for every e-mail and letter. Those records will have been chucked on the proverbial fire a few years ago.
Should we expect some to be hauled in front of professional disciplinary boards if not judges?
Harry Bowyer's memory was pretty good and somewhat more candid when answering questions.
Jarnail Singh tomorrow, an absolute clown, will be worth tuning in to questioning by the core participants' lawyers
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote