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; 2nd May 2024 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
Can’t get out of this. Surely? The two of them knew.
False evidence by Post Office’s expert contradicted his own report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68857142
In light of this enquiry and the years of campaigning by Bates et al, it is truly absurd for senior PO and Fujitsu leaders, and in particular Vennells, to attempt to claim they had no knowedge of potential problems with Horizon.
There is simply no way that they wouldn't have been very aware that there were very serious problems around reliability, remote access and errors. And yet they continued to claim publicly that there were no issues whatsoever and to proceed with hundreds of prosecutions.
In my laymans opinion, they simply have no credible defence. Full stop.
So clever my foot fell off.
If they didn’t know then they were not doing their job.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
I've run public organisations with hundreds of staff - albeit nowhere near on the scale of the PO - but it simply isn't credible that senior leaders had no inkling there were serious problems. It just doesn't work that way.
They knew because it would have been impossible for them not to know, particularly given the years of ongoing campaigning and stories in the media.
So that leaves only one conclusion in my opinion - they knew there was a good chance that people had ben wrongly prosecuted and convicted, but decided to deny this possibility and continue with unsafe prosecutions. If that isn't criminal behaviour then our judicial system is toothless and pointless.
So clever my foot fell off.
The scale of the cover-up is truly shocking, hopefully some serious prison time awaits.
J Singh is really being put through the ringer by counsel today. It'll be all out war when the CPs get their turn!
I am not holding my breath for this. "We will learn lessons from this" is bound to be trotted out. Call me cynical, but I have seen it too often in the past.
I am professionally aware of one of the above-named people ...... they are not an impressive individual, having as they do have the twin issues of arrogance and ineptitude to deal with. Once the dust has settled, I expect there will be discussions with the relevant professional standards board and (if they choose not to withdraw from that profession) the likelihood of censure or even being struck off.
Apparently the SRA is represented as a core participant in the inquiry. Perhaps also bar standards are there. The Met are.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/po...118195.article
Singh's testimony makes you want to cry. His obvious misery is self-inflicted. Dull-witted denial of the evidence laid out in front of him. How on earth did he qualify, let alone be let loose on criminal cases?
I don't disagree, although I do wonder what the potential for civil prosecutions could be?
Indeed they are...Core Participants...as is the Bar Standards Board.
Jarnail Singh denies cover-up:
1.15pm: Final topic before lunch is this email from February 2013 in response to a question to Singh about whether to drop a fraud prosecution against a sub-postmaster. Singh said this was acceptable so long as he pleaded guilty to false accounting but also accepted that he did not challenge the integrity of Horizon or blame the system for shortfalls in the branch accounts.
Beer asks why this caveat was necessary.
Singh says it was the established position of the Post Office and that it was beneficial to the defendant as well. He cannot recall whether any other sub-postmasters had tried to cite Horizon in their pleas.
He says it is 'painful' to hear that people were forced into making guilty pleas to false accounting but asserts that he was not the ultimate decision-maker.
We go to the lunch break.
Scroll down to 09h50 for the beginning of the discussion about a possible cover-up.
Last edited by PickleB; 3rd May 2024 at 14:16.
He's come up with a new line..."Not my job".
A contemptible, miserable specimen of a man.
Well, my two favourite CPs never bothered to question Mr Singh :(
Even Jason Beer must be glad that's over. His overall look of exasperation was plain for all to see.
Fair play. He called him out as a liar. If there was a jury they’d see him for what he is. Roll on some actual criminal proceedings.
Good! Someone’s having a word?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote