Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Certain judges should be facing perverting the course of justice charges, imo.
- basementer
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
- Location: 8024, Aotearoa
- Contact:
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
That's what I take from the phrasing The effect of the Court of Appeal’s finding, given effect in slightly anachronistic Victorian language - that the Post Office’s conduct “offended the conscience of the court”, is that the appellant should not only not have been convicted, but should not have been prosecuted too. I read that as pointing to misconduct by either the prosecution or the presiding judges. but I'm a layman: anyone more clued-up care to comment?
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell
- discovolante
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4204
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Prosecution is done by the prosecutors e.g. CPS, HMRC etc, so it isn't a reference to the judiciary.basementer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:26 amThat's what I take from the phrasing The effect of the Court of Appeal’s finding, given effect in slightly anachronistic Victorian language - that the Post Office’s conduct “offended the conscience of the court”, is that the appellant should not only not have been convicted, but should not have been prosecuted too. I read that as pointing to misconduct by either the prosecution or the presiding judges. but I'm a layman: anyone more clued-up care to comment?
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
More information in another article by Marshall
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/artic ... /5172/5037
Some additional and shocking information. I was particularly struck by this:
My Uncle was a subpostmaster, and I worked in his branch one summer. I'm just glad he retired pre-Horizon, because I'm sure it would have killed him to be accused of theft.
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/artic ... /5172/5037
Some additional and shocking information. I was particularly struck by this:
In other words if the system showed a fictitious surplus, the Post Office transferred the 'sum' to its profits: if it showed a fictitious deficit, then it demanded the postmasters pay it out of their own pocket (which many did) or pursued them in court and hounded them into jail. While the CEO Paula Vennels received a CBE and bonuses for making the Post Office 'profitable'.Any surplus from a balancing error was held in a suspense account operated by the Post Office. If no explanation for the surplus became available (which invariably was the case), the sum was transferred to the Post Office and credited to its profit and loss account and shown under its profits.
My Uncle was a subpostmaster, and I worked in his branch one summer. I'm just glad he retired pre-Horizon, because I'm sure it would have killed him to be accused of theft.
- basementer
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
- Location: 8024, Aotearoa
- Contact:
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Thx disco.discovolante wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:09 amProsecution is done by the prosecutors e.g. CPS, HMRC etc, so it isn't a reference to the judiciary.basementer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:26 amThat's what I take from the phrasing The effect of the Court of Appeal’s finding, given effect in slightly anachronistic Victorian language - that the Post Office’s conduct “offended the conscience of the court”, is that the appellant should not only not have been convicted, but should not have been prosecuted too. I read that as pointing to misconduct by either the prosecution or the presiding judges. but I'm a layman: anyone more clued-up care to comment?
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
The Marshall lecture says that the PO was the prosecutor because of its status as governmental in nature?discovolante wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:09 amProsecution is done by the prosecutors e.g. CPS, HMRC etc, so it isn't a reference to the judiciary.basementer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:26 amThat's what I take from the phrasing The effect of the Court of Appeal’s finding, given effect in slightly anachronistic Victorian language - that the Post Office’s conduct “offended the conscience of the court”, is that the appellant should not only not have been convicted, but should not have been prosecuted too. I read that as pointing to misconduct by either the prosecution or the presiding judges. but I'm a layman: anyone more clued-up care to comment?
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
The judiciary are at fault in that an incredibly idiotic idea took root and became a legal principle: that computer software is accurate until the defence proves otherwise.
- discovolante
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4204
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
I think there is unfortunately also a general bias towards thinking that institutions and those who represent them are behaving properly unless shown otherwise. I'm not sure it's always deliberate but it can be quite a difficult hurdle to overcome.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Disco I sometimes wonder if that's the people like us would never do something bad like that...and so they don't examine institutional behaviour.
- discovolante
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4204
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Yes I agree. I think it goes beyond that though into people who aren't necessarily 'like them' but are part of institutions. A bit of an outdated but classic example is Lord Denning's comments when dismissing the Birmingham Six's claims against the police:
That's a fairly extreme and as I say, old example, and I really wouldnt want to tar everyone in the judiciary with the same brush, but I do wonder (again without having read all the recent stuff in depth, sorry) whether there are echoes of this in the Post Office case, a kind of reticence to contemplate that an entire system may be faulty or corrupt because of the potential consequences if it was.Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
For precisely this reason I don't understand why people think that state organisations will treat them more fairly than private organisations. Private organisations do terrible things from time to time, but I don't see that publicly owned organisations are any better, and this PO case is just a case in point. In a private organisation you are more legally exposed if your wrong-doing is located. I always remember talking to the private company that took over Rosyth Dockyard from the Navy. They said to me, well the first thing we had to do was become compliant with health and safety legisation, whose details the Royal Navy got away with ignoring.discovolante wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:53 pmI think there is unfortunately also a general bias towards thinking that institutions and those who represent them are behaving properly unless shown otherwise. I'm not sure it's always deliberate but it can be quite a difficult hurdle to overcome.
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
In this case I think the background bias in favour of the establishments beneficience is less significant than the utter incomprehension of the foibles of computer software.
Also: what is a judge supposed to do if the prosecution base their case on some piece of utter nonsense, but the incompetent defence dont pick up on it. Do they have to trust the jury will see it too?
Also: what is a judge supposed to do if the prosecution base their case on some piece of utter nonsense, but the incompetent defence dont pick up on it. Do they have to trust the jury will see it too?
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Just stop there.noggins wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:24 pmIn this case I think the background bias in favour of the establishments beneficience is less significant than the utter incomprehension of the foibles of computer software.
Also: what is a judge supposed to do if the prosecution base their case on some piece of utter nonsense, but the incompetent defence dont pick up on it. Do they have to trust the jury will see it too?
In many cases the judge did not allow the defence to question whether the computer was inaccurate.
Unbelievable? Yes. Did it happen? Yes
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Yes you are quite right.
(i was wondering generally what power -no, duty -a judge has to squish a prosecution's arguements when very wrong).
What could a defence have done? Got into a slanging match with and risked a contempt charge in the hope the jury were bolshy and brave?
(i was wondering generally what power -no, duty -a judge has to squish a prosecution's arguements when very wrong).
What could a defence have done? Got into a slanging match with and risked a contempt charge in the hope the jury were bolshy and brave?
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
That is part of the problem. The change in PACE meant that the defence had to prove the software was producing errors. The defence could not do this as the Post Office, the prosecutor in these cases, would not hand over details of these errors. They knew about these problems for many years but refused to acknowledge this and kept on prosecuting people. Many senior heads should roll over this but I think, as usual, this will not happen,noggins wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:16 pmYes you are quite right.
(i was wondering generally what power -no, duty -a judge has to squish a prosecution's arguements when very wrong).
What could a defence have done? Got into a slanging match with and risked a contempt charge in the hope the jury were bolshy and brave?
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
cvb wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:49 amThat is part of the problem. The change in PACE meant that the defence had to prove the software was producing errors. The defence could not do this as the Post Office, the prosecutor in these cases, would not hand over details of these errors. They knew about these problems for many years but refused to acknowledge this and kept on prosecuting people. Many senior heads should roll over this but I think, as usual, this will not happen,noggins wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:16 pmYes you are quite right.
(i was wondering generally what power -no, duty -a judge has to squish a prosecution's arguements when very wrong).
What could a defence have done? Got into a slanging match with and risked a contempt charge in the hope the jury were bolshy and brave?
What would the crime be? Perverting the course of justice? Because they ruined people based on evidence they knew was false.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Fabricating evidence counts as perverting the course of justice. Can it be argued that presenting computer evidence known to be dodgy is fabricated evidence?
Malicious prosecution, abuse of process, etc are torts rather than crimes. Compensation, not prison.
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
I thought that was the case. I'd argue this was criminal.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
I don't know if this would be appropriate but someone in the comments to one of David Allen Green's blog posts on this mentions "Misconduct in public office".
On attempting to find out more, I discovered this Freedom of Information Request from 2016, clearly by the person who wrote the above mentioned comment.
The CPS guidance on misconduct in public office makes it clear that the charge should only be used where other charges are not possible either because there is no other statutory offence or because any statutory offence would be difficult or inappropriate to use, either because of problems of evidence or because the sentence would be insufficient. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
Also from the CPS info, it unfortunately seems that there is no clear definition of what counts as a public officer for these purposes but given that the list of those who have been accepted to be public officers in the past includes "those in charge of police computer systems", as well as the likes of local authority employees, DVLA employees, local councillors, etc, it seems likely that there would be a pretty strong case for those working for the PO who were involved in the prosecutions and possibly even those at Fujitsu who participated in the prosecutions.
This bit in particular mentions judicial functions as being one of the likely characteristics that count someone as being "in public office"
On attempting to find out more, I discovered this Freedom of Information Request from 2016, clearly by the person who wrote the above mentioned comment.
The CPS guidance on misconduct in public office makes it clear that the charge should only be used where other charges are not possible either because there is no other statutory offence or because any statutory offence would be difficult or inappropriate to use, either because of problems of evidence or because the sentence would be insufficient. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
Also from the CPS info, it unfortunately seems that there is no clear definition of what counts as a public officer for these purposes but given that the list of those who have been accepted to be public officers in the past includes "those in charge of police computer systems", as well as the likes of local authority employees, DVLA employees, local councillors, etc, it seems likely that there would be a pretty strong case for those working for the PO who were involved in the prosecutions and possibly even those at Fujitsu who participated in the prosecutions.
This bit in particular mentions judicial functions as being one of the likely characteristics that count someone as being "in public office"
And it seems fairly clear that the behaviour would come under the required definition of misconduct, too (my bold).It is extremely difficult to extract from the cases any general identifying features of public officers in a contemporary context. A person may fall within the meaning of a ‘public officer’ where one or more of the following characteristics applies to a role or function that they exercise with respect to the public at large:
Judicial or quasi-judicial
Regulatory
Punitive
Coercive
Investigative
Representative (of the public at large)
Responsibility for public funds
This list is not exhaustive and cannot be determinative of whether a person is properly described as a public officer, when acting in a particular capacity. The characteristics should be treated only as a guide and considered in the context of all the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
Examples of behaviour that have in the past fallen within the offence include:
wilful excesses of official authority;
'malicious' exercises of official authority;
wilful neglect of a public duty;
intentional infliction of bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury upon a person;
frauds and deceits.
- basementer
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
- Location: 8024, Aotearoa
- Contact:
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
A discussion of the underlying faults in the software has just appeared on Computerphile's YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJm9ZYqL10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJm9ZYqL10
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Thanks, that was interesting.basementer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:52 pmA discussion of the underlying faults in the software has just appeared on Computerphile's YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJm9ZYqL10
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
More convictions quashed
Lord Justice Holroyde and two other judges quashed the convictions of Robert Ambrose, Hasmukh Shingadia, John Armstrong, Timothy Brentnall, Jerry Hosi, Gurdeep Singh Dhale, John Dickson, Abiodun Omotoso, Malcolm Watkins, Sami Sabet, Carina Price and Rizwan Manjra.
Their appeals were unopposed by the Post Office and the judge said the court would give full reasons in writing at a later date, but that they should be cleared as soon as possible in the circumstances.
it's okay to say "I don't know"
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
The public inquiry starts hearing evidence tomorrow.
The inquiry is expected to run for the rest of this year and will address why sub-postmasters were singled out and whether they have been justly compensated.
Crucially, it will ask whether those at software developer Fujitsu, the Post Office itself or even their biggest shareholder, the government, knew about faults in the system while using that data in court to convict sub-postmasters.
it's okay to say "I don't know"
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
- Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
What I don't understand (part 93): how come in all this there was never an audit between what the computers said and how many stamps, etc were left in the sub=office ?? !!
If you bring your kids up to think for themselves, you can't complain when they do.
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: Post Office Horizon system prosecutions
Just in passing: The name "Fujitsu" might suggest that it was Evil Forrins Wot Dunnit, but Fujitsu UK is still very much the old ICL, which Fujitsu bought at least in part for its extensive government contracts (ICL having been the "UK IBM" in the 1970s).Fishnut wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:12 pmThe inquiry is expected to run for the rest of this year and will address why sub-postmasters were singled out and whether they have been justly compensated.
Crucially, it will ask whether those at software developer Fujitsu, the Post Office itself or even their biggest shareholder, the government, knew about faults in the system while using that data in court to convict sub-postmasters.
IABMCTT. There are all kinds of transactions in a Post Office that aren't amenable to physical stocktaking. For example, if you send a parcel that costs £4.50 in postage, a machine prints out a frank, rather than someone having to lick 9 50p stamps. In other words, the accounting system needs to be able to audit itself, which is quite a software challenge.
Something something hammer something something nail