Mr Bates vs The Post Office

[Nurburgsingh]

Vasco said:

tele_lover said:

Sign and share the petition:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-paula...

Just a reminder for everybody - now over 15,000 signatures.

I've signed it, but looking at the 38Degrees web site its not clear what they do with it? - its not like its a parliament petition where if you get to 10K signatures that the Government have to respond to it..

[FiF]

Nurburgsingh said:

Bonefish Blues said:

But they always leave an audit trail, of course. Not here though, seemingly (or at least the Defendants were denied access to anything aiui)

There is only an audit trail if someone wants there to be.

This ^^^^.

When at work if ever something had to be changed in one of our system database records in circumstances outside what will refer to as normal operational requirements, i.e. it required special administrator access, and even when some *significant* changes had to be made in, for example specifications, that could be argued as normal operation, then in addition to any logs done by system, a colleague and I always recorded what, why and when in personal handwritten ledgers. Mine are still in the loft 40 years later.

[rlw]

skeeterm5 said:

Why weren’t their costs awarded and paid by the PO?

Time to understand how these things work I think...

[119]

skeeterm5 said:

Mezzanine said:

They didn’t “rip them off”, as far as I am aware it was a ‘no win, no fee arrangement’. Given these guys had no money and were going up against the Post Office who dragged every heal they had, they expensed significant resources to help them at least get it through court properly.

In turn, that case has also opened the doors to (hopefully) a much larger settlement for them in the long term.

I agree the numbers are obscene, but it’s important to understand these were not some back street lawyers chasing an ambulance.

Why weren’t their costs awarded and paid by the PO?

Good question!

I have done some basic Googling, but cant see how the amount came about.

Did the PO offer this amount and it was accepted or is it what the lawyers asked for?

[Muzzer79]

skeeterm5 said:

Mezzanine said:

They didn’t “rip them off”, as far as I am aware it was a ‘no win, no fee arrangement’. Given these guys had no money and were going up against the Post Office who dragged every heal they had, they expensed significant resources to help them at least get it through court properly.

In turn, that case has also opened the doors to (hopefully) a much larger settlement for them in the long term.

I agree the numbers are obscene, but it’s important to understand these were not some back street lawyers chasing an ambulance.

Why weren’t their costs awarded and paid by the PO?

Technically, they were - IINM, the Post Office settled out of court for £58m - this settlement includes legal fees.

You can call it £58m or £12m plus legal costs - the cake cuts the same way.

This was split over 555 claimants - so that's an average of around £21k each.

IANAL but what's important (I think) is that this settlement was for damages, not compensation. So this covers the shortfall in their accounts that those SPMs were forced to pay - for some people that would have been a lot, for others it would have been less.

SPMs who were convicted can claim for compensation in addition - this is being funded by the Government (because the Post Office said they couldn't afford it) and is ongoing.

[zeb]

I’ve binged watched it all and it’s by far one of the best things on itv for a while. I spent most of the time in sheer disbelief that it could happen. One has to admire them all for persevering for so damn long.

[jameschristie]

119 said:

Good question!

I have done some basic Googling, but cant see how the amount came about.

Did the PO offer this amount and it was accepted or is it what the lawyers asked for?

You have to remember that the Post Office is owned by the UK government. The PO Board decided to spend whatever it took to win. They had a bottomless pit of public money to call on. Their strategy was to keep racking up the legal costs till they won by default, by burning up all the money the subpostmasters and their lawyers had. By this time there was ample information available at board level to persuade the directors that the subpostmasters were right, that justice required the Post Office to lose, yet they chose to adopt a legal scorched earth policy with public money.

The Post Office even brought a hugely expensive, delaying action to have the judge recused (ie removed) on the grounds of bias. Justice Fraser had savaged them for their appalling conduct in a previous judgment and he refused to accept Post Office bullst in court. Fraser wasn't biased. He was just bright, sharp, honest and tough. The recusal motion was thrown out pretty contemptuously by a higher court, but it served its purpose, burning up millions in legal fees, and putting more pressure on the subpostmasters.

After the subpostmasters won the Horizon Issues court case in 2019 there was a further case lined up, but the Post Office decided to push for a settlement to avoid further humiliation. Justice Fraser's judgment against them was brutal.

It stinks, really stinks, but the subpostmasters had little choice but to accept a settlement. The Post Office were playing a vile, dirty game, and the government had shown no interest in clamping down on the real villains.

Edited by jameschristie on Wednesday 3rd January 10:48

Edited by jameschristie on Wednesday 3rd January 11:28

[jameschristie]

zeb said:

I’ve binged watched it all and it’s by far one of the best things on itv for a while. I spent most of the time in sheer disbelief that it could happen. One has to admire them all for persevering for so damn long.

Alan Bates lost his business in November 2003 when the Post Office terminated his contract as punishment for defying them. That's 20 years he's been fighting for justice. He is amazing, truly a hero.

[KAgantua]

jameschristie said:

119 said:

Good question!

I have done some basic Googling, but cant see how the amount came about.

Did the PO offer this amount and it was accepted or is it what the lawyers asked for?

You have to remember that the Post Office is owned by the UK government. The PO Board decided to spend whatever it took to win. They had a bottomless pit of public money to call on. Their strategy was to keep racking up the legal costs till they won by default, by burning up all the money the subpostmasters and their lawyers had. By this time there was ample information available at board level to persuade the directors that the subpostmasters were right, that justice required the Post Office to lose, yet they chose to adopt a legal scorched earth policy with public money.

The Post Office even brought a hugely expensive, delaying action to have the judge recused (ie removed) on the grounds of bias. Justice Fraser had savaged them for their appalling conduct in a previous judgment and he refused to accept Post Office bullst in court. Fraser wasn't biased. He was just bright, sharp, honest and tough. The recusal motion was thrown out pretty contemptuously by a higher court, but it served its purpose, burning up million in legal fees, and putting more pressure on the subpostmasters.

After the subpostmasters won the Horizon Issues court case in 2019 there was a further case lined up, but the Post Office decided to push for a settlement to avoid further humiliation. Justice Fraser's judgment against them was brutal.

It stinks, really stinks, but the subpostmasters had little choice but to accept a settlement. The Post Office were playing a vile, dirty game, and the government had shown no interest in clamping down on the real villains.

Edited by jameschristie on Wednesday 3rd January 10:48

Good summary, would be bad enough if PO was a private company, but where was the oversight as a public one?
An awful situation all around.

[Seasonal Hero]

Certainly explains why the Government has been pretty slow in dealing with this. They were complicit and weak.

[jameschristie]

KAgantua said:

Good summary, would be bad enough if PO was a private company, but where was the oversight as a public one?
An awful situation all around.

It was an appalling failure of corporate governance. Culpability goes all the way up to the very top and to government level. I wrote about it here in a legal journal. It is a very long read!
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/542...

[alangla]

jameschristie said:

You have to remember that the Post Office is owned by the UK government. The PO Board decided to spend whatever it took to win. They had a bottomless pit of public money to call on. Their strategy was to keep racking up the legal costs till they won by default, by burning up all the money the subpostmasters and their lawyers had. By this time there was ample information available at board level to persuade the directors that the subpostmasters were right, that justice required the Post Office to lose, yet they chose to adopt a legal scorched earth policy with public money.

The Post Office even brought a hugely expensive, delaying action to have the judge recused (ie removed) on the grounds of bias. Justice Fraser had savaged them for their appalling conduct in a previous judgment and he refused to accept Post Office bullst in court. Fraser wasn't biased. He was just bright, sharp, honest and tough. The recusal motion was thrown out pretty contemptuously by a higher court, but it served its purpose, burning up million in legal fees, and putting more pressure on the subpostmasters.

After the subpostmasters won the Horizon Issues court case in 2019 there was a further case lined up, but the Post Office decided to push for a settlement to avoid further humiliation. Justice Fraser's judgment against them was brutal.

It stinks, really stinks, but the subpostmasters had little choice but to accept a settlement. The Post Office were playing a vile, dirty game, and the government had shown no interest in clamping down on the real villains.

Edited by jameschristie on Wednesday 3rd January 10:48

If you’re interested, Fraser talking about the recusal motion https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...

Some of the various judgements (there’s more there) in the main Bates & others case
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
Technical issues with Horizon- over 1000 paragraphs long https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408....

Can’t find the final judgement unfortunately.

[rjfp1962]

Alan Bates himself is doing an interview on Times Radio with Matt Chorley today. Think it airs just after midday..

[520TORQUES]

alangla said:

If you’re interested, Fraser talking about the recusal motion https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...

Some of the various judgements (there’s more there) in the main Bates & others case
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
Technical issues with Horizon- over 1000 paragraphs long https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408....

Can’t find the final judgement unfortunately.

If they settled out of court, surely the case stops with no final judgement made.

[jameschristie]

alangla said:

If you’re interested, Fraser talking about the recusal motion https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...

Some of the various judgements (there’s more there) in the main Bates & others case
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
Technical issues with Horizon- over 1000 paragraphs long https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408....

Can’t find the final judgement unfortunately.

Final judgment of the crucial Horizon Issues trial.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408....

Private Eye's excellent summary of the scandal. They published it immediately after the the judgment was released for the Horizon Issues trial, so it doesn't cover the subsequent appeals which started to overturn the convictions in bulk.
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/just...

[jameschristie]

520TORQUES said:

If they settled out of court, surely the case stops with no final judgement made.

The Horizon Issues case had already run its course and the Post Office had seen an advance copy of the judgment. It was important that the judgment was released, as Justice Fraser explained. I suspect the Post Office were hoping that settlement would prevent release of the judgment. The subpostmasters had almost run out of money. If they had not settled and the Post Office had appealed then the story might have been very different.

"‘Based on the knowledge that I have gained,’ Fraser intoned, ‘both from conducting the trial and writing the Horizon Issues judgment, I have very grave concerns regarding the veracity of evidence given by Fujitsu employees to other courts in previous proceedings about the known existence of bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system… After very careful consideration, I have therefore decided, in the interests of justice, to send the papers in the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Max Hill QC, so he may consider whether the matter to which I have referred should be the subject of any prosecution.’"

Quoted from Nick Wallis 'The Great Post Office Scandal': The story of the fight to expose a multimillion pound IT disaster which put innocent people in jail (p. 395). Bath Publishing Limited. Kindle Edition.

[Gladers01]

Nurburgsingh said:

Gladers01 said:

I'm sure they have too (used to work for them) and remember years ago being brought up in a sub post office/shop business and the main threat then was from attempted robberies so extra security glass was fitted all round, the safe had doors that were inches thick and looked bullet proof

Enthralling viewing all the same and hope they all get the compensation they deserve, you really couldn't make it up

Our office was a two counter thing set inside a sweet shop in the middle of a Council Estate. We had one attempted robbery when the Big red truck arrived, however the criminal masterminds targeted the security guard on his way out of the shop so got away with an empty box.
The greatest loss we suffered was when my old GSD decided to chew the 2 packs of £20's under the counter one day.. oops!!

Sub post offices were seen as an easy target back in the 70's, we had a small window next to the stamp vending machine and one night this was taped up with masking tape to hold the glass together when broken, the other side was fitted with several horizontal bars and a potted plant, this smashed to the floor and alerted the dogs (boxer and bull terrier) who raised the alarm, no mobile phones back then so a landline call to the police station who would attend in minutes, a semi rural decent area too.

All pales into insignificance compared to this fiasco!

[520TORQUES]

jameschristie said:

The Horizon Issues case had already run its course and the Post Office had seen an advance copy of the judgment. It was important that the judgment was released, as Justice Fraser explained. I suspect the Post Office were hoping that settlement would prevent release of the judgment. The subpostmasters had almost run out of money. If they had not settled and the Post Office had appealed then the story might have been very different.

"‘Based on the knowledge that I have gained,’ Fraser intoned, ‘both from conducting the trial and writing the Horizon Issues judgment, I have very grave concerns regarding the veracity of evidence given by Fujitsu employees to other courts in previous proceedings about the known existence of bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system… After very careful consideration, I have therefore decided, in the interests of justice, to send the papers in the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Max Hill QC, so he may consider whether the matter to which I have referred should be the subject of any prosecution.’"

Quoted from Nick Wallis 'The Great Post Office Scandal': The story of the fight to expose a multimillion pound IT disaster which put innocent people in jail (p. 395). Bath Publishing Limited. Kindle Edition.

Thanks.

Why did the PO receive a viewing of the judgement in advance of publication?

[Maxdecel]

rjfp1962 said:

Alan Bates himself is doing an interview on Times Radio with Matt Chorley today. Think it airs just after midday..

Thanks, just confirmed in next ½ Hour.

[jameschristie]

520TORQUES said:

Thanks.

Why did the PO receive a viewing of the judgement in advance of publication?

Don't know. It happened in the previous trial, which concerned the contractual relationship between the Post Office and subpostmasters. Both sides saw it, under a warning that they would be in contempt of court if they released any of it. By the end of the case it was obvious anyway that the subpostmasters would win, and Fraser was equally obviously going to put on his heaviest boots to give the PO a sound kicking.