Mr Bates vs The Post Office

[Smollet]

Having resigned over her incompetence at the PO she gets a CBE and becomes chair of Imperial College NHS Trust from which she’s been subsequently removed. It beggars belief that little or no due diligence is done when appointing those in the civil service.

[Wills2]

Smollet said:

Having resigned over her incompetence at the PO she gets a CBE and becomes chair of Imperial College NHS Trust from which she’s been subsequently removed. It beggars belief that little or no due diligence is done when appointing those in the civil service.

It's a private club and they all have empathy for each other being cut of the same cloth, only when the heat is too much do they exclude one of their own as a form of self preservation.

Time and time again we see these reputational defence witch hunts whereby people are destroyed and nothing happens to the guilty parties.

[uknick]

Smollet said:

Having resigned over her incompetence at the PO she gets a CBE and becomes chair of Imperial College NHS Trust from which she’s been subsequently removed. It beggars belief that little or no due diligence is done when appointing those in the civil service.

Yet another case of not what you know, but who you know. Pretty rife in all societies round the world

[cookie1600]

jameschristie said:

Fraser's judgement against them was brutal.

From the documents:

928.The approach by the Post Office to the evidence of someone such as Mr Latif demonstrates a simple institutional obstinacy or refusal to consider any possible alternatives to their view of Horizon, which was maintained regardless of the weight of factual evidence to the contrary. That approach by the Post Office was continued, even though now there is also considerable expert evidence to the contrary as well (and much of it agreed expert evidence on the existence of numerous bugs).

929.This approach by the Post Office has amounted, in reality, to bare assertions and denials that ignore what has actually occurred, at least so far as the witnesses called before me in the Horizon Issues trial are concerned. It amounts to the 21st century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat.

930. When real world examples such as Mr Latif’s are put together with the expert evidence that I have accepted – or even with Dr Worden’s lower figure for accepted bugs of 11 different ones – it can be seen that this institutional obstinacy by the Post Office amounts to little more than repeated assertions that the Horizon system (both Legacy and Online) cannot be to blame for the claimants’ experiences, coupled with (for some) challenges to the claimants’ witnesses because the Post Office simply cannot accept their factual accounts. The findings that I have made, on the evidence in the Horizon Issues trial, show that the reality is rather different, and the existence of the bugs, errors and defects that I have found to exist do have the effect explained by Mr Coyne.

Even one of the PO's main witnesses was disavowed - their own witness!

927. The factual evidence of specific instances was of assistance in coming to conclusions on the Horizon Issues. Indeed, I found some of the factual evidence to be of great assistance. That of Mr Roll and Mr Godeseth was extremely useful. The latter, one of the Post Office’s main witnesses and the Chief Architect of Horizon, was sufficiently damaging to the Post Office’s case on the Horizon Issues that they were, essentially, forced almost to disavow him, and the Post Office’s closing submissions were highly critical of the accuracy of his evidence.

934. I consider that the evidence of the Fujitsu witnesses in particular, both former and current, has been of considerable assistance to me in resolving the Horizon Issues. Mr Roll, Mr Godeseth, and even in his own way Mr Parker (though not in the way that Mr Parker himself would have intended) have all provided clear evidence of the problems with the Horizon system, the bugs, errors and defects within both Legacy Horizon and Horizon Online in its HNG-X form, the way that these problems were (or were not) dealt with, and the way that Fujitsu had powers which, until shortly before the trial started, Fujitsu sought to keep from the court, and may not even have fully disclosed to the Post Office. Because the extent of these powers was kept secret in this way, the Post Office finds itself now having made misleading public statements previously. If one looks back to an earlier case management hearing and reconsiders how Fujitsu, through the Post Office, sought to portray the contents and lack of importance and relevance of PEAKs and KELs, then it can be seen that there has been a pattern of considerable defensiveness over the Horizon System. There has certainly been a lack of transparency, and a lack of accuracy in description.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408....

[uknick]

Lotusgone said:

There is a provision for police officers to lose their pension if convicted of a criminal offence in connection with their service (thank you Google).

It's high time that this was extended to incompetent civil servants like this Vennells woman.

Civil servants convicted of a criminal offence are at risk of losing their pension rights and this has been the case for many decades.

But, apart from espionage cases, I can only think of one senior civil servant who was convicted and ended up doing jail time. This was back in the mid 1990s when the Met Police Head of Finance stole millions, some of which he used to buy a village in Scotland. Apparently he was very generous when it came to buying drinks in the civil service club bar. Go figure!!

[Castrol for a knave]

There will be a hoo ha for a while.

A few upper mid execs from the PO and Fujitsu will be thrown under the bus. Vennells will be the vilified in the media but keep her CBE.

The rest, those that occupied hers and other senior positions before and during, the ones who continued the deception and denied justice, the politicians who turned the other way because it was easier and politically expedient to do so and the board members who should have fulfilled their amply remunerated brief and actually question what was going on, will continue to their knighthoods, full pensions and pleasant little non-exec gravy train.

In all, the real "elites" will just carry on in their nepotistic little merry go round of directorships, charity appointments and assorted junkets.

[jameschristie]

cookie1600 said:

From the documents:

...929.This approach by the Post Office has amounted, in reality, to bare assertions and denials that ignore what has actually occurred, at least so far as the witnesses called before me in the Horizon Issues trial are concerned. It amounts to the 21st century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat.
...

I loved that paragraph!

[alangla]

jameschristie said:

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...

Ahh, thanks, I hadn’t realised that Horizon Issues was the last in the series and the text seems to refer to subsequent hearings which, if it was settled, obviously never happened.

[jameschristie]

The Count said:

What did the auditors make of the accounts when Horizon were producing such odd and inconsistent figures?
What happened to the money postmasters paid to cover non-existent shortfalls?

Good questions. I tried to address them here.
https://clarotesting.wordpress.com/2023/02/14/the-...

Short answers. The external auditors were conflicted and didn't ask some of the questions they should have done. The internal auditors went awol - they were pathetically spineless. I've done the job in financial services. I know how it should be done. The Post Office internal auditors were stealing their salaries. I can't wait for them to get ripped to shreds in the Williams Inquiry.

The subpostmasters money vanished into suspense accounts, and then appeared as profit in the Profit & Loss account. Second Sight, the external forensic accountants, did ask some awkward questions about the use of suspense accounts to launder the missing money. To be fair to the Post Office I'm almost prepared to believe this was routine incompetence rather than a cunning plan. They weren't the smartest of villains. Anyway, Second Sight were sacked for their trouble. Second Sight chose to do the right thing and thus lost what would have been a highly lucrative contract. They are definitely among the good guys in this story.

Btw, "Bob Rutherford" in the ITV drama is a combination of the two guys from Second Sight; Ron Warburton and Ian Henderson. Top men! Henderson called Vennells out when they appeared side by side before a parliamentary select committee. He left her dangling in the wind in front of the MPs. Second Sight were sacked shortly afterwards.

Edited by jameschristie on Wednesday 3rd January 12:53

[tele_lover]

alangla said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Royal Mail, not the Post Office surely?

Up until 2012, Royal Mail Group was the parent company of the Post Office. Crozier was chief executive of Royal Mail Group from 2003-2010.

To be fair I'm not sure that made RM intimately involved.

[Bonefish Blues]

uknick said:

Lotusgone said:

There is a provision for police officers to lose their pension if convicted of a criminal offence in connection with their service (thank you Google).

It's high time that this was extended to incompetent civil servants like this Vennells woman.

Civil servants convicted of a criminal offence are at risk of losing their pension rights and this has been the case for many decades.

But, apart from espionage cases, I can only think of one senior civil servant who was convicted and ended up doing jail time. This was back in the mid 1990s when the Met Police Head of Finance stole millions, some of which he used to buy a village in Scotland. Apparently he was very generous when it came to buying drinks in the civil service club bar. Go figure!!

Story here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-...

[520TORQUES]

Ed Davey who is now Lib Dem leader, was minister for the PO for 2 years during this scandal as a member of cabinet under the coalition government.

He was interviewed on Times radio after Alan, and washed his hands of any responsibility, stating he was misinformed.

This is during the period MP's were already involved so would have known there was a serious issue that needed investigating.

Like all these clowns, nothing to do with me mate....

[epicfail]

I do find it odd that criminal convictions resulted from the Horizon financial data alone.

Was no evidence required to show where this "missing" revenue had gone before people were convicted. Numbers on a system seems very flimsy evidence with which to convict.

[Maxdecel]

epicfail said:

I do find it odd that criminal convictions resulted from the Horizon financial data alone.

Was no evidence required to show where this "missing" revenue had gone before people were convicted. Numbers on a system seems very flimsy evidence with which to convict.

Coincidentally I saw this earlier, not sure if it answers your question but it seems the PO convinced the jury about their "faultless" sytem.
First few paragraphs - https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_rep...

[jameschristie]

epicfail said:

I do find it odd that criminal convictions resulted from the Horizon financial data alone.

Was no evidence required to show where this "missing" revenue had gone before people were convicted. Numbers on a system seems very flimsy evidence with which to convict.

It is absurd. The law in England & Wales presumes that computer evidence is reliable unless the other party can show why it is not. In effect that flips the burden of proof. Defendants have to prove they are innocent, and how they did not commit the crime. There is a long backstory to this. See this link.
https://clarotesting.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/the-...

I live in Scotland, and the English presumption seems particularly crazy to me because under Scots Law evidence offered by the prosecution requires corroboration. If the only evidence is "the computer says so" then prosecutions won't proceed. It was revealed during the public inquiry that the Post Office got narked by Scottish prosecutors telling them to take a hike.

I've worked on the technical side of many fraud investigations, and there was always significant evidence to corroborate the computer evidence I assembled. When you realise a fraud suspect in a lowly admin job has been taking his large family on holiday to Hawaii you start to think you have a strong case. In the Horizon prosecutions the Post Office was never able to offer corroboration or show what the defendants had done with the money.

[FiF]

epicfail said:

I do find it odd that criminal convictions resulted from the Horizon financial data alone.

Was no evidence required to show where this "missing" revenue had gone before people were convicted. Numbers on a system seems very flimsy evidence with which to convict.

Is the problem there the PO's right to prosecute, I know we complain about CPS but would much of this ever have got to court?

Equally the scene against Lee from Bridlington who defended himself, (fool for a client?) hit with 321k legal fees on top of what fictitious losses were claimed on the back of false evidence from Fujitsu etc.

Side issue, many thanks to various posters for the input and links to various pieces of detailed background. Lots of reading, much appreciated.

[jameschristie]

FiF said:

Is the problem there the PO's right to prosecute, I know we complain about CPS but would much of this ever have got to court?

Equally the scene against Lee from Bridlington who defended himself, (fool for a client?) hit with 321k legal fees on top of what fictitious losses were claimed on the back of false evidence from Fujitsu etc.

Side issue, many thanks to various posters for the input and links to various pieces of detailed background. Lots of reading, much appreciated.

The PO right to prosecute was a huge part of the problem. They abused this power shamelessly.

Lee Castleton was stitched up. He had legal expenses insurance. The PO did not contest his case. Castleton's funds were burned up by preparing for that first case. The PO then appealed and threw everything at Castleton. Money was no object. Castleton had no option but to try and defend himself alone. He couldn't afford a lawyer. ITV did not explain that fully. The Post Office wanted to make an example of him and destroy him to intimidate others.

[LeighW]

A couple of my clients were victims in this. I obviously can't go into detail, but the harm, both mental and physical that this has caused them is quite incredible. No amount of compensation will make up for it.

What's even more incredible is that the government still continues contracts with the company responsible. Rotten to the core.

[heebeegeetee]

Forgive me if already posted, but I was curious as to who had put forward Paula Vennels to be awarded a CBE for services to the Post Office.

Seems I'm not the only one and a FOI request has been made asking much the same.

The answer is on a link to a .pdf on this page, and it seems nobody is prepared to admit to making this recommendation.

Thus it seems recommendations for honours can be made without a paper trail.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/decision_to...

[MesoForm]

jameschristie said:

FiF said:

Is the problem there the PO's right to prosecute, I know we complain about CPS but would much of this ever have got to court?

Equally the scene against Lee from Bridlington who defended himself, (fool for a client?) hit with 321k legal fees on top of what fictitious losses were claimed on the back of false evidence from Fujitsu etc.

Side issue, many thanks to various posters for the input and links to various pieces of detailed background. Lots of reading, much appreciated.

The PO right to prosecute was a huge part of the problem. They abused this power shamelessly.

Lee Castleton was stitched up. He had legal expenses insurance. The PO did not contest his case. Castleton's funds were burned up by preparing for that first case. The PO then appealed and threw everything at Castleton. Money was no object. Castleton had no option but to try and defend himself alone. He couldn't afford a lawyer. ITV did not explain that fully. The Post Office wanted to make an example of him and destroy him to intimidate others.

The PO don't have any more right to prosecute than the rest of us - I could prosecute someone if I wanted to, the RSPCA does private prosecutions quite often, Virgin Media prosecuted some people for selling dodgy cable boxes, etc. The confusion comes about as the PO were prosecuting people before the CPS was a thing so have been left to their own devices without proper oversight.