Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
My take is GJ was involved in a legal process that he didn’t understand and was not equipped to understand.
A simile would be imagine GJ witnessed a murder and wrote a witness statement.
The murderer wore a blue or black cap but I can’t be sure it was pretty dark.
The CPS or Police seek to ‘negotiate’ a better statement - what if you say it was dark, probably blue or black and we drop the bit about it being dark and you can’t be sure.
Well, I dunno.
It’s fine, let’s just do it this way.
Ok.
IANAL. Not sure if that makes GJ guilty of a crime.
But I’m pretty sure it’s not what the prosecutor should be doing….
A simile would be imagine GJ witnessed a murder and wrote a witness statement.
The murderer wore a blue or black cap but I can’t be sure it was pretty dark.
The CPS or Police seek to ‘negotiate’ a better statement - what if you say it was dark, probably blue or black and we drop the bit about it being dark and you can’t be sure.
Well, I dunno.
It’s fine, let’s just do it this way.
Ok.
IANAL. Not sure if that makes GJ guilty of a crime.
But I’m pretty sure it’s not what the prosecutor should be doing….
sir humphrey appleby said:
Mr Beer seemed a bit flustered at the end, when GJ was talking about the computer in the effect of him using it. I don’t think he could quite believe what he heard.
Yes, that bit of GJ’s evidence was not credible at all. Mr Stein will rip him in half over that.The ‘core participant’ bit of this will be worth a watch!
skwdenyer said:
I've just been pausing the video and reading the draft witness statement in the Castleton case.
The implications are breathtaking. Have a read of the paragraphs leading up to para 27. I'll type out a bit here, which relates to daily and weekly declarations of cash and stock. Users were expected to *manually* use an ID number every day to denote a cash drawer and, if they typed the wrong number in (intending it to be common), they'd get a larger underage/overage.
Any sensible UX person would have a configuration system that allowed the SPM to specify the tills, their IDs, the basis of counting (all drawers together, or declared separately), and so on, and then *prompts* to count "till X", not "please enter the till ID."
If this is indicative of the way in which Horizon was designed, I'm pretty stunned TBH.
The other thing that's clear is GJ wasn't architect of the whole process; he was the Horizon guy. He talks in later paras about things like cheques, and having no idea what the process would be if there was a mis-match. He seems to have been the most narrow of "architects," designing a system that seemingly operated in some sort of vacuum.
Staggering.
As a UX consultant, this 'process' - a core part of Europe's largest IT project - is laughable. It should not have made it past the drawing board. It's too complicated and wooly to even discuss with users. Let alone get user feedback. A UX Researcher would say - 'this won't work, you need to go back to first principles to have even a chance of compliance' Dead right @skwdenyer. The implications are breathtaking. Have a read of the paragraphs leading up to para 27. I'll type out a bit here, which relates to daily and weekly declarations of cash and stock. Users were expected to *manually* use an ID number every day to denote a cash drawer and, if they typed the wrong number in (intending it to be common), they'd get a larger underage/overage.
Draft Witness Statement said:
As part of the Balancing process a similar cash Declaration is done using the Declaration IDs exactly like the ONCH declarations. In 2004, these were separate independent declarations, but in 2005 they were merged to use exactly the same process for both ONCH and Balancing declarations. As part of balancing all Declarations with separate IDs are taken and added up and then compared with the System Generated Cash figure which is produced by analysing all transactions within the cash account period. Any difference is highlighted to the subpostmaster as a <<Discrepancy>> which if the[y] accept, will adjust the system cash figure to match the amount of cash that has been declared by the subpostmaster. Therefore if he has <<doubled declared his cash>> and accepts the resulting discrepancy, the system cash figure will be adjusted to reflect this. I suspect that this may be what has happened. However it is still Mr Castleton's responsibility to spot this and not to accept the (false) discrepancy when he is balancing the system.
Wow. Please tell me the likes of GJ weren't in charge of what we'd now call UX (User Experience), and that genuine HCI [Human Computer Interaction] people were involved in what was then Europe's largest IT project. To rely upon SPMs and their (low wage) staff to accurately type in a till ID every day by hand and, if they get it wrong, to double-count all the cash in the building, is just insane.Any sensible UX person would have a configuration system that allowed the SPM to specify the tills, their IDs, the basis of counting (all drawers together, or declared separately), and so on, and then *prompts* to count "till X", not "please enter the till ID."
If this is indicative of the way in which Horizon was designed, I'm pretty stunned TBH.
The other thing that's clear is GJ wasn't architect of the whole process; he was the Horizon guy. He talks in later paras about things like cheques, and having no idea what the process would be if there was a mis-match. He seems to have been the most narrow of "architects," designing a system that seemingly operated in some sort of vacuum.
Staggering.
kevinon said:
As a UX consultant, this 'process' - a core part of Europe's largest IT project - is laughable. It should not have made it past the drawing board. It's too complicated and wooly to even discuss with users. Let alone get user feedback. A UX Researcher would say - 'this won't work, you need to go back to first principles to have even a chance of compliance' Dead right @skwdenyer.
True, but for the design this would have been what, 1998? A lifetime away in UX... and the govt had not bought from one of the better providers (all have their flaws but many have better resources and stronger design authority)And then there is Apex corner which is worth a read:
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/sites/...
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/sites/...
Ken_Code said:
There was a back door, it wasn't audited, and the fact of this was witheld from the defence. To go ahead and prosecute people based on the balances is criminal.
vaud said:
kevinon said:
As a UX consultant, this 'process' - a core part of Europe's largest IT project - is laughable. It should not have made it past the drawing board. It's too complicated and wooly to even discuss with users. Let alone get user feedback. A UX Researcher would say - 'this won't work, you need to go back to first principles to have even a chance of compliance' Dead right @skwdenyer.
True, but for the design this would have been what, 1998? A lifetime away in UX... and the govt had not bought from one of the better providers (all have their flaws but many have better resources and stronger design authority)The_Nugget said:
My take is GJ was involved in a legal process that he didn’t understand and was not equipped to understand.
A simile would be imagine GJ witnessed a murder and wrote a witness statement.
The murderer wore a blue or black cap but I can’t be sure it was pretty dark.
The CPS or Police seek to ‘negotiate’ a better statement - what if you say it was dark, probably blue or black and we drop the bit about it being dark and you can’t be sure.
Well, I dunno.
It’s fine, let’s just do it this way.
Ok.
IANAL. Not sure if that makes GJ guilty of a crime.
But I’m pretty sure it’s not what the prosecutor should be doing….
Interesting take.A simile would be imagine GJ witnessed a murder and wrote a witness statement.
The murderer wore a blue or black cap but I can’t be sure it was pretty dark.
The CPS or Police seek to ‘negotiate’ a better statement - what if you say it was dark, probably blue or black and we drop the bit about it being dark and you can’t be sure.
Well, I dunno.
It’s fine, let’s just do it this way.
Ok.
IANAL. Not sure if that makes GJ guilty of a crime.
But I’m pretty sure it’s not what the prosecutor should be doing….
My take is to ignore the “kindly old man” demeanour and look at the facts.
He knew access was possible. He might jumble it up with access to logs, etc, but he KNEW numbers could be edited without SPMs knowledge or permission.
He didn’t share what he knew.
He claimed not to know the requirements of an expert witness, then had to concede that he had been sent details, including to share all information.
Many people were prosecuted and jailed off the back of his evidence.
Guilty as sin, and will deserve the jail time coming to him.
As it was put earlier:
Ken_Code said:
There was a back door, it wasn't audited, and the fact of this was witheld from the defence. To go ahead and prosecute people based on the balances is criminal.
Edited by mikeiow on Thursday 27th June 09:06
hidetheelephants said:
Perhaps a hangover from govt owning part of ICL and them being preferred bidders for state IT projects?
Possibly, I can't remember when OJEU came in for IT services.Either way they were an effective incumbent, and as seen since no other provider has stepped in to support Horizon online in place of Fujitsu (and suppliers have been approached but no-one will touch it with a 25 mile long bargepole).
mikeiow said:
The_Nugget said:
My take is GJ was involved in a legal process that he didn’t understand and was not equipped to understand.
A simile would be imagine GJ witnessed a murder and wrote a witness statement.
The murderer wore a blue or black cap but I can’t be sure it was pretty dark.
The CPS or Police seek to ‘negotiate’ a better statement - what if you say it was dark, probably blue or black and we drop the bit about it being dark and you can’t be sure.
Well, I dunno.
It’s fine, let’s just do it this way.
Ok.
IANAL. Not sure if that makes GJ guilty of a crime.
But I’m pretty sure it’s not what the prosecutor should be doing….
Interesting take.A simile would be imagine GJ witnessed a murder and wrote a witness statement.
The murderer wore a blue or black cap but I can’t be sure it was pretty dark.
The CPS or Police seek to ‘negotiate’ a better statement - what if you say it was dark, probably blue or black and we drop the bit about it being dark and you can’t be sure.
Well, I dunno.
It’s fine, let’s just do it this way.
Ok.
IANAL. Not sure if that makes GJ guilty of a crime.
But I’m pretty sure it’s not what the prosecutor should be doing….
My take is to ignore the “kindly old man” demeanour and look at the facts.
He knew access was possible. He might jumble it up with access to logs, etc, but he KNEW numbers could be edited without SPMs knowledge or permission.
He didn’t share what he knew.
He claimed not to know the requirements of an expert witness, then had to concede that he had been sent details, including to share all information.
Many people were prosecuted and jailed off the back of his evidence.
Guilty as sin, and will deserve the jail time coming to him.
As it was put earlier:
Ken_Code said:
There was a back door, it wasn't audited, and the fact of this was witheld from the defence. To go ahead and prosecute people based on the balances is criminal.
Edited by mikeiow on Thursday 27th June 09:06
mikeiow said:
Guilty as sin, and will deserve the jail time coming to him.
I think there are a few factors against this, and there are many defences to perjury.1) He may have received a letter stating his responsibilities as an expert witness. But given the importance, the lawyers didn't sit down and explicitly brief him. That is a mitigation in my view.
2) Time and age. The inquiry doesn't report out until next year. The police investigation in parallel will take time. When it reaches the CPS, does it pass teh thresholds for prosecution? If it reaches trial, then let's estimate 3 years by which point he will be 75.
Assuming it is for perjury, then is it in the public interest, and is it appropriate to jail a 75 year old? Judges tend to be reluctant when taking into account age and health, etc
Perjury is up to 7 years, or a fine.
My guess is it would never be jail, at peak a suspended sentence. If, if, if...
vaud said:
mikeiow said:
Guilty as sin, and will deserve the jail time coming to him.
I think there are a few factors against this, and there are many defences to perjury.1) He may have received a letter stating his responsibilities as an expert witness. But given the importance, the lawyers didn't sit down and explicitly brief him. That is a mitigation in my view.
2) Time and age. The inquiry doesn't report out until next year. The police investigation in parallel will take time. When it reaches the CPS, does it pass teh thresholds for prosecution? If it reaches trial, then let's estimate 3 years by which point he will be 75.
Assuming it is for perjury, then is it in the public interest, and is it appropriate to jail a 75 year old? Judges tend to be reluctant when taking into account age and health, etc
Perjury is up to 7 years, or a fine.
My guess is it would never be jail, at peak a suspended sentence. If, if, if...
I have zero sympathy for his plight, and also believe he was cocky enough in his career to have enjoyed being the “expert witness”.
As an aside, & as a former ‘techie’ myself, I would suggest that techies like him *do* have the ability to absorb a lot of detail, and also *do* look into the detail of things.
The fact that he has had to apologise for several things he “mis-stated” at the Inquiry tells me he is pretty calculating.
The_Nugget said:
My take is GJ was involved in a legal process that he didn’t understand and was not equipped to understand.
A simile would be imagine GJ witnessed a murder and wrote a witness statement.
The murderer wore a blue or black cap but I can’t be sure it was pretty dark.
The CPS or Police seek to ‘negotiate’ a better statement - what if you say it was dark, probably blue or black and we drop the bit about it being dark and you can’t be sure.
Well, I dunno.
It’s fine, let’s just do it this way.
Ok.
IANAL. Not sure if that makes GJ guilty of a crime.
But I’m pretty sure it’s not what the prosecutor should be doing….
Which is understandable but his role wasn't as an eye witness to a crime, he was an expert witness so shouldn't have engaged with the hardening up/coaching and changing of his statements by the POL lawyers or engaged in the obfuscation of the truth about Horizons functions and features to the courts. A simile would be imagine GJ witnessed a murder and wrote a witness statement.
The murderer wore a blue or black cap but I can’t be sure it was pretty dark.
The CPS or Police seek to ‘negotiate’ a better statement - what if you say it was dark, probably blue or black and we drop the bit about it being dark and you can’t be sure.
Well, I dunno.
It’s fine, let’s just do it this way.
Ok.
IANAL. Not sure if that makes GJ guilty of a crime.
But I’m pretty sure it’s not what the prosecutor should be doing….
He should have been giving his expert unbiased truthful opinion to the court.
There does seem to be more, "I can see that now, I didn't realize at the time, On reflection, I should have done...." I don't think he is or was quite as naïve as he is making out, but that's probably just my cynical nature!
Not quite a 'smoking gun'.....yet
He still has the rest of today and tomorrow to go. It must be tiring to have to concentrate fully on what a barrister is asking and where it may be leading, if he is being 'economical with the truth'.
Not quite a 'smoking gun'.....yet
He still has the rest of today and tomorrow to go. It must be tiring to have to concentrate fully on what a barrister is asking and where it may be leading, if he is being 'economical with the truth'. I though Beer was being a bit of a bully in the 'Pilot' issue and the different system migration and, although I admit I am not a techy, tended to agree with what GJ was saying about it being relevent.
No smoking gun yet IMO but at least he is trying to answer questions rather than the I don't recal many others have resorted tol!!
No smoking gun yet IMO but at least he is trying to answer questions rather than the I don't recal many others have resorted tol!!
Beer didn't make all that much of the "postmasters trying to jump on the Horizon has stolen my money bandwagon" remark in an email. I bet he's intentionally leaving that to the core participants lawyers tomorrow. Although I see from the wider view that Stein isn't there at the moment, so perhaps the PH grandstand will be disappointed.
outnumbered said:
Beer didn't make all that much of the "postmasters trying to jump on the Horizon has stolen my money bandwagon" remark in an email. I bet he's intentionally leaving that to the core participants lawyers tomorrow. Although I see from the wider view that Stein isn't there at the moment, so perhaps the PH grandstand will be disappointed.
No he didn't did he? now that probably could have done with pushing a bit more.........you could be right so more to come on this from core partcipants....not sure they aren't starting after lunch today?vaud said:
I think there are a few factors against this, and there are many defences to perjury.
1) He may have received a letter stating his responsibilities as an expert witness....
I'm sure we've all clicked a "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions..." box without having done so.1) He may have received a letter stating his responsibilities as an expert witness....
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff