Mr bates v the Post Office

Nicky Cambell just hosted his phone in show on all this, during which a woman victim spoke about her nightmare and named two local MPs who had dismissed her back in the day. One of them has immediately issued a media statement insisting on dealing with Paula Vennells etc etc.
We're going to see some fancy footwork worthy of Messi and Ronaldo in the coming months.
 
Rita_Poon said:
'The senior execs at Post Office Ltd were given huge bonuses on the back of securing 'recoveries' from these poor subpostmasters. Then they got further bonuses at the conclusion of the inquiry for cooperating - even though it was a legal requirement to cooperate and the inquiry isn't even closed yet. Vennells alone got £170k in bonuses linked to the whole Horizon issue.

What's more, the auditors/investigators were also given targets to achieve successful cases against subpostmasters (and given bonuses for meeting/exceeding those targets). No wonder they were so keen!'

but starmeh though...
Click to expand...
To have bonuses based on prosecution success is horrific.
 
davek said:
"‌In 2012, the CPS, according to evidence submitted to the public inquiry by Della Robinson, a sub-postmistress wrongly convicted, 'told me that if I pleaded guilty to false accounting, they would not pursue me for the money and would drop the theft charge. I then chose to do this'”.

That was on Starmer's watch. It's completely fanciful to believe that case and others - given the high profile of the convictions back then which was receiving political push back btw - wouldn't have been discussed by Starmer who was the DPP at the time.
Click to expand...
Yes but if the cps were (wrongly) told the evidence was sound, you can’t blame them for coming to a wrong decision. The cps are not there to reinvestigate but to review
 
tonyhorne said:
I'm no fan of Starmer but the CPS don't decide the outcome of legal cases, they decide whether a prosecution is in the public interest etc. To be honest, the claim that someone is robbing the Post Office blind is unlikely to be overlooked. A serious enough claim to ask the courts to decide rather than leave it to some senior legal official in the CPS. The fact that the courts got it so wrong is the big deal ...
Click to expand...
Thanks @tonyhorne . It's always up to the Judge in these matters to weigh up the evidence. Then the Judge decides whether someone is guilty. For instance, in Ireland, the Post office here prosecute TV License defaulters. In Dublin one day a fortnight is given over to hearing these cases. The accused has a right to a defense. The Judge decides, based on the evidence, the guilt or innocence of the accused.
 
Blue Piper said:
Thanks @tonyhorne . It's always up to the Judge in these matters to weigh up the evidence. Then the Judge decides whether someone is guilty. For instance, in Ireland, the Post office here prosecute TV License defaulters. In Dublin one day a fortnight is given over to hearing these cases. The accused has a right to a defense. The Judge decides, based on the evidence, the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Click to expand...
Presumably, in these Post Office cases, a jury decided?
 

Isn’t one of the complications with most of these cases is that the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of false accounting to avoid being prosecuted for theft and the real chance of going to prison.
If that’s the case does the legal system work slightly differently and becomes more of a processing of cases because a guilty plea has been entered?
 
This is turning into a national political squirm and collective wringing of hands.

This has ALL been in the public domain for years now and its taken a bloody ITV mini series (as good as it was) to bring it to the wider public's attention and to get it the focus it deserves.

Its almost trial by f'in TV .. disgraceful!
 
Rita_Poon said:
'The senior execs at Post Office Ltd were given huge bonuses on the back of securing 'recoveries' from these poor subpostmasters. Then they got further bonuses at the conclusion of the inquiry for cooperating - even though it was a legal requirement to cooperate and the inquiry isn't even closed yet. Vennells alone got £170k in bonuses linked to the whole Horizon issue.

What's more, the auditors/investigators were also given targets to achieve successful cases against subpostmasters (and given bonuses for meeting/exceeding those targets). No wonder they were so keen!'

but starmeh though...
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that subpostmasters were contractually obliged to cover any and all losses. If they gave out 50 quid too much to a customer then they had to put the fifty quid in themselves. This would be standard practice in these types of sub contracting arrangements.
 

Blue Piper said:
Fines only. However, if the accused refused to, or could not pay the fines then they could end up in prison.
Click to expand...
Many were gaoled, their accounts indicate that they were crown court jury trials. A breach of trust at work usually means an indictable trial ensues. Can’t blame the courts or juries, this is solely on those who knew the evidence was seriously flawed and persisted with the prosecutions
 
arch stanton said:
Many were gaoled, their accounts indicate that they were crown court jury trials. A breach of trust at work usually means an indictable trial ensues. Can’t blame the courts or juries, this is solely on those who knew the evidence was seriously flawed and persisted with the prosecutions
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Most of the victims would not have the wherewithal to hire IT experts to give evidence against the Horizon system.
 
Blue Piper said:
It's my understanding that subpostmasters were contractually obliged to cover any and all losses. If they gave out 50 quid too much to a customer then they had to put the fifty quid in themselves. This would be standard practice in these types of sub contracting arrangements.
Click to expand...

As with most things in law and contracts its more complicated than this.

There is a 315 page doc which looks into some of this ..


Not suggesting you read any/all of this but it just shows how these things are often argued for/against in Court etc
 
Last edited:

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top