Mr bates v the Post Office

[arch stanton]

pretty sure there's been plenty of miscarriages of justice due to the police not disclosing all relevant info to a defence.
basically never trust any institution or authority figures.

you wouldn't get the lot unless you are asking for expert technical evidence, otherwise the rules are any undisclosed material that would either undermine the protection case or that would assist the defence. You are always reliant on the disclosure officer/team. This bunch of clowns were above such frivolous matters, they were far too important.

 

[COYBL25]

pretty sure there's been plenty of miscarriages of justice due to the police not disclosing all relevant info to a defence.
basically never trust any institution or authority figures.

That was many many years ago, the only way the police wouldn`t disclose something now, is if it was a matter of National Security or an informant / undercover etc.

But before that happened, there`d be a hearing behind closed doors to decide whatever was in dispute, would be admitted or withheld.

It`s perverting the course of justice, straight to jail.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Fujitsu won contracts on Sunak’s watch despite Post Office scandal

Japanese contractor was involved in public-sector work worth billions even after 2019 court ruling on Horizon IT system

www.ft.com

Post Office scandal: Horizon developer Fujitsu handed £6.8bn in public contracts since 2012

Researchers at Tussell reveal how much money has been given to Fujitsu in recent years by public bodies.

news.sky.com

Alert contract for Post Office scandal firm Fujitsu criticised by peers

IT giant at the centre of Horizon Post Office scandal worked on government's emergency alert system.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Iana]

This guy Bradshaw is going to get pelters in the tabloids tomorrow. Shame they haven't shown more interest in the case until now.
They'll be probing into his private life while his bosses remain untouched, at least so far. He wasn't the only investigator and he didn't make the rules.
Several others need sorting out, starting at the top.

I’ve just watched about an hour of Bradshaw’s testimony…jeez!

 

[Iana]

One of the highlights/lowlights of Bradshaw’s testimony was him arguing the toss over the description by a disabled sub-postmistress of a tiny parcel lift in a sorting office to help her to get to an upper floor for an interview into the losses at her PO.
He claimed to have a photograph to support his claim that it was wheelchair accessible but the Inquiry head has asked him to submit it to him for his consideration whether it it should be admitted as a evidence…I think Bradshaw’s just seen his a**e!

 

[PhilM]

the PO case falls apart as there was one SPM who was being audited and as he was being audited, the Horizon system completed 'transactions' all on its own in front of the SPM and auditors, direct evidence of access to the system remotely, and/or technical malfunctions, his issues weren't pursued in court and he was hushed. Others were still prosecuted on the back of the data from this system with the knowledge of the PO. That is criminal behaviour from the PO.

Back to what I said previously - it smells of fraud by false representation if they used this to obtain monies from people knowing it was incorrect.

There should be people doing some sizeable custodial because of this, but we all know there won’t be or those who are will be fall guys.

 

[Old Blue 2]

As said above, if the Post Office said there was nothing to disclose, that would be the end of the matter.

If it was a Police investigation, they’d have got the lot, but due to it being the Post Office Investigations, they undoubtedly thought they could do what they wanted, as they didn’t play by the same rules as everyone else and didn’t see the need to.

I have to disagree with the above, and I will state the reasons for doing so below. But first, part of my working background before retirement. As a civil servant for over 32 years, in a Government Department (DSS) that paid out money to the public, I was part of a cadre of Management staff that were trained as 'Internal Investigators', to investigate financial fraud being committed by staff. We were trained way beyond PACE 84, the details of that I will not go into.

Now, the role of any investigator once given the bare bones of the potential fraud is to examine everything from all angles. A statement of the obvious, yes, but it appears that the POID (Post Office Investigation Department or whatever its further iterations were) investigator(s) did not go into sufficient detail to bottom out exactly what happened.

Furthermore, once the same scenario was headed up to POID on a regular basis, that should have alerted POID to the fact that there was regular fraud taking place in identical scenarios, OR that there was potentially something remiss with the financial accounting system.

Accordingly, (and this is something that the solicitors/lawyers of the accused should have latched onto) they should have applied the standard tools of any investigator:
1. ABC.
Accept nothing
Believe no one
Check everything
Doing this (starting with the proverbial 'blank piece of paper' and a totally open mind as to what has happened) would, I believe, have eventually put them on to the track of something not being right on a central/national financial basis. At the 'check everything' point, they would have discovered the computer discrepancies (whether that was found and ignored, or simply not gone into, I do not know).

2. Kipling
I KEEP SIX HONEST SERVING MEN
THEY TAUGHT ME ALL I KNEW
THEIR NAMES ARE: WHAT AND WHY AND WHEN
AND HOW AND WHERE AND WHO
Had the POID investigator(s) applied the above thoroughly, together with ABC, a pattern would have appeared over a period of time that would have been in no way consistent with individual fraud taking place at different times, in different places, all over the country. Their investigations would then have, necessarily, taken them down the path of computer malfunction rather than individual fraud cases. In truth, the investigator(s), and their modus operandi, need to be investigated, and if they have falsified anything (knowing it to be false in the light of their proven investigation) in their ultimate submission of documents to any court hearing, they need to be prosecuted for perjury. That would also fall under 'serious misconduct' if still in the employ of the Post Office, and should result in dismissal. If they are retired, then their retirement payout would need to be reconsidered retrospectively in the light of their previous (now confirmed) conduct.

All of 'Kipling' and 'ABC' should have formed the strong defence of any solicitor/lawyer defending every single one of the accused, but it appears that did not happen. Also, there is no guarantee that the Police would have gone into such depth...

Apologies for such a long post, but I felt I should outline certain things, having worked on some big cases as an investigator myself. I can't disclose anything on those cases, as I am bound by Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (as amended and updated) unto death.

 

[COYBL25]

I have to disagree with the above, and I will state the reasons for doing so below. But first, part of my working background before retirement. As a civil servant for over 32 years, in a Government Department (DSS) that paid out money to the public, I was part of a cadre of Management staff that were trained as 'Internal Investigators', to investigate financial fraud being committed by staff. We were trained way beyond PACE 84, the details of that I will not go into.

Now, the role of any investigator once given the bare bones of the potential fraud is to examine everything from all angles. A statement of the obvious, yes, but it appears that the POID (Post Office Investigation Department or whatever its further iterations were) investigator(s) did not go into sufficient detail to bottom out exactly what happened.

Furthermore, once the same scenario was headed up to POID on a regular basis, that should have alerted POID to the fact that there was regular fraud taking place in identical scenarios, OR that there was potentially something remiss with the financial accounting system.

Accordingly, (and this is something that the solicitors/lawyers of the accused should have latched onto) they should have applied the standard tools of any investigator:
1. ABC.
Accept nothing
Believe no one
Check everything
Doing this (starting with the proverbial 'blank piece of paper' and a totally open mind as to what has happened) would, I believe, have eventually put them on to the track of something not being right on a central/national financial basis. At the 'check everything' point, they would have discovered the computer discrepancies (whether that was found and ignored, or simply not gone into, I do not know).

2. Kipling
I KEEP SIX HONEST SERVING MEN
THEY TAUGHT ME ALL I KNEW
THEIR NAMES ARE: WHAT AND WHY AND WHEN
AND HOW AND WHERE AND WHO
Had the POID investigator(s) applied the above thoroughly, together with ABC, a pattern would have appeared over a period of time that would have been in no way consistent with individual fraud taking place at different times, in different places, all over the country. Their investigations would then have, necessarily, taken them down the path of computer malfunction rather than individual fraud cases. In truth, the investigator(s), and their modus operandi, need to be investigated, and if they have falsified anything (knowing it to be false in the light of their proven investigation) in their ultimate submission of documents to any court hearing, they need to be prosecuted for perjury. That would also fall under 'serious misconduct' if still in the employ of the Post Office, and should result in dismissal. If they are retired, then their retirement payout would need to be reconsidered retrospectively in the light of their previous (now confirmed) conduct.

All of 'Kipling' and 'ABC' should have formed the strong defence of any solicitor/lawyer defending every single one of the accused, but it appears that did not happen. Also, there is no guarantee that the Police would have gone into such depth...

Apologies for such a long post, but I felt I should outline certain things, having worked on some big cases as an investigator myself. I can't disclose anything on those cases, as I am bound by Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (as amended and updated) unto death.

I know all that mate, as I worked in many spheres of law, for a long time.

The central plank of disclosure, is the reliance on honesty.

There is an automatic presumption that all relevant evidence has been disclosed.

More often than not, there is too much disclosure, as certainly the police apply a “ belt and braces “ approach to disclosure, as they know that to withhold stuff can lead to cases getting thrown out ( at best ) and potentially leave them open to prosecution if found out.

The defending solicitors had no reason to believe that anything had been withheld, so never raised it ( until now ) as the Post Office Investigators deliberately and systematically withheld disclosure, as quite simply it meant they had stronger cases as a result.

 

[Old Blue 2]

I know all that mate, as I worked in many spheres of law, for a long time.

The central plank of disclosure, is the reliance on honesty.

There is an automatic presumption that all relevant evidence has been disclosed.

More often than not, there is too much disclosure, as certainly the police apply a “ belt and braces “ approach to disclosure, as they know that to withhold stuff can lead to cases getting thrown out ( at best ) and potentially leave them open to prosecution if found out.

The defending solicitors had no reason to believe that anything had been withheld, so never raised it ( until now ) as the Post Office Investigators deliberately and systematically withheld disclosure, as quite simply it meant they had stronger cases as a result.

I take all that you say, but I still contend that any solicitor/lawyer worth their money should have gone into the details in minute depth, and exposed the flaws in the Post Office case. Particularly once it became apparent that this was a national issue, not an individual one. Not a case of believing that 'anything had been withheld', but rather questioning at every turn every contention put forward by the prosecution.

And I've just seen a snippet of Bradshaw being questioned. That guy is an out-and-out liar! Should be prosecuted...

 

[COYBL25]

I take all that you say, but I still contend that any solicitor/lawyer worth their money should have gone into the details in minute depth, and exposed the flaws in the Post Office case. Particularly once it became apparent that this was a national issue, not an individual one. Not a case of believing that 'anything had been withheld', but rather questioning at every turn every contention put forward by the prosecution.

And I've just seen a snippet of Bradshaw being questioned. That guy is an out-and-out liar! Should be prosecuted...

I hear what you‘re saying, but it’s simply not protocol to go questioning disclosure, it’s just not done mate.

It’s only recently that foul play has become apparent, up until that point no one would’ve even suspected that there was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

[pejic]

I take all that you say, but I still contend that any solicitor/lawyer worth their money should have gone into the details in minute depth, and exposed the flaws in the Post Office case. Particularly once it became apparent that this was a national issue, not an individual one. Not a case of believing that 'anything had been withheld', but rather questioning at every turn every contention put forward by the prosecution.

And I've just seen a snippet of Bradshaw being questioned. That guy is an out-and-out liar! Should be prosecuted...

Surely the man is a Kopite

 

[terryefc]

I think they are spending tomorrow on disclosure.
From what I saw today I cannot believe that investigators contend they were not aware of similar cases arising at the same time - pointing to a systemic fault. They were also very careful to stress they never used the line that 'no-one else has had these issues' when it should have been obvious that once they knew that was the case then this surely would point to national software problems / glitches. Are we also to assume all the investigators worked in a silo and did not discuss ongoing cases when common themes would surely have been apparent. Bradshaw seems to have had a difficult role but I am not convinced that he did not believe that the Horizon system was flawed. Fujitsu must also be held to account. A massive cover up by all has happened to protect both the PO / Fujitsu and management / investigator arses. Hopefully this enquiry will flush out the truth.

 

[Kurt.]

Jump into bed with vipers, don't come crying when you get bit....

Goose a bird with crabs, you’re gonna get crabs

 

[DavidH]

Goose a bird with crabs, you’re gonna get crabs

Poo in your car, you're gonna have a smelly car

 

[PhilM]

I hear what you‘re saying, but it’s simply not protocol to go questioning disclosure, it’s just not done mate.

It’s only recently that foul play has become apparent, up until that point no one would’ve even suspected that there was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Exactly. The assumption would have been that the PO would have completed balanced and fair investigations. With hindsight, that's a totally incorrect assumption.

But the PO were able to get away with their wrongdoings for so bloody long because people believed that this famous institute of the state weren't wrong'uns.

If they weren't as trusted as they were, it would never have got have to this terrible situation.