I'm wondering whether public prosecutors get told about every case brought before magistrates courts. It seems very unlikely to me, why should they get told? Would the Post Office have approached them before using the powers the PO has to bring prosecutions? And, even if they had would that have been brought to the attention of the DPP? Maybe the DPP would know about legal challenges that reached higher courts.
But, that's all fairly academic in relation to Keir Starmer. The first prosecutions happened before he was DPP, so it might be a charge against his predecessor. Starmer was DPP when the courts started to quash convictions.
Though, going forward it might be a good question to ask whether organisations like the Post Office can bring criminal prosecutions independently of the department of public prosecutions (as is the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland). But, as it stands at the moment, and was the situation during this whole mess, the prosecutions brought by the Post Office in England and Wales were independent of the public prosecutors.
Why were these supposed thefts being prosecuted privately? I associate private prosecutions with dubious cases like Mary Whitehouse's anti-blasphemy crusade against Gay News. And I think it was in Canada in the 1980s, some animal-rights zealots launched a private prosecution against a lab researcher for animal cruelty, because the Crown wouldn't take the case.
Why were these supposed thefts being prosecuted privately? I associate private prosecutions with dubious cases like Mary Whitehouse's anti-blasphemy crusade against Gay News. And I think it was in Canada in the 1980s, some animal-rights zealots launched a private prosecution against a lab researcher for animal cruelty, because the Crown wouldn't take the case.
Because it predates by several hundred years basically everything else in the judicial apparatus except the courts themselves, the Post Office (or more accurately pre-privatisation Royal Mail) has always had (and used) the ability to bring cases itself.
When they were given those powers there were no police, no Crown Prosecution Service or anything even broadly similar. So they've just always done it in house.
Why were these supposed thefts being prosecuted privately? I associate private prosecutions with dubious cases like Mary Whitehouse's anti-blasphemy crusade against Gay News. And I think it was in Canada in the 1980s, some animal-rights zealots launched a private prosecution against a lab researcher for animal cruelty, because the Crown wouldn't take the case.
Because it predates by several hundred years basically everything else in the judicial apparatus except the courts themselves, the Post Office (or more accurately pre-privatisation Royal Mail) has always had (and used) the ability to bring cases itself.
When they were given those powers there were no police, no Crown Prosecution Service or anything even broadly similar. So they've just always done it in house.
An anachronism that also needs to be sorted out. They should need to reach the same level of evidentiary proof that other prosecutions have.
I did mentione elsewhere that I thought the only reason the government was exploring it was because they thought they could blame Labour. In fact, they seem to be more specifically deciding to blame Starmer.
Apparently, the opposition leader should have done something over the last 14 years to sort this out, while the government didn't.
Apparently, the opposition leader should have done something over the last 14 years to sort this out, while the government didn't.
Given how long Private Eye have been banging on about this - probably pre-2010, or it certainly feels like it as a longstanding subscriber* - I suspect that the list of people who should be answering difficult questions is very long indeed. I'm actually surprised the government hasn't gone on that line if anything.
But on the other hand I suspect that there *are* difficult questions for the CPS here**, which may coincide with various DPPs.
*given how many people in Westminster, Whitehall and the media read Private Eye every fortnight, I do find slightly unbelievable the number of people and public bodies now acting like they've only just become aware. The Eye has many great deeds to its name, but continuing to report on this, for years, when everyone appears to have been simultaneously reading it then giving it a stiff ignoring, must count as one of them.
**we could start with the cases where they were acting on behalf of the Post Office... There's plenty of blame and censure to go around, and it doesn't stop with the government IMO.
Why were these supposed thefts being prosecuted privately? I associate private prosecutions with dubious cases like Mary Whitehouse's anti-blasphemy crusade against Gay News. And I think it was in Canada in the 1980s, some animal-rights zealots launched a private prosecution against a lab researcher for animal cruelty, because the Crown wouldn't take the case.
Because it predates by several hundred years basically everything else in the judicial apparatus except the courts themselves, the Post Office (or more accurately pre-privatisation Royal Mail) has always had (and used) the ability to bring cases itself.
When they were given those powers there were no police, no Crown Prosecution Service or anything even broadly similar. So they've just always done it in house.
An anachronism that also needs to be sorted out. They should need to reach the same level of evidentiary proof that other prosecutions have.
They do. The standard of proof in private prosecutions is the same as public ones - beyond reasonable doubt.
Why were these supposed thefts being prosecuted privately? I associate private prosecutions with dubious cases like Mary Whitehouse's anti-blasphemy crusade against Gay News. And I think it was in Canada in the 1980s, some animal-rights zealots launched a private prosecution against a lab researcher for animal cruelty, because the Crown wouldn't take the case.
Because it predates by several hundred years basically everything else in the judicial apparatus except the courts themselves, the Post Office (or more accurately pre-privatisation Royal Mail) has always had (and used) the ability to bring cases itself.
When they were given those powers there were no police, no Crown Prosecution Service or anything even broadly similar. So they've just always done it in house.
An anachronism that also needs to be sorted out. They should need to reach the same level of evidentiary proof that other prosecutions have.
They do. The standard of proof in private prosecutions is the same as public ones - beyond reasonable doubt.
not quite what was being said I don't think - that's to get a conviction. The CPS would normally sift the evidence and decide on the chances of bringing a successful prosecution (which isn't the same thing) before taking a case to court. In doing this they'd look at all the evidence, and it would have come from the police et al.
The inference is that the Post Office had a unit also making the same decisions, for a significant volume of its own cases, but not necessarily - because it was the apparent wronged party - going for the same benchmark as the CPS would have done.
Essentially it lacked independence/objectivity and was marking its own homework.
A comparison has been brought with the armed forces in terms of operating outside the normal justice system - their system is also flawed (though to be fair to them they do operate under different laws to the rest of us) but even they *do* have an independent prosecuting authority analogous to the CPS.
Why were these supposed thefts being prosecuted privately? I associate private prosecutions with dubious cases like Mary Whitehouse's anti-blasphemy crusade against Gay News. And I think it was in Canada in the 1980s, some animal-rights zealots launched a private prosecution against a lab researcher for animal cruelty, because the Crown wouldn't take the case.
Because it predates by several hundred years basically everything else in the judicial apparatus except the courts themselves, the Post Office (or more accurately pre-privatisation Royal Mail) has always had (and used) the ability to bring cases itself.
When they were given those powers there were no police, no Crown Prosecution Service or anything even broadly similar. So they've just always done it in house.
An anachronism that also needs to be sorted out. They should need to reach the same level of evidentiary proof that other prosecutions have.
They do. The standard of proof in private prosecutions is the same as public ones - beyond reasonable doubt.
not quite what was being said I don't think - that's to get a conviction. The CPS would normally sift the evidence and decide on the chances of bringing a successful prosecution (which isn't the same thing) before taking a case to court. In doing this they'd look at all the evidence, and it would have come from the police et al.
The inference is that the Post Office had a unit also making the same decisions, for a significant volume of its own cases, but not necessarily - because it was the apparent wronged party - going for the same benchmark as the CPS would have done.
Essentially it lacked independence/objectivity and was marking its own homework.
A comparison has been brought with the armed forces in terms of operating outside the normal justice system - their system is also flawed (though to be fair to them they do operate under different laws to the rest of us) but even they *do* have an independent prosecuting authority analogous to the CPS.
Your problem there is that there is in the possibility of private prosecution an imperfect (inter alia, it's potentially expensive) check and balance to the CPS system in that a route exists to pursue a case if the CPS (mistakenly in your view, and sometimes as it turns out when a conviction does occur) deems a case either unlikely to result in conviction or not in the public interest.
The Post Office isn't the only organisation that regularly does its own prosecutions. Lots do, Revenue and Customs, local authorities, the Environment Agency etc etc. Several do their own investigations and some aren't even notionally part of the public sector. An obvious example is the RSPCA. This contrasts with Scotland where the Procurator Fiscal has a monopoly of prosecutions.
Each entity tends to follow its own policy as to when it prosecutes and when it doesn't, and what criteria it takes into account.
If you've watched Shetland, you may have noticed the close relationship that seems to exist between the Fiscal and the Police, even during the course of an investigation. I'm not familiar with what happens in real life in Scotland, whether that's a true reflection or just part of the drama, but I get the impression that's not how things are done here.
Several organisations also have their own police forces under the statutory regime under which they operate.
*given how many people in Westminster, Whitehall and the media read Private Eye every fortnight, I do find slightly unbelievable the number of people and public bodies now acting like they've only just become aware.
This circle is an incredibly small and incestuous one, where everyone is aware that getting ahead involves knowing which questions your superiors may not want to know the answer to. Private Eye (and the odd honest inquiry that happens years after the event) serves as a form of limited hangout. Every now and then the lid can't be kept on and there's a period of Great Noticing (see the number of MPs coming out the woodwork claiming to have campaigned on behalf of the SPMs).
This pattern is repeated across multiple events (Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Grenfell, Windrush, PPE etc), and if it were to be happening in any other country the press would know to call it what it is.
A friend made the point to me that it's lucky that there was an obvious campaigning hero in this case, or the dramatisation may never have occurred. I'd additionally note that in this case a significant number of the victims came from Middle England to make for a 'sympathetic' portrayal for the wider public (in reality a large percentage of the victims were of Asian origin, and they were subject to horrific racism).
Why were these supposed thefts being prosecuted privately? I associate private prosecutions with dubious cases like Mary Whitehouse's anti-blasphemy crusade against Gay News. And I think it was in Canada in the 1980s, some animal-rights zealots launched a private prosecution against a lab researcher for animal cruelty, because the Crown wouldn't take the case.
Because it predates by several hundred years basically everything else in the judicial apparatus except the courts themselves, the Post Office (or more accurately pre-privatisation Royal Mail) has always had (and used) the ability to bring cases itself.
When they were given those powers there were no police, no Crown Prosecution Service or anything even broadly similar. So they've just always done it in house.
An anachronism that also needs to be sorted out. They should need to reach the same level of evidentiary proof that other prosecutions have.
They do. The standard of proof in private prosecutions is the same as public ones - beyond reasonable doubt.
not quite what was being said I don't think - that's to get a conviction. The CPS would normally sift the evidence and decide on the chances of bringing a successful prosecution (which isn't the same thing) before taking a case to court. In doing this they'd look at all the evidence, and it would have come from the police et al.
The inference is that the Post Office had a unit also making the same decisions, for a significant volume of its own cases, but not necessarily - because it was the apparent wronged party - going for the same benchmark as the CPS would have done.
Essentially it lacked independence/objectivity and was marking its own homework.
A comparison has been brought with the armed forces in terms of operating outside the normal justice system - their system is also flawed (though to be fair to them they do operate under different laws to the rest of us) but even they *do* have an independent prosecuting authority analogous to the CPS.
Your problem there is that there is in the possibility of private prosecution an imperfect (inter alia, it's potentially expensive) check and balance to the CPS system in that a route exists to pursue a case if the CPS (mistakenly in your view, and sometimes as it turns out when a conviction does occur) deems a case either unlikely to result in conviction or not in the public interest.
I think we're at cross purposes here - I agree with all of that and am not suggesting private prosecutions shouldn't exist.
The issue - is not with the right to bring a prosecution, it's when public or quasi public entities are running investigation and prosecution *units* which aren't open to public scrutiny, operate on the basis that when someone needs prosecuting they'll be doing and it won't go to the CPS in the first instance, and have the clout that when people are brought before the courts defence barristers are saying things like (as heard on the radio this morning) their client is better off pleading guilty, because if they plead not guilty, the court is obviously going to believe the Post Office because, well, they're the Post Office and you aren't.
Basically I'd tend to look warily at any non-state organisation that was investigating and prosecuting criminal cases as a matter of routine, and not on an ad hoc basis.
Whether or not Starmer was personally responsible for prolonging the agony of the SPPs, I am sure the government, in collusion with the usual suspects in the press, will be attempting to shuffle as much of the blame off onto him as they can.
Who are you going to vote for instead? The party that was actually in the government when all of this went down, and just accepted what the Post Office executives told them? Can't upset the shareholders...
Who are you going to vote for instead? The party that was actually in the government when all of this went down, and just accepted what the Post Office executives told them? Can't upset the shareholders...
Personally I tend to oscillate between Liberal and Green. At the moment, since you ask, Green.
I'd additionally note that in this case a significant number of the victims came from Middle England to make for a 'sympathetic' portrayal for the wider public (in reality a large percentage of the victims were of Asian origin, and they were subject to horrific racism).
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the TV drama portrayed the falsely accused as being Middle England people, ie. ethnically old-stock, but in real life many of them were Asian?
Who are you going to vote for instead? The party that was actually in the government when all of this went down, and just accepted what the Post Office executives told them? Can't upset the shareholders...
Personally I tend to oscillate between Liberal and Green. At the moment, since you ask, Green.
If we had proportional representation, I would vote Green too. As it is, I hold my nose and vote for whichever candidate has the best chance of beating the Tory. They usually lose anyway, because I live in a 'safe' seat, but that's what you get with FPTP.
I'd additionally note that in this case a significant number of the victims came from Middle England to make for a 'sympathetic' portrayal for the wider public (in reality a large percentage of the victims were of Asian origin, and they were subject to horrific racism).
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the TV drama portrayed the falsely accused as being Middle England people, ie. ethnically old-stock, but in real life many of them were Asian?
The underlying problem is, I understand, that in 1999 the law of evidence was changed by creating a presumption that information provided by a computer is correct unless proved otherwise. Further, each one of these cases would have been investigated, assessed and prosecuted on an individual instance on the basis that the Horizon system was trustworthy, as claimed by Fujitsu. Only when the scale of the alleged instances of dishonesty became apparent would the red lights have started flashing, the unthinkable become thinkable, and the realisation dawned of the depth of the mire in which the P.O. had immersed itself. And at that point the strategy would have switched to damage-limitation, and the defence of the indefensible.
I speak from the standpoint of an ex-insider, a relic from the days when the P.O. was the GPO, run on quasi-military lines as part of the service of the Crown and with some pride in that fact. I thank God that I was transferred out before Horizon was a memo in someone,s file; but I feel for my former colleagues and their successors.
Apparently there was a system for reporting possible problems with Horizon to Fujitsu. The problems were noted and the Post Office knew about them but didn’t bring that forward.
What a dreadful mess this all is. When, I wonder, can we expect resignations and/or heads to roll? Along with criminal proceedings and imprisonment - but NOT the innocent victims this time...
Sadly, politicians ignore stuff like this until it blows up, and then it becomes a game of 'blaming the other side' for as much of the mess as is feasible. If the Tories can persuade the gullible public that much of the blame lies with Davey/Starmer/the Magic Bunny, many of their supporters will be very happy with that.
What no one is willing to say is: 'The system screwed up badly, and what we need to do now, after making such redress as is possible, is to change the system so there is no repeat.' Nor is the media saying: 'The Tories have been in power for 14 years - why the **** did they not sort this out before now?'
Being the cynic I am, I wonder what other scandals there are out there that have not yet been the subject of a TV Drama.
I also wonder how it is that people are so exercised on this when hardly anyone seems to give a stuff about Windrush or Grenfell Tower. The hand-wringing on those scandals soon died down.
I also wonder how it is that people are so exercised on this when hardly anyone seems to give a stuff about Windrush or Grenfell Tower. The hand-wringing on those scandals soon died down.
How much better, more real and wirier that is than so many of the hymns and choruses, even some of the good ones, that over the last 180 years or so the churches have replaced that with.
The underlying problem is, I understand, that in 1999 the law of evidence was changed by creating a presumption that information provided by a computer is correct unless proved otherwise. Further, each one of these cases would have been investigated, assessed and prosecuted on an individual instance on the basis that the Horizon system was trustworthy, as claimed by Fujitsu. Only when the scale of the alleged instances of dishonesty became apparent would the red lights have started flashing, the unthinkable become thinkable, and the realisation dawned of the depth of the mire in which the P.O. had immersed itself. And at that point the strategy would have switched to damage-limitation, and the defence of the indefensible.
I speak from the standpoint of an ex-insider, a relic from the days when the P.O. was the GPO, run on quasi-military lines as part of the service of the Crown and with some pride in that fact. I thank God that I was transferred out before Horizon was a memo in someone,s file; but I feel for my former colleagues and their successors.
Every computer system has not only the potential to be flawed to begin with, but it needs monitoring so that its integrity is maintained. Whichever accountancy firm was responsible for signing off the software and keeping track of it surely needs to be a part of the investigation, plus the auditors.
The underlying problem is, I understand, that in 1999 the law of evidence was changed by creating a presumption that information provided by a computer is correct unless proved otherwise. Further, each one of these cases would have been investigated, assessed and prosecuted on an individual instance on the basis that the Horizon system was trustworthy, as claimed by Fujitsu. Only when the scale of the alleged instances of dishonesty became apparent would the red lights have started flashing, the unthinkable become thinkable, and the realisation dawned of the depth of the mire in which the P.O. had immersed itself. And at that point the strategy would have switched to damage-limitation, and the defence of the indefensible.
I speak from the standpoint of an ex-insider, a relic from the days when the P.O. was the GPO, run on quasi-military lines as part of the service of the Crown and with some pride in that fact. I thank God that I was transferred out before Horizon was a memo in someone,s file; but I feel for my former colleagues and their successors.
Every computer system has not only the potential to be flawed to begin with, but it needs monitoring so that its integrity is maintained. Whichever accountancy firm was responsible for signing off the software and keeping track of it surely needs to be a part of the investigation, plus the auditors.
And we need to look at PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It's been widely reported that this established a presumption that computer records are reliable in such cases. This would explain why so many innocent post masters were advised to plead guilty. They were in a position where they couldn't defend themselves.
There's a lot here.
AFZ
P.S. Unless you think it's all Ed Davey and Kier Starmer's fault, of course?
To the best of my understanding, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act only puts evidence from the computer on the same footing as evidence from a person. There is a rebuttable presumption that what they are saying is true.
One of the problems in the Post Office/ Fujitsu/ Horizon scandal is the extent to which known problems with the system were covered up both by the Post Office and by Fujitsu. Postmasters were repeatedly told, falsely, that no one else was having problems with the system. The Post Office should have disclosed fault logs, and call logs from their own and the Horizon helplines. This would (probably) have cast sufficient doubt in the computer evidence to make it inadmissible.
To the best of my understanding, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act only puts evidence from the computer on the same footing as evidence from a person. There is a rebuttable presumption that what they are saying is true.
One of the problems in the Post Office/ Fujitsu/ Horizon scandal is the extent to which known problems with the system were covered up both by the Post Office and by Fujitsu. Postmasters were repeatedly told, falsely, that no one else was having problems with the system. The Post Office should have disclosed fault logs, and call logs from their own and the Horizon helplines. This would (probably) have cast sufficient doubt in the computer evidence to make it inadmissible.
That makes sense and is what I would expect. The way it's reported is slightly different, but I think you're probably right. Undoubtedly the PO and Fujitsu knew they had a problem and pretended they didn't.
The underlying problem is, I understand, that in 1999 the law of evidence was changed by creating a presumption that information provided by a computer is correct unless proved otherwise. Further, each one of these cases would have been investigated, assessed and prosecuted on an individual instance on the basis that the Horizon system was trustworthy, as claimed by Fujitsu. Only when the scale of the alleged instances of dishonesty became apparent would the red lights have started flashing, the unthinkable become thinkable, and the realisation dawned of the depth of the mire in which the P.O. had immersed itself. And at that point the strategy would have switched to damage-limitation, and the defence of the indefensible.
I speak from the standpoint of an ex-insider, a relic from the days when the P.O. was the GPO, run on quasi-military lines as part of the service of the Crown and with some pride in that fact. I thank God that I was transferred out before Horizon was a memo in someone,s file; but I feel for my former colleagues and their successors.
Every computer system has not only the potential to be flawed to begin with, but it needs monitoring so that its integrity is maintained. Whichever accountancy firm was responsible for signing off the software and keeping track of it surely needs to be a part of the investigation, plus the auditors.
And we need to look at PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It's been widely reported that this established a presumption that computer records are reliable in such cases. This would explain why so many innocent post masters were advised to plead guilty. They were in a position where they couldn't defend themselves.
There's a lot here.
AFZ
P.S. Unless you think it's all Ed Davey and Kier Starmer's fault, of course?
One of the best threads on this on the internet* is over on the Army Rumour Service - where you've got ex-forces sub-postmasters, police, private investigators et al, who have been doing a running commentary both on the scandal and the inquiry which is now on 98 pages and 1467 posts.
The point is being made there, repeatedly, by a community that does this for a living, that Post Office investigators were nowhere near the standards of PACE in the way that they went about their work, never mind the obvious flaw that computers have to be believed!
*anyone with time on their hands, and a tolerance for robust language will learn a lot, there's someone on there who is watching pretty well every hour of the inquiry, and has been from the start, who also knows what they're talking about**
**I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were very close to the campaign itself...
Marina Hyde, in today's Guardian, expresses surprise that Sushi Rinak may be considering offering a knighthood to Mr Bates - why not a peerage, as surely Mr Bates is worth a good deal more to the country than (say) Michelle Moan?
Marina Hyde, in today's Guardian, expresses surprise that Sushi Rinak may be considering offering a knighthood to Mr Bates - why not a peerage, as surely Mr Bates is worth a good deal more to the country than (say) Michelle Moan?
I actually suggested an hereditary Dukedom to Mrs B this morning and it took a few seconds for her to realise I might not have been totally serious…
Well, as Marina Hyde pointed out, Mr Bates would probably be of more use in the Lords than The Moaner and her ilk. He'd no doubt turn up, and do some work...
Are we really surprised that the Post Office is run so badly. They have been in front at least two parliamentary committees about not sticking to their contract and basically lied to said committees. Why should this be any different. Surely the government need to take the contract from them and give it to someone else. Or even better bring it into public hands.
Are we mixing up the Post Office and Royal Mail again? Royal Mail has been privatised, but the Post Office remains publicly owned and has all the hallmarks of the old fashioned public corporation that feels utterly untouchable. The disaster here is completely different yet startlingly similar to Aberfan, where high-handed arrogance let a public corporation (in that case the National Coal Board) destroy the lives of ordinary people.
Are we mixing up the Post Office and Royal Mail again? Royal Mail has been privatised, but the Post Office remains publicly owned and has all the hallmarks of the old fashioned public corporation that feels utterly untouchable. The disaster here is completely different yet startlingly similar to Aberfan, where high-handed arrogance let a public corporation (in that case the National Coal Board) destroy the lives of ordinary people.
Are we mixing up the Post Office and Royal Mail again? Royal Mail has been privatised, but the Post Office remains publicly owned and has all the hallmarks of the old fashioned public corporation that feels utterly untouchable. The disaster here is completely different yet startlingly similar to Aberfan, where high-handed arrogance let a public corporation (in that case the National Coal Board) destroy the lives of ordinary people.
May be but I will check.
Yes a little. It is Royal Mail that was called before the committees. I got mixed up. The Post Office is, like Transport for Wales an arms length business. Owned somewhat by government but has share holders.
Confusing, isn't it? Well, maybe for those of us old enough to remember when *Royal Mail* was synonymous with *Post Office*, IYSWIM.
In those far-off and dead days beyond recall, the whole thing was a reliable (mostly) State monopoly, run for the benefit of all of us, and not for shareholders.
Are we mixing up the Post Office and Royal Mail again? Royal Mail has been privatised, but the Post Office remains publicly owned and has all the hallmarks of the old fashioned public corporation that feels utterly untouchable. The disaster here is completely different yet startlingly similar to Aberfan, where high-handed arrogance let a public corporation (in that case the National Coal Board) destroy the lives of ordinary people.
May be but I will check.
Yes a little. It is Royal Mail that was called before the committees. I got mixed up. The Post Office is, like Transport for Wales an arms length business. Owned somewhat by government but has share holders.
What's your source on the Post Office having shareholders? It seems to be wholly owned by the government, with the share held by a minister.
Meanwhile, the tories still seem fixated on their inhuman desire to send innocent people to a prison camp in Africa, and some are apparently intending to vote against Sushi's amendments to his evil plan.
This might trigger yet another tory leadership campaign, which may, or may not, be a Good Thing, depending on your POV. At any rate, it's obvious that the sheer unbridled lunacy is still increasing...
Comments
But, that's all fairly academic in relation to Keir Starmer. The first prosecutions happened before he was DPP, so it might be a charge against his predecessor. Starmer was DPP when the courts started to quash convictions.
Because it predates by several hundred years basically everything else in the judicial apparatus except the courts themselves, the Post Office (or more accurately pre-privatisation Royal Mail) has always had (and used) the ability to bring cases itself.
When they were given those powers there were no police, no Crown Prosecution Service or anything even broadly similar. So they've just always done it in house.
An anachronism that also needs to be sorted out. They should need to reach the same level of evidentiary proof that other prosecutions have.
I did mentione elsewhere that I thought the only reason the government was exploring it was because they thought they could blame Labour. In fact, they seem to be more specifically deciding to blame Starmer.
Apparently, the opposition leader should have done something over the last 14 years to sort this out, while the government didn't.
Given how long Private Eye have been banging on about this - probably pre-2010, or it certainly feels like it as a longstanding subscriber* - I suspect that the list of people who should be answering difficult questions is very long indeed. I'm actually surprised the government hasn't gone on that line if anything.
But on the other hand I suspect that there *are* difficult questions for the CPS here**, which may coincide with various DPPs.
*given how many people in Westminster, Whitehall and the media read Private Eye every fortnight, I do find slightly unbelievable the number of people and public bodies now acting like they've only just become aware. The Eye has many great deeds to its name, but continuing to report on this, for years, when everyone appears to have been simultaneously reading it then giving it a stiff ignoring, must count as one of them.
**we could start with the cases where they were acting on behalf of the Post Office... There's plenty of blame and censure to go around, and it doesn't stop with the government IMO.
They do. The standard of proof in private prosecutions is the same as public ones - beyond reasonable doubt.
not quite what was being said I don't think - that's to get a conviction. The CPS would normally sift the evidence and decide on the chances of bringing a successful prosecution (which isn't the same thing) before taking a case to court. In doing this they'd look at all the evidence, and it would have come from the police et al.
The inference is that the Post Office had a unit also making the same decisions, for a significant volume of its own cases, but not necessarily - because it was the apparent wronged party - going for the same benchmark as the CPS would have done.
Essentially it lacked independence/objectivity and was marking its own homework.
A comparison has been brought with the armed forces in terms of operating outside the normal justice system - their system is also flawed (though to be fair to them they do operate under different laws to the rest of us) but even they *do* have an independent prosecuting authority analogous to the CPS.
Your problem there is that there is in the possibility of private prosecution an imperfect (inter alia, it's potentially expensive) check and balance to the CPS system in that a route exists to pursue a case if the CPS (mistakenly in your view, and sometimes as it turns out when a conviction does occur) deems a case either unlikely to result in conviction or not in the public interest.
Each entity tends to follow its own policy as to when it prosecutes and when it doesn't, and what criteria it takes into account.
If you've watched Shetland, you may have noticed the close relationship that seems to exist between the Fiscal and the Police, even during the course of an investigation. I'm not familiar with what happens in real life in Scotland, whether that's a true reflection or just part of the drama, but I get the impression that's not how things are done here.
Several organisations also have their own police forces under the statutory regime under which they operate.
This circle is an incredibly small and incestuous one, where everyone is aware that getting ahead involves knowing which questions your superiors may not want to know the answer to. Private Eye (and the odd honest inquiry that happens years after the event) serves as a form of limited hangout. Every now and then the lid can't be kept on and there's a period of Great Noticing (see the number of MPs coming out the woodwork claiming to have campaigned on behalf of the SPMs).
This pattern is repeated across multiple events (Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Grenfell, Windrush, PPE etc), and if it were to be happening in any other country the press would know to call it what it is.
A friend made the point to me that it's lucky that there was an obvious campaigning hero in this case, or the dramatisation may never have occurred. I'd additionally note that in this case a significant number of the victims came from Middle England to make for a 'sympathetic' portrayal for the wider public (in reality a large percentage of the victims were of Asian origin, and they were subject to horrific racism).
I think we're at cross purposes here - I agree with all of that and am not suggesting private prosecutions shouldn't exist.
The issue - is not with the right to bring a prosecution, it's when public or quasi public entities are running investigation and prosecution *units* which aren't open to public scrutiny, operate on the basis that when someone needs prosecuting they'll be doing and it won't go to the CPS in the first instance, and have the clout that when people are brought before the courts defence barristers are saying things like (as heard on the radio this morning) their client is better off pleading guilty, because if they plead not guilty, the court is obviously going to believe the Post Office because, well, they're the Post Office and you aren't.
Basically I'd tend to look warily at any non-state organisation that was investigating and prosecuting criminal cases as a matter of routine, and not on an ad hoc basis.
Probably not explaining this very well!
Who are you going to vote for instead? The party that was actually in the government when all of this went down, and just accepted what the Post Office executives told them? Can't upset the shareholders...
Personally I tend to oscillate between Liberal and Green. At the moment, since you ask, Green.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the TV drama portrayed the falsely accused as being Middle England people, ie. ethnically old-stock, but in real life many of them were Asian?
If we had proportional representation, I would vote Green too. As it is, I hold my nose and vote for whichever candidate has the best chance of beating the Tory. They usually lose anyway, because I live in a 'safe' seat, but that's what you get with FPTP.
Yes, in real life close to 40% of them were BME:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67929650
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/what-were-they-thinking/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/postmasters-were-victims-of-racist-mockery-at-horizon-helpline-zjb896djw
I speak from the standpoint of an ex-insider, a relic from the days when the P.O. was the GPO, run on quasi-military lines as part of the service of the Crown and with some pride in that fact. I thank God that I was transferred out before Horizon was a memo in someone,s file; but I feel for my former colleagues and their successors.
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-in-the-post
The mind really boggles. 😢
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fZ-2ENH2EA
What no one is willing to say is: 'The system screwed up badly, and what we need to do now, after making such redress as is possible, is to change the system so there is no repeat.' Nor is the media saying: 'The Tories have been in power for 14 years - why the **** did they not sort this out before now?'
Being the cynic I am, I wonder what other scandals there are out there that have not yet been the subject of a TV Drama.
I also wonder how it is that people are so exercised on this when hardly anyone seems to give a stuff about Windrush or Grenfell Tower. The hand-wringing on those scandals soon died down.
I concur.
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/5520/ducking-femocracy-what-have-we-learnt#latest
Tangent alert - well only sort of:-
How much better, more real and wirier that is than so many of the hymns and choruses, even some of the good ones, that over the last 180 years or so the churches have replaced that with.
Every computer system has not only the potential to be flawed to begin with, but it needs monitoring so that its integrity is maintained. Whichever accountancy firm was responsible for signing off the software and keeping track of it surely needs to be a part of the investigation, plus the auditors.
And we need to look at PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It's been widely reported that this established a presumption that computer records are reliable in such cases. This would explain why so many innocent post masters were advised to plead guilty. They were in a position where they couldn't defend themselves.
There's a lot here.
AFZ
P.S. Unless you think it's all Ed Davey and Kier Starmer's fault, of course?
One of the problems in the Post Office/ Fujitsu/ Horizon scandal is the extent to which known problems with the system were covered up both by the Post Office and by Fujitsu. Postmasters were repeatedly told, falsely, that no one else was having problems with the system. The Post Office should have disclosed fault logs, and call logs from their own and the Horizon helplines. This would (probably) have cast sufficient doubt in the computer evidence to make it inadmissible.
That makes sense and is what I would expect. The way it's reported is slightly different, but I think you're probably right. Undoubtedly the PO and Fujitsu knew they had a problem and pretended they didn't.
AFZ
One of the best threads on this on the internet* is over on the Army Rumour Service - where you've got ex-forces sub-postmasters, police, private investigators et al, who have been doing a running commentary both on the scandal and the inquiry which is now on 98 pages and 1467 posts.
The point is being made there, repeatedly, by a community that does this for a living, that Post Office investigators were nowhere near the standards of PACE in the way that they went about their work, never mind the obvious flaw that computers have to be believed!
*anyone with time on their hands, and a tolerance for robust language will learn a lot, there's someone on there who is watching pretty well every hour of the inquiry, and has been from the start, who also knows what they're talking about**
**I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were very close to the campaign itself...
I actually suggested an hereditary Dukedom to Mrs B this morning and it took a few seconds for her to realise I might not have been totally serious…
May be but I will check.
Yes a little. It is Royal Mail that was called before the committees. I got mixed up. The Post Office is, like Transport for Wales an arms length business. Owned somewhat by government but has share holders.
In those far-off and dead days beyond recall, the whole thing was a reliable (mostly) State monopoly, run for the benefit of all of us, and not for shareholders.
What's your source on the Post Office having shareholders? It seems to be wholly owned by the government, with the share held by a minister.
This might trigger yet another tory leadership campaign, which may, or may not, be a Good Thing, depending on your POV. At any rate, it's obvious that the sheer unbridled lunacy is still increasing...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/15/sunak-faces-tory-meltdown-as-deputy-chairs-back-rwanda-bill-rebellion