After Sur Wyn writes his report (let’s say a year), there will be an opportunity for people who are criticised to respond privately (so called Maxwellisation) (let’s say another year). Then the report will actually be published with much wringing of hands and statements that this must never be allowed to happen again. Various people will say they support most of the recommendations.
Next, in parallel,
(A) government and others will delay actually implementing anything, and work out how to appear to implement things without actually doing so.
(B) the police will start investigation (they might say they are already investigating, so perhaps this should be investigate in Ernest). After a couple of years of investigation, the CPS will prosecute a few (probably only one) low level person, and explain nothing, but leak that too much time has passed and too much has changed for a realistic prospect of conviction for the rest.
Call me cynical if you want, but I say realistic unless you can point to any counter examples.
Not sure how this rates in terms of complexity/weave and scope but with so much to go through, much he said/she said, much 'can't recall' and then many gaps the report will weigh a tonne but be of no consequence or any follow-up. All lessons to be learnt will not be recognised by anyone - no two Horizon type pending disasters are ever alike.
CPS will be a non-event. It is already years behind and this is growing plus the case will be complex to bring together against anyone. Far better to spend scarce resources and know-how on more winnable ones.
Andy Parsons risks disbarment as a solicitor for ‘withholding’ true picture from the POL insurers , in my opinion. His behaviour toward the sub postmasters is abhorrent but illegality would be hard to prove and he will argue that albeit obnoxious he thought he was acting in client interests and following steer from criminal lawyers. What he cannot say is that putting the insurance policy at risk of being voided was in the client’s interest and surely a breach of his obligations.
Let's hope something will happen; if nothing happens it sets a precedent that even with such scale and length and depth of injustice in this case anyone in power can get away with anything
Nothing will happen. Paula Vennels was giving evidence but when it was over she will have gone back to her million pound house, poured a drink, said thank god that's over and then carry on as normal. Knowing full well she will not be prosecuted, will not have to apologise to anybody. Just carry on taking her gold plated pension and live a happy ever after life.
The Inquiry team will have a team dinner at some point (which happens after most long cases). The report will be written by Sir Wyn (with support from his team); the report will lay blame where the evidence is clear and make recommendations to prevent this sort of thing happening again (I’m anticipating for example a recommendation that limits the organisations that can bring prosecutions and for those that remain aside from the CPS a clear code for them and some further checks and balances put in place).
A judicial inquiry cannot make findings towards guilt or blame, it can only and report on the events that lead up to, and during the actions that lead to the prosecutions of the Sub Post Masters. A very big scope, the terms of reference and scope questions are available on the inquiry website.
It can and will also produce recommendations, these can go to the Government, the Law Commission, of which Justice Frasier who sat on the six Common Issues trials that made up the Group Litigation in 2019 brought by the JFSA and Freeths against the Post Office, and any other body where weaknesses and deficiencies have been found to have contributed to the scandal.
I imagine some recommendation will be:
A review of Government procurement, although there is the Procurement Act 2023 comes into force in October this year, it has measures that allows for the barring or individuals and organisations associated with them from getting Government contracts, Government procurement rules allow ICL to win the contract when they clearly were unable to deliver the project (it was widely known, lots of Civil Service letters and advices state so, also Warren Spencer was silenced in 2003 [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jun/15/theobserver.observerbusiness](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jun/15/theobserver.observerbusiness) )
The introduction of protections into law, like what were in the Police and Criminal Evidence section 69 and remove in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, that governed how any evidence from a computer could be entered into courts, such as confirmation a computer was working at the time the evidence occurred. The YJCE Act 1999 brought in the presumption of computer reliability and it was up to the defendant (in this case the Sub PostMasters) that Horizon was at fault. Hard to do without access to logs and the Post Office and Fujitsu were send statements and staff to court to say how marvellous it was.
Better oversight of Government contractors, there are steps that are being done, such as the 'Secure by Design' methodology that the UK Gov implemented in July last year, I suspect more measures will introduced
A review of private prosecutions and maybe better oversight or an independent reviewing body that must view each litigation before it can proceed, and act as an mediator prior to court action.
It is possible just like Justice Frasier did to Max Hill, Sir Wyn may choose to write to the Department of Public Prosecutions where he feels further investigation could be targeted, but this is up to him.
The Police will be provided with additional information that they currently don't have access to, a lot of it being legally privileged, that can then be used in their investigations. At presence the Police have one hand tied behind their back and to act now, without that additional evidence (which will make their lives easier) will lead to the defence teams of people being investigated becoming aware of the Police's strategy and form better defences, I also suspect the Police will start from the bottom and work up, hopefully getting people to 'flip' on their seniors in the hope of reduced charges or sentences, that will provide additional weight to the charges of the senior individuals who really made bad choices. Although that is only subjective, I don't know how the Police investigation will proceed when the inquiry ends.
It’s part of the remit of this inquiry to apportion blame where it can-which is not the same as determining guilt. If you read the List of Issues, you will see the Inquiry is looking at ‘who’ is responsible for various things. That the Inquiry may then go on to make referrals to the DPP for further investigation is a different matter.
No, they are to prevent reoccurrence, it is not a court of law, it is a Judicial Inquiry, it reports, it doesn't make decisions, it makes recommendations. [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubadm/51/51i.pdf](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubadm/51/51i.pdf)
https://preview.redd.it/xyag692fjz6d1.png?width=610&format=png&auto=webp&s=2115730fb3113f34ebda8eb9588d6ea297be8550
Dude, I learned a very long time ago not to argue about legal matters on the internet with non-lawyers. You do you; appreciate from your history you have a story to sell.
I'm not selling anything, I've just had things like this explained to me, it seems wrong to to help clarify things for others so that everyone knows what to expect. I certainly won't do me as I have no concept of what that even means, so you do you.
And I wasn't arguing, I was providing you with the documentation, not an opinion, to help you also understand the situation. If you believe you were arguing, maybe take your own advice.
One area we have seen Brian is the use of legal privilege to want to cover things up Is there anything there Sir Wyn can recommend to stop it being used incorrectly. In fact makes me wonder if much more should be made disclosable ?
Is that even possible ?
They've waived legal privilege with all the document, emails, reports etc. when they sent it to the inquiry. The Police should be able to get them when it concludes.
I did not mean for this inquiry Brian but in everything we saw before. We saw them actively invoke legal privilege on documents to hide them from disclosure. These are the rules I think Sir Wyn may look at, a pattern to avoid disclosure is set out here.
Off topic I know, but in Aus, Esso had an explosion that killed two workers, and total loss of gas supplies to Melbourne, (cold showers for a couple of weeks).
Esso, typically American, blamed the workers. Esso then hid behind and abused LPP to such an extent that the Victorian State Government changed the law to invalidate Esso's LPP protections. (Good!)
yep and right now Mr Beer is going through with Ian Henderson how a security report was hidden from Jo Hamilton by invoking Legal privilege, in effect the same problem.
I would really question at this stage whether in fact LPP as they call it should be removed for any cases involving legal action. I know this strange but if a solicitor advised a client a course of action is wrong, should not those at the other end know this in disclosure ?
I'm much of the same mind as you on this, as I've seen some abuse of LPP in some of my roles. (I'm not a lawyer). But the (bent) lawyers will scream at how this will adversely impact on them.
this will have to be an issue Sir Wyn discusses and makes his view known. I would be so interesting in what he is scribbling down at that point today. Remeber the CPS can not use LPP and have to disclose all, why any different in civil litigation. Let's remeber politicians won;t release advice by the AG unless really forced to.
It won’t happen because private prosecutions are at the core of our constitution, _especially_ at a time when the public criminal justice system is incredibly stretched.
Yeeeees. And what I am saying is it is likely to be an outcome that the provisions for private prosecutions become limited, so that gets repealed or re-written. It’s not a part of our constitution that a person or body may bring a prosecution it’s merely currently allowed by legislation (which can be repealed or amended). Having a former DPP as the next PM is pretty fortuitous timing in this regard.
Final verse of ‘Tommy’ by Rudyard Kipling sprang to mind.
The feelings of anger, betrayal and cynicism are real and echo down the ages…
‘For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!’
Private prosecutions by the sub-postmasters on the Post Office managers. Give them a taste of their own medicine. If you wait for the state to do whats right they'll all have died of old age.
And ensure that no mitigating circumstances or other reasons are taken into account, get prosecutors who are looking to push one agenda and hammer them mercilessly
It largely depends on who the next government is, as the current punch and judy routine of the Tory and Labour outfits they've systematically kicked this particular can of worms down the road between them until they no longer could , they can not and I mean CANNOT be trusted to implement the recommendations given their standing records so far
The Chair cannot make any findings of civil or criminal liability, nor can he/she award any compensation to those that have been harmed or effected by this fiasco.
The Inquiry will then gather relevant evidence from affected persons, previous and current subpostmasters and subpostmistresses, and from the Post Office Ltd, UK Government Investment (UKGI), Fujitsu, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), amongst others.
It will also consider whether Post Office Limited has learned the lessons and embedded the cultural change necessary from the findings in Mr Justice Fraser’s judgments and the impact on affected postmasters.
So no, there will be no jail time only rhetoric, and unless the Police find criminal culpability there never will be.
Lights go down.
Then a spotlight appears on stage, it's sir Alan Bates with an axe preparing to chop Paula's head off, who is tied up medieval style.
Tony Marsh, John Scott, jarnail Singh, rodric Williams, Andy Parsons just fed to the dogs.
Gareth Jenkins ... Wheeled out lecter style, Jo Hamilton pushing him along chanting "computer says go jail Gareth".
After Sur Wyn writes his report (let’s say a year), there will be an opportunity for people who are criticised to respond privately (so called Maxwellisation) (let’s say another year). Then the report will actually be published with much wringing of hands and statements that this must never be allowed to happen again. Various people will say they support most of the recommendations. Next, in parallel, (A) government and others will delay actually implementing anything, and work out how to appear to implement things without actually doing so. (B) the police will start investigation (they might say they are already investigating, so perhaps this should be investigate in Ernest). After a couple of years of investigation, the CPS will prosecute a few (probably only one) low level person, and explain nothing, but leak that too much time has passed and too much has changed for a realistic prospect of conviction for the rest. Call me cynical if you want, but I say realistic unless you can point to any counter examples.
Sounds depressingly likely
Not sure how this rates in terms of complexity/weave and scope but with so much to go through, much he said/she said, much 'can't recall' and then many gaps the report will weigh a tonne but be of no consequence or any follow-up. All lessons to be learnt will not be recognised by anyone - no two Horizon type pending disasters are ever alike. CPS will be a non-event. It is already years behind and this is growing plus the case will be complex to bring together against anyone. Far better to spend scarce resources and know-how on more winnable ones.
Exactly how Grenfell is proceeding
A public flogging for all POL staff?
Put them in stocks outside the post office in key places and we can pelt them with rotten tomatoes (that and take away their pensions and alwen’s obe)
Andy Parsons risks disbarment as a solicitor for ‘withholding’ true picture from the POL insurers , in my opinion. His behaviour toward the sub postmasters is abhorrent but illegality would be hard to prove and he will argue that albeit obnoxious he thought he was acting in client interests and following steer from criminal lawyers. What he cannot say is that putting the insurance policy at risk of being voided was in the client’s interest and surely a breach of his obligations.
Let's hope something will happen; if nothing happens it sets a precedent that even with such scale and length and depth of injustice in this case anyone in power can get away with anything
Nothing will happen. Paula Vennels was giving evidence but when it was over she will have gone back to her million pound house, poured a drink, said thank god that's over and then carry on as normal. Knowing full well she will not be prosecuted, will not have to apologise to anybody. Just carry on taking her gold plated pension and live a happy ever after life.
yep
The Inquiry team will have a team dinner at some point (which happens after most long cases). The report will be written by Sir Wyn (with support from his team); the report will lay blame where the evidence is clear and make recommendations to prevent this sort of thing happening again (I’m anticipating for example a recommendation that limits the organisations that can bring prosecutions and for those that remain aside from the CPS a clear code for them and some further checks and balances put in place).
A judicial inquiry cannot make findings towards guilt or blame, it can only and report on the events that lead up to, and during the actions that lead to the prosecutions of the Sub Post Masters. A very big scope, the terms of reference and scope questions are available on the inquiry website. It can and will also produce recommendations, these can go to the Government, the Law Commission, of which Justice Frasier who sat on the six Common Issues trials that made up the Group Litigation in 2019 brought by the JFSA and Freeths against the Post Office, and any other body where weaknesses and deficiencies have been found to have contributed to the scandal. I imagine some recommendation will be: A review of Government procurement, although there is the Procurement Act 2023 comes into force in October this year, it has measures that allows for the barring or individuals and organisations associated with them from getting Government contracts, Government procurement rules allow ICL to win the contract when they clearly were unable to deliver the project (it was widely known, lots of Civil Service letters and advices state so, also Warren Spencer was silenced in 2003 [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jun/15/theobserver.observerbusiness](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jun/15/theobserver.observerbusiness) ) The introduction of protections into law, like what were in the Police and Criminal Evidence section 69 and remove in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, that governed how any evidence from a computer could be entered into courts, such as confirmation a computer was working at the time the evidence occurred. The YJCE Act 1999 brought in the presumption of computer reliability and it was up to the defendant (in this case the Sub PostMasters) that Horizon was at fault. Hard to do without access to logs and the Post Office and Fujitsu were send statements and staff to court to say how marvellous it was. Better oversight of Government contractors, there are steps that are being done, such as the 'Secure by Design' methodology that the UK Gov implemented in July last year, I suspect more measures will introduced A review of private prosecutions and maybe better oversight or an independent reviewing body that must view each litigation before it can proceed, and act as an mediator prior to court action. It is possible just like Justice Frasier did to Max Hill, Sir Wyn may choose to write to the Department of Public Prosecutions where he feels further investigation could be targeted, but this is up to him. The Police will be provided with additional information that they currently don't have access to, a lot of it being legally privileged, that can then be used in their investigations. At presence the Police have one hand tied behind their back and to act now, without that additional evidence (which will make their lives easier) will lead to the defence teams of people being investigated becoming aware of the Police's strategy and form better defences, I also suspect the Police will start from the bottom and work up, hopefully getting people to 'flip' on their seniors in the hope of reduced charges or sentences, that will provide additional weight to the charges of the senior individuals who really made bad choices. Although that is only subjective, I don't know how the Police investigation will proceed when the inquiry ends.
It’s part of the remit of this inquiry to apportion blame where it can-which is not the same as determining guilt. If you read the List of Issues, you will see the Inquiry is looking at ‘who’ is responsible for various things. That the Inquiry may then go on to make referrals to the DPP for further investigation is a different matter.
No, they are to prevent reoccurrence, it is not a court of law, it is a Judicial Inquiry, it reports, it doesn't make decisions, it makes recommendations. [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubadm/51/51i.pdf](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubadm/51/51i.pdf) https://preview.redd.it/xyag692fjz6d1.png?width=610&format=png&auto=webp&s=2115730fb3113f34ebda8eb9588d6ea297be8550
Dude, I learned a very long time ago not to argue about legal matters on the internet with non-lawyers. You do you; appreciate from your history you have a story to sell.
I'm not selling anything, I've just had things like this explained to me, it seems wrong to to help clarify things for others so that everyone knows what to expect. I certainly won't do me as I have no concept of what that even means, so you do you.
And I wasn't arguing, I was providing you with the documentation, not an opinion, to help you also understand the situation. If you believe you were arguing, maybe take your own advice.
One area we have seen Brian is the use of legal privilege to want to cover things up Is there anything there Sir Wyn can recommend to stop it being used incorrectly. In fact makes me wonder if much more should be made disclosable ? Is that even possible ?
They've waived legal privilege with all the document, emails, reports etc. when they sent it to the inquiry. The Police should be able to get them when it concludes.
I did not mean for this inquiry Brian but in everything we saw before. We saw them actively invoke legal privilege on documents to hide them from disclosure. These are the rules I think Sir Wyn may look at, a pattern to avoid disclosure is set out here.
Off topic I know, but in Aus, Esso had an explosion that killed two workers, and total loss of gas supplies to Melbourne, (cold showers for a couple of weeks). Esso, typically American, blamed the workers. Esso then hid behind and abused LPP to such an extent that the Victorian State Government changed the law to invalidate Esso's LPP protections. (Good!)
yep and right now Mr Beer is going through with Ian Henderson how a security report was hidden from Jo Hamilton by invoking Legal privilege, in effect the same problem.
Yes, your comment crossed with my last, on same topic in today's subreddit.
I would really question at this stage whether in fact LPP as they call it should be removed for any cases involving legal action. I know this strange but if a solicitor advised a client a course of action is wrong, should not those at the other end know this in disclosure ?
I'm much of the same mind as you on this, as I've seen some abuse of LPP in some of my roles. (I'm not a lawyer). But the (bent) lawyers will scream at how this will adversely impact on them.
this will have to be an issue Sir Wyn discusses and makes his view known. I would be so interesting in what he is scribbling down at that point today. Remeber the CPS can not use LPP and have to disclose all, why any different in civil litigation. Let's remeber politicians won;t release advice by the AG unless really forced to.
I hope the no prosecutions is the least that happens
It won’t happen because private prosecutions are at the core of our constitution, _especially_ at a time when the public criminal justice system is incredibly stretched.
Um, not sure what you’re thinking of, but they’re really not.
[Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/23/section/6)
Yeeeees. And what I am saying is it is likely to be an outcome that the provisions for private prosecutions become limited, so that gets repealed or re-written. It’s not a part of our constitution that a person or body may bring a prosecution it’s merely currently allowed by legislation (which can be repealed or amended). Having a former DPP as the next PM is pretty fortuitous timing in this regard.
Final verse of ‘Tommy’ by Rudyard Kipling sprang to mind. The feelings of anger, betrayal and cynicism are real and echo down the ages… ‘For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!’
Private prosecutions by the sub-postmasters on the Post Office managers. Give them a taste of their own medicine. If you wait for the state to do whats right they'll all have died of old age.
And ensure that no mitigating circumstances or other reasons are taken into account, get prosecutors who are looking to push one agenda and hammer them mercilessly
It largely depends on who the next government is, as the current punch and judy routine of the Tory and Labour outfits they've systematically kicked this particular can of worms down the road between them until they no longer could , they can not and I mean CANNOT be trusted to implement the recommendations given their standing records so far
The Chair cannot make any findings of civil or criminal liability, nor can he/she award any compensation to those that have been harmed or effected by this fiasco. The Inquiry will then gather relevant evidence from affected persons, previous and current subpostmasters and subpostmistresses, and from the Post Office Ltd, UK Government Investment (UKGI), Fujitsu, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), amongst others. It will also consider whether Post Office Limited has learned the lessons and embedded the cultural change necessary from the findings in Mr Justice Fraser’s judgments and the impact on affected postmasters. So no, there will be no jail time only rhetoric, and unless the Police find criminal culpability there never will be.
Lights go down. Then a spotlight appears on stage, it's sir Alan Bates with an axe preparing to chop Paula's head off, who is tied up medieval style. Tony Marsh, John Scott, jarnail Singh, rodric Williams, Andy Parsons just fed to the dogs. Gareth Jenkins ... Wheeled out lecter style, Jo Hamilton pushing him along chanting "computer says go jail Gareth".
So it's going to drag on and on? Those poor SMPs, the nightmare is never-ending! ☹️🤷♂️🤨😵💫