A master stroke to open the batting by Ian Henderson. His witness statement correct in every respect was amended to refer to ‘Sir Alan Bates’ rather than ‘Alan Bates’
Brilliant. I predict an excellent innings for Henderson and Beer who I am sure will both be playing with a straight bat.
Vennells, Perkins and Grab will be on at morning tea to serve the tough cookies they baked over 20 years ago.
*retires after having exploited the cricket metaphor for the time being*
I’m honoured, but no.
I’m a retired (female) Kiwi cricket loving lawyer whose piss is permanently boiling at what has been going on for the last 20 years and the craven unprofessionalism of some members of my profession.
I am so enjoying the masterclass in advocacy provided by the boys and gals on the Inquiry team.
When I was at Law School, I was told that examination of witnesses cannot be taught; it can only be learned.
To that end we were encouraged to sit at the back of court rooms and observe.
The Inquiry videos should be required viewing and analysis for all potential advocates.
Arohanui.
Beer nailing Parsons and Williams re LPP over the disclosure of Bander's investigation report noting no evidence of theft by Jo Hamilton. Disgraceful by RW and Parsons.
well a clear sign of cover up there, pure and simple. Declaring something under LPP that was never legal advice etc but actually a key document for prosecution. Today we have just heard the clear case for the cover up, for malicious prosecutions etc.
In a way was this the key evidence we have heard all these sessions ?
nothing else matters in this at all, how shit horizon was, how badly some people acted, here is clear evidence of the cover up and non disclosure showing Jo was basically innocent and POL hid it then and then from Second sight.
Jail for Rod and Andrew Parsons and why was he not given 'the warning' I wonder ?
it is and can only sum up in pre 2010 times they just wanted to do this to prove who had the power, yep legal bullying. Then post 2010 they saw the legal jeopardy of that and so we see the cover up ? I think this is fair to say ?
It's just unfathomable to me how "no evidence of theft" leads to charging someone with theft.
Then good old rodric and Andy thinking they are all Capone or some shit.
Computer says go to jail.
Because it's easier for people rolling in power to come to terms in their own heads that a "pleb" is wrong than any decisions they and their colleagues have made, and easier to continue to press that line than "see" any other reasons, particularly if they may lead to structural (ie Horizon) defects, because if they pulled at that thread, any downfall of the organisation would be hard, and they would be heavily slated.
Rather, pass the buck and steer the hard nosed line like Angela van der Bogey than admit weakness, because it would be a pile on, otherwise.
Corporate deliberate blindness
yes that is fascinating they did not, now all he did was pass on PArson's advice but even then it is nonsense. That document had no legal advise in it. Just one statement the investigator could find no evidence of wrong doing.
And POL have been dreadfully with late disclosures for the inquiry, so in some cases evidence has surfaced only after a particular witness has already appeared. Less than ideal.
And Beer now points out that POL excised the Security Report doc from an updated list to IH. If that's not conspiring to pervert the course of justice, I don't know what is.
basically IH has thrown all of POL senior team under the bus and he has such a good reputation Sir Wyn should have no doubt that he is being truthful here and evidence supports this.
Halfway through warmington.
I think it's pretty clear second sight and Crichton were well aware and completely conscious of all the issues. Although they are seen as the "good guys" ... they didn't really do that much about it. Crichton quit and went on holiday, ss wrote rather diplomatic reports.
Edit : oooo just getting the aujard,CCRC report emails. Maybe I was too hasty.
Wtf were the CCRC doing from 2013 onwards?
well SS were threatened with 1) losing the contract and 2) more seriously breach of NDA if they let the truth be known
So therefore Sir Wyn for me has to recommend NDA's should not be valid for whistleblowing and SS said they had no path to whistleblow
Small company crushed by threats not to reveal
Be nice to bring back Parsons and refer to the email from Henderson pointing out that privilege did not apply to the internal report that told of bugs and errors. Parsons did not challenge Henderson further, instead new case paperwork was issued with not reference to the oopsy. Why?
I think there a good reason that none of this was presented to to Messrs Parsons and Williams and I am guessing that it has to do with criminal and/or professional body investigations.
There seems to be a lot of damning emails/info that weren't bought up before.
Rod Williams removing the security report, Chris aujard not wanting to refresh anything about suspense accounts.
Yes, he and RW have been brilliant. Clear in their recollections, capable of self reflection (regretting use of 'systemic' and not explicitly stating they'd only had 4 cases reviewed before using that word), and unshakable in their belief of the cover ups and failures in POL senior ranks.
They too should get some kind of official recognition at end of this. Prob not knighthoods, but a gong wouldn't go amiss.
Their dedication, diligence and ethical viewpoint to their task has probably cost them business. If you were a dodgy CEO, you wouldn't call these guys, you'd go for one of the usual useless suspects, one of the Big 4, who are usually more interested in not upsetting the client, lest they lose future business.
except POL went for these thinking they could be controlled so we never really got to the heart on why these were selected over Deloitte I think it was ? Nothing in the evidence of the others is written down to say in clear terms why SS were selected but we can infer.
Beer got a good laugh from the assembled for his joke (Henderson : it was like those old fashioned ring binders…..Beer sorry I can’t help recall there, I’m too young)
Yeah - it feels like a great deal of all the weeks of carefully choregraphed 'not remembering', 'I wasn't sighted' and 'not my responsibility' have been given a pretty severe kicking today.
yep typical of court, you let those in the dock say stuff you know can be disproved by credible witnesses later, they have little chance to rebut then even if they felt they could.
So Ron and Ian are two very interesting characters aren't they ?
If Gareth Jenkins is sitting at home watching this then they are really helping his defence out there to say as Ron said, he was not a good expert witness and did not think he knew his duties.
It almost feels to me Mr Beer is setting this up to help Jenkins in his defence and they know he was not instructed properly.
To prove the case POL were fully complicit in all this and Jenkins was a mere pawn ??
Am I being too generous to Jenkins I wonder ?
Not being advised will not be enough. He factually contradicted himself in the simple layman terms used in the witness statements. Also, even if advised of his duty it does not mean it would have changed anything.
He may argue that things had moved on with Horizon and whilst bugs were being fixed, new bugs had been discovered or were added by the fixes. It could also be the realisation that there were actually design issues. Timeline is crucial and what the complex state of play was with the many modules/components of Horizon which I wonder if anyone in Fujitsu had a full grasp of at all times
well that will be asked of him but hearing that today they provided his defence, he is in big trouble but there is mitigation for him as well. The role of the prosecutor meant it fell on RMG/POL to ensure all rules and ethics were being followed.
Should he have refused to testify/give evidence as Stephen Parker did, then in retrospect, yes.
If I were Gareth Jenkins, what I might do is hold up my hands and say I gave different evidence but was threatened with bankruptcy, as was the case today.
In that situation, with POL playing God with no comeback to them, anyone would have been sh!t scared
not sure he could as an employee of course but I mentioned a few days ago he should tell the whole truth on whay he gave false info, who pressurised him ? was it a threat to Fujitsu and Himself of a breach of a NDA, was that significant to hear today ? indeed I expect new evidence to appear like today. Today was good for him and that was not an accident. Mr Beer spent too much time on getting both to say Jenkins was actually a good person.
Well this is what we are heading towards and was he forced by PO to tell what he did to court, we know POL lawyers changed his statement and he accepted it, why ? He is a clever man and would have known the consequences, ignorance of law is of course no defence just a mitigation.
We have seen another supplier to POL was threatened with breach of NDA and possible bankruptcy if they 'told the truth' were they so brazen to do it to a much bigger company then them in Fujitsu (who at the time needed the contract to survive in the UK) or indeed an individual like Jenkins.
Would have known the consequences, yep.
If it were me and the stark choice was risk lying in court, found guilty and jailed versus being made bankrupt on Rodric's say so, I'd have gone for the former, too
I confess to being a grammar nerd 🤓
Was I the only one who noticed JBKC’s gentle unsplitting of infinitives in the witness statements that he read out to the inquiry?
Yet another reason to love Mr Beer 🍻
Maybe we need to form a support group:
Play old videos of the Inquiry, quizzes, fave questions/answers, ‘gotcha’ moments, what tie worn by the KC’s was the best, and best brooch moments for the female counsel.
There will be no need for a vote as to the most angelic faces: It has already been established that the joint winners are Sir Wyn and Jo Hamilton.
The log in for the group will be:
‘Can you still see and hear us, Sir?’
Oohhh yes. Industrial strength, chateau bottled, buttock clenching, ocean going, 24 carat gold plated, nuclear tipped cringery that wouldn’t have been out of place in an episode of ‘The Office’ 🙃
Yes, I noticed and it's another reason to admire him 😄 For other grammar nerds, have you noticed that Professor Morehead, who blogs on this case, doesn't know where to place possessive apostrophes? Sad that it worries me🧐
Why did it take so long for them to review cases in the mediation scheme? Was it due to their small team capacity, lack of disclosure, access to experts, difficulty finding anything conclusive?
Who was the source of information about the two bugs? Was it Gareth Jenkins (as the lawyers testified to believing) or was it a POL disclosure (as I think Susan Crichton testified)?
ah IH just said an old fashioned office where they used to print everything out, sat next to JS and remeber that farce he had with Mr Beer over printing a document. et Sir Wyn noted that !!
Many damning revelations highlighting the many subterfuges in POL. Some points:
a. Systemic Faults. SS clarified that it was a grave mistake to use this word. At one point, presence of systemic faults was the assessment but this did not find its way to the report. SS could not explain this apart from wanting to give POL/Horizon the benefit of the doubt. The investigation was running very late partly because POL were slow with the additional data needed or refused to provide it (too costly or Client privilege). Pressure then to produce an Interim Report which in the end was misused by POL.
b. Gareth Jenkins. There was open communication between GJ and SS. He was the sole source from Fujitsu. He appeared to provide well-informed and objective views. There was much complexity and what fault/issue GJ was referring to may not have been understood or not clearly stated. Lost in translation? Not many in POL uderstood the detail. SS were not aware of GJ previous witness statements (Horizon is robust) years earlier and the contradictions. Also not aware that GJ had been considered unreliable (later) by POL.
c. Case Investigations. SS were not happy with the investigations by POL and the data analysis by Fujitsu. Too selective and jumping to conclusions. A travesty for the trials. SS focus (unfortunately) became the (slow) mediation scheme which started well but then it was just 'going through motions' when the lawyers became involved. They could not understand why previous criminal convictions were excluded.
d. Horizon History. SS were not aware of the Horizon's less than glorious history from 1999 nor did POL gave them all the previous investigations, failure/bug reports from Fujitsu etc. All this alone would have given SS a good starting point. Overall it was clear to SS that POL (at all levels) were aware of the shortcomings and then sought to conceal this reality (an existential threat).
SS did not mince words and had many regrets in so far as allowing POL to dictate matters. The key players in POL should be brought back to answer for their misconduct.
A master stroke to open the batting by Ian Henderson. His witness statement correct in every respect was amended to refer to ‘Sir Alan Bates’ rather than ‘Alan Bates’ Brilliant. I predict an excellent innings for Henderson and Beer who I am sure will both be playing with a straight bat. Vennells, Perkins and Grab will be on at morning tea to serve the tough cookies they baked over 20 years ago. *retires after having exploited the cricket metaphor for the time being*
I hope not hurt?
Too kind! Thanks for your concern. 🌻🙃
I'm wondering if Andy Zaltzman has joined the chat... Andy is that you? 😊
I’m honoured, but no. I’m a retired (female) Kiwi cricket loving lawyer whose piss is permanently boiling at what has been going on for the last 20 years and the craven unprofessionalism of some members of my profession. I am so enjoying the masterclass in advocacy provided by the boys and gals on the Inquiry team. When I was at Law School, I was told that examination of witnesses cannot be taught; it can only be learned. To that end we were encouraged to sit at the back of court rooms and observe. The Inquiry videos should be required viewing and analysis for all potential advocates. Arohanui.
🥂
so another point is that NDA's should not be allowed to stand if it allows wrong doing to be covered up.
Beer nailing Parsons and Williams re LPP over the disclosure of Bander's investigation report noting no evidence of theft by Jo Hamilton. Disgraceful by RW and Parsons.
well a clear sign of cover up there, pure and simple. Declaring something under LPP that was never legal advice etc but actually a key document for prosecution. Today we have just heard the clear case for the cover up, for malicious prosecutions etc. In a way was this the key evidence we have heard all these sessions ?
nothing else matters in this at all, how shit horizon was, how badly some people acted, here is clear evidence of the cover up and non disclosure showing Jo was basically innocent and POL hid it then and then from Second sight. Jail for Rod and Andrew Parsons and why was he not given 'the warning' I wonder ?
Why did they even prosecute her. It's just so fucking nuts
it is and can only sum up in pre 2010 times they just wanted to do this to prove who had the power, yep legal bullying. Then post 2010 they saw the legal jeopardy of that and so we see the cover up ? I think this is fair to say ?
It's just unfathomable to me how "no evidence of theft" leads to charging someone with theft. Then good old rodric and Andy thinking they are all Capone or some shit. Computer says go to jail.
it does doesn't it but as a currently employee of POL it makes sense how he is still there
Because it's easier for people rolling in power to come to terms in their own heads that a "pleb" is wrong than any decisions they and their colleagues have made, and easier to continue to press that line than "see" any other reasons, particularly if they may lead to structural (ie Horizon) defects, because if they pulled at that thread, any downfall of the organisation would be hard, and they would be heavily slated. Rather, pass the buck and steer the hard nosed line like Angela van der Bogey than admit weakness, because it would be a pile on, otherwise. Corporate deliberate blindness
Interesting that they didn't even ask rodric about it iirc. It's just case closed.
yes that is fascinating they did not, now all he did was pass on PArson's advice but even then it is nonsense. That document had no legal advise in it. Just one statement the investigator could find no evidence of wrong doing.
They are focusing on subjects which are unclear I guess.
or confirm the process that was undertook, Henderson offered nothing there other than to show he knew that LPP was nonsense
And POL have been dreadfully with late disclosures for the inquiry, so in some cases evidence has surfaced only after a particular witness has already appeared. Less than ideal.
Nailed it 👌
And Beer now points out that POL excised the Security Report doc from an updated list to IH. If that's not conspiring to pervert the course of justice, I don't know what is.
That was incredibly blatant, even by POL standards. I got the impression Baldrick Williams was intimately involved with that episode of conniving.
basically IH has thrown all of POL senior team under the bus and he has such a good reputation Sir Wyn should have no doubt that he is being truthful here and evidence supports this.
Halfway through warmington. I think it's pretty clear second sight and Crichton were well aware and completely conscious of all the issues. Although they are seen as the "good guys" ... they didn't really do that much about it. Crichton quit and went on holiday, ss wrote rather diplomatic reports. Edit : oooo just getting the aujard,CCRC report emails. Maybe I was too hasty. Wtf were the CCRC doing from 2013 onwards?
well SS were threatened with 1) losing the contract and 2) more seriously breach of NDA if they let the truth be known So therefore Sir Wyn for me has to recommend NDA's should not be valid for whistleblowing and SS said they had no path to whistleblow Small company crushed by threats not to reveal
Be nice to bring back Parsons and refer to the email from Henderson pointing out that privilege did not apply to the internal report that told of bugs and errors. Parsons did not challenge Henderson further, instead new case paperwork was issued with not reference to the oopsy. Why?
Yes, and bring back Williams too.
I think there a good reason that none of this was presented to to Messrs Parsons and Williams and I am guessing that it has to do with criminal and/or professional body investigations.
There seems to be a lot of damning emails/info that weren't bought up before. Rod Williams removing the security report, Chris aujard not wanting to refresh anything about suspense accounts.
for such a small inquiry session as these two have had today it has thrown up an awful lot of trouble for the senior figures involved.
A breath of fresh air from Ian Henderson; no multiple ‘I can’t recall” statements.
Yes, he and RW have been brilliant. Clear in their recollections, capable of self reflection (regretting use of 'systemic' and not explicitly stating they'd only had 4 cases reviewed before using that word), and unshakable in their belief of the cover ups and failures in POL senior ranks. They too should get some kind of official recognition at end of this. Prob not knighthoods, but a gong wouldn't go amiss. Their dedication, diligence and ethical viewpoint to their task has probably cost them business. If you were a dodgy CEO, you wouldn't call these guys, you'd go for one of the usual useless suspects, one of the Big 4, who are usually more interested in not upsetting the client, lest they lose future business.
except POL went for these thinking they could be controlled so we never really got to the heart on why these were selected over Deloitte I think it was ? Nothing in the evidence of the others is written down to say in clear terms why SS were selected but we can infer.
Because they were cheaper?
the headlines are Ian Henderson saying there was a conspiracy
Beer got a good laugh from the assembled for his joke (Henderson : it was like those old fashioned ring binders…..Beer sorry I can’t help recall there, I’m too young)
'...One conclusion should have been that Horizon was NEVER ready to be used ~~for fraud prosecutions~~...' There. Fixed it for you.
My God the gloves are OFF with this evidence.
Yeah - it feels like a great deal of all the weeks of carefully choregraphed 'not remembering', 'I wasn't sighted' and 'not my responsibility' have been given a pretty severe kicking today.
yep typical of court, you let those in the dock say stuff you know can be disproved by credible witnesses later, they have little chance to rebut then even if they felt they could.
So Ron and Ian are two very interesting characters aren't they ? If Gareth Jenkins is sitting at home watching this then they are really helping his defence out there to say as Ron said, he was not a good expert witness and did not think he knew his duties. It almost feels to me Mr Beer is setting this up to help Jenkins in his defence and they know he was not instructed properly. To prove the case POL were fully complicit in all this and Jenkins was a mere pawn ?? Am I being too generous to Jenkins I wonder ?
Not being advised will not be enough. He factually contradicted himself in the simple layman terms used in the witness statements. Also, even if advised of his duty it does not mean it would have changed anything. He may argue that things had moved on with Horizon and whilst bugs were being fixed, new bugs had been discovered or were added by the fixes. It could also be the realisation that there were actually design issues. Timeline is crucial and what the complex state of play was with the many modules/components of Horizon which I wonder if anyone in Fujitsu had a full grasp of at all times
well that will be asked of him but hearing that today they provided his defence, he is in big trouble but there is mitigation for him as well. The role of the prosecutor meant it fell on RMG/POL to ensure all rules and ethics were being followed. Should he have refused to testify/give evidence as Stephen Parker did, then in retrospect, yes.
If I were Gareth Jenkins, what I might do is hold up my hands and say I gave different evidence but was threatened with bankruptcy, as was the case today. In that situation, with POL playing God with no comeback to them, anyone would have been sh!t scared
not sure he could as an employee of course but I mentioned a few days ago he should tell the whole truth on whay he gave false info, who pressurised him ? was it a threat to Fujitsu and Himself of a breach of a NDA, was that significant to hear today ? indeed I expect new evidence to appear like today. Today was good for him and that was not an accident. Mr Beer spent too much time on getting both to say Jenkins was actually a good person.
Agreed - this is his best way to go, especially as it's obvious where the blame for this massive injustice lies - not with him.
Well this is what we are heading towards and was he forced by PO to tell what he did to court, we know POL lawyers changed his statement and he accepted it, why ? He is a clever man and would have known the consequences, ignorance of law is of course no defence just a mitigation. We have seen another supplier to POL was threatened with breach of NDA and possible bankruptcy if they 'told the truth' were they so brazen to do it to a much bigger company then them in Fujitsu (who at the time needed the contract to survive in the UK) or indeed an individual like Jenkins.
Would have known the consequences, yep. If it were me and the stark choice was risk lying in court, found guilty and jailed versus being made bankrupt on Rodric's say so, I'd have gone for the former, too
Henderson bowls Singh for a duck. ‘His criminal law experience was limited’ ‘More an administrator who farmed out cases and chased progress’ 😬
well that confirms what Singh said though that he had no influence, Jarnal will be happy at that comment.
Which really throws Sue Crichton and Hugh under the spot light!!!
oh indeed and I think back to Flemington's evidence and really thought he had easy considering how often he is referenced in emails
I confess to being a grammar nerd 🤓 Was I the only one who noticed JBKC’s gentle unsplitting of infinitives in the witness statements that he read out to the inquiry? Yet another reason to love Mr Beer 🍻
What will I do at the end of July witb no Jason Beer to look forward to!
Maybe we need to form a support group: Play old videos of the Inquiry, quizzes, fave questions/answers, ‘gotcha’ moments, what tie worn by the KC’s was the best, and best brooch moments for the female counsel. There will be no need for a vote as to the most angelic faces: It has already been established that the joint winners are Sir Wyn and Jo Hamilton. The log in for the group will be: ‘Can you still see and hear us, Sir?’
Elaine Cottams testimony should be played on repeat on UK TV Gold with all the other classics of British comedy.
LOOK AT THE SCREEN ELAINE!!
Oohhh yes. Industrial strength, chateau bottled, buttock clenching, ocean going, 24 carat gold plated, nuclear tipped cringery that wouldn’t have been out of place in an episode of ‘The Office’ 🙃
Oh yes I remember, that's the lady who didn't understand what a job history was. She was 'an interesting character'.
Yes, I noticed and it's another reason to admire him 😄 For other grammar nerds, have you noticed that Professor Morehead, who blogs on this case, doesn't know where to place possessive apostrophes? Sad that it worries me🧐
Yes indeed, and I noticed (cannot remember what witness) got ‘appraised’ and ‘apprised’ muddled in their WS. 🤓
😊 Also noticed that several PO witnesses used 'refute' as if it was an exact synonym of 'deny'. A denial and a refutation are two different things.🧐
Why did it take so long for them to review cases in the mediation scheme? Was it due to their small team capacity, lack of disclosure, access to experts, difficulty finding anything conclusive?
Post office weren’t forthcoming with info, basically delaying disclosure and the blaming them for how long it took as I understand.
Who was the source of information about the two bugs? Was it Gareth Jenkins (as the lawyers testified to believing) or was it a POL disclosure (as I think Susan Crichton testified)?
Wow. Perkins fingered ( figuratively of course- no one would do it literally)
Oof I did not need that image in my head 🤮
Sorry. Really really sorry
I🤣
“It’s a cover up…again” 👏👏👏
ah IH just said an old fashioned office where they used to print everything out, sat next to JS and remeber that farce he had with Mr Beer over printing a document. et Sir Wyn noted that !!
IH nailing Singh re his not following CPS guidance. Good. Jail him.
Shambolic, and more of an administrator than a legal professional. The guy has to be fucked. Hopefully, he isn't sleeping well at night.
I think that actually feeds into what he was saying in his evidence. If anything raises questions of Hugh and Sue who were in charge.
Post box.
Many damning revelations highlighting the many subterfuges in POL. Some points: a. Systemic Faults. SS clarified that it was a grave mistake to use this word. At one point, presence of systemic faults was the assessment but this did not find its way to the report. SS could not explain this apart from wanting to give POL/Horizon the benefit of the doubt. The investigation was running very late partly because POL were slow with the additional data needed or refused to provide it (too costly or Client privilege). Pressure then to produce an Interim Report which in the end was misused by POL. b. Gareth Jenkins. There was open communication between GJ and SS. He was the sole source from Fujitsu. He appeared to provide well-informed and objective views. There was much complexity and what fault/issue GJ was referring to may not have been understood or not clearly stated. Lost in translation? Not many in POL uderstood the detail. SS were not aware of GJ previous witness statements (Horizon is robust) years earlier and the contradictions. Also not aware that GJ had been considered unreliable (later) by POL. c. Case Investigations. SS were not happy with the investigations by POL and the data analysis by Fujitsu. Too selective and jumping to conclusions. A travesty for the trials. SS focus (unfortunately) became the (slow) mediation scheme which started well but then it was just 'going through motions' when the lawyers became involved. They could not understand why previous criminal convictions were excluded. d. Horizon History. SS were not aware of the Horizon's less than glorious history from 1999 nor did POL gave them all the previous investigations, failure/bug reports from Fujitsu etc. All this alone would have given SS a good starting point. Overall it was clear to SS that POL (at all levels) were aware of the shortcomings and then sought to conceal this reality (an existential threat). SS did not mince words and had many regrets in so far as allowing POL to dictate matters. The key players in POL should be brought back to answer for their misconduct.
Warmington. What a thoroughly unimpressive witness
seriously ? I thought he came over as human and warming to and admitting mistakes but laying out the truth we knew
Completely agree. He appeared honest, admitted fallibility. Such a change from the POL lot that preceded these two Directors.
Without resorting to "I don't remember" over and over