UK.gov announces review – not proper inquiry – into Fujitsu and Post Office's Horizon IT scandal
- Reference: 1591865183
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/06/11/ukgov_post_office_fujitsu_horizon_review/
- Source link:
The review was announced by junior business minister Paul Scully, who published its draft terms of reference in a [1]written ministerial statement before Parliament.
"Government wants to be fully assured that through the review there is a public summary of the failings that occurred at Post Office Ltd, drawing on the judgments from the Horizon case and by listening to those that have been most affected; that lessons have genuinely been learned; and that concrete changes have taken place at Post Office Ltd to ensure that this situation will never be repeated," said Scully.
Horizon is an IT system used by the Post Office's branch managers, known as sub-postmasters. Among other things it tallies up the day's takings. Due to inherent flaws in Horizon that were known to both Fujitsu and the Post Office, Horizon would sometimes fail to total up the takings correctly and generate huge shortfalls. Post Office managers used Horizon's false accounting as a weapon to attack sub-postmasters, charging many with criminal offences.
Many were convicted in court; some were jailed; some even committed suicide. Late last year the state-owned company [2]settled the High Court case brought against it by its victims for nearly £58m .
Darren Jones, the Labour MP and chairman of the House of Commons’ Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee said in a statement responding to Scully: "The Minister's announcement of the Independent Review into the Post Office Horizon scandal is welcome. However, without a judge-led inquiry it is not clear this review will have the necessary powers to demand evidence and require witnesses to give evidence."
He added: “To get to the bottom of this scandal, the Government should look at ensuring this review is put on a statutory basis with subpoena powers to summon witnesses and compel them to give evidence under oath."
The draft terms of reference mean the government-led review will look into:
What went wrong with Horizon and what "lessons must be learned for the future";
Figure out whether the Post Office has indeed learned its lessons, especially after [3]being criticised by High Court judge Mr Justice Fraser;
Assess whether the Post Office has actually made its victims whole again financially, as it previously promised to do;
Figure out if the Post Office is now listening to sub-postmasters who report problems with Horizon, which is still in day-to-day use; and
"Examine the governance and whistleblowing controls now in place at Post Office Ltd and whether they are sufficient to ensure that the failings that led to the Horizon case issues do not happen again."
Last week Jones [4]wrote to Fujitsu demanding answers after a planned Parliamentary evidence session was cancelled thanks to the coronavirus pandemic. ®
Sponsored: [5]Why Container Security Matters to your Business
[1] https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-06-10/HCWS280/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2019/12/12/post_office_horizon_case_settled/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/10/post_office_trial_judge_not_biased/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/04/fujitsu_post_office_beis_committee_questions/
[5] https://go.theregister.com/tl/1956/-8478/why-container-security-matters-to-your-business?td=wptl1956
"There should be criminal prosecutions." Absolutely and, not...
... of low level minions. The buck should be stopping with those at the very top.
Well that's a relief
Making sure the Post Office won't make the same mistakes again and "lessons have been learned". Excellent. Just what the sub-postmasters who were hounded and prosecuted want to hear.
Re: Well that's a relief
Clearly the current government would not want a judicial enquiry, the setting of real regulations to govern such rollouts as Horizon or meaningful penalties to those who in this case maliciously pursued innocent people in order to cover up their own shortcomings, because that would interfere with ' business as usual'.
Re: Well that's a relief
"...meaningful penalties to those who in this case maliciously pursued innocent people..."
I don't think that all this political theatre is going to be the end of the story much as certain parties might wish.
There is something called "Malicious prosecution" in English law which could be used against The Post Office and senior managers, to seek redress for the PO's appalling treatment of their sub-postmasters. Added to which are the cases that have been referred to the Court of Appeals by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Senior arses may well be kicked and I note with some pleasure that Paula Vennels the sometime PO CEO has been dropped from her position on the Cabinet Office board and it seems that those in high places are edging away from her due to the toxic nature of this affair.
Oh, I nearly forgot. The judge in the case brought by the Justice for Sub-Postmasters Alliance, which they won hands-down, has referred Fujitsu to the Director Of Public Prosecutions over evidence given by its staff in the trials of a number of sub-postmasters accused of theft and false accounting. So there may well be consequences for people involved in all this.
Once there were several claims of problems with the system any prosecutions must have been based on evidence of which witnesses CANNOT have given with absolute certainty which must give rise to suspicions of perjury by the management of the organisation and its witnesses. Officers of the company have to face the same ordeal of legal process as they subjected the innocent sub postmasters to for there to be any sense of justice.
It is becoming all to regular in the UK for companies to buy their way out of situations like this. Given that the courts were used as an instrument to try to cover up this issue The courts themselves should have those responsible from with Post Office management (and that includes those who were part of the issue but have now moved on) bought before them for due process. Clearly in certifying the evidence that was given in court they were playing fast and loose with facts and truth.
No prosecution = No Justice.
The Post Office were swearing under oath that there was no way to access Horizon remotely.
However, there was a lot of evidence that multiple access points were available - internal discussions prove this.
In one case, the prosecution team were given details of remote access a few days before the case went to court - they continued the case anyway and stuck to the argument that it was impossible while witholding the new evidence from the defence team. This alone ought to result in people being held to account
"must give rise to suspicions of perjury by the management of the organisation and its witnesses"
Not just that, but their lawyers stated in court that the system was without fault, despite the fact that they had been sent internal memos stating that there was a known bug causing the issues the sub postmasters were facing (possibly "professionally interesting"). They also failed to inform the defence of this (a breach of disclosure requirements according to a QC).
Sigh of Relief
Paula Vennells will be praising god on this decision.
Re: Sigh of Relief
Paula Vennells will be praising god on this decision.
I would like to think that God will find some way of reminding Paula Vennells of the Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness...
Quite what form that reminder might take I don't know.
The first things should be (a) any criminal prosecutions against the Post Office and/or Fujitsu and/or members of staff responsible and (b) a presumption that all prosecutions against the postmasters are unsafe, even those who pleaded guilty with the Post Office offered a strict deadline to object to any particular case before all convictions are quashed. (a) because until those are dealt with there would be an excuse for anyone called as a witness to an enquiry to object that the matter is sub judice ; this might be why it's only a review being set up now. (b) because this shouldn't just hang on whilst things are drawn through a criminal review procedure. When (a) is out of the way would be time for a judicial inquiry.
While i'm completely onboard with criminal prosecutions for people who knowing persecuted people who were innocent, presumably there needs to be some investigation into who knew what before criminal charges can be brought because at the moment nobody really knows who should be prosecuted?
presumably there needs to be some investigation into who knew what before criminal charges can be brought because at the moment nobody really knows who should be prosecuted?
Perfectly true, but that investigation must be carried out by trained investigators with possible suspects interviewed under caution; a "review" is likely to fog the issue, and indeed gives the suspects the opportunity to fog it.
Just look at the way Grenfell was/is going, with the next batch of participants wanting (and IIRC getting) immunity from prosecution on the basis of what they reveal to the enquiry.
The first things should be (a) any criminal prosecutions against the Post Office and/or Fujitsu and/or members of staff responsible...
OK; IANAL but IMHO the Post Office & if appropriate Fujistu should be on the receiving end of a criminal prosecution for Malicious Prosecution, and the responsible individuals (as opposed to the bodies corporate) be on the receiving end of appropriate punishments.
The prosecution of the sub - postmasters was pursued in the face of mounting evidence that something was wrong with Horizon but they pressed on regardless, even to the point of shutting down a formal enquiry that they themselves instigated when it was becoming obvious that the findings were turning out to be unfavourable to their case and even trying to get the trial judge to recuse himself because he seems to have spotted what was going on.
Paula Vennells CBE "for services to the Post Office" should be put under immediate review because she headed up a course of action that actually brought the Post Office into serious disrepute.
The government is the PO's sole shareholder and I have a strong suspicion that its proposed "review" is intended to prevent any serious investigation into the action that was taken, not facilitate it. At the same time, of course, it is allowing soldiers who served in NI during the troubles to be harried for events that took place 40 years ago with prosecutions being a distinct possibility as a result.
The sub - postmasters deserve better than this; in fact we all do. Much better.
Dodged a bullet
Some years ago I remember a Post Office counter being installed in the office that I worked in. It was a dummy - we were bidding for the Post Office Counters business at the time, and we must have spent millions on the bid.
We lost. Just as well, perhaps. But then our solution may have actually been able to count.
Letter (email) Written to my MP
Email sent to my MP expressing my disappointment with these terms of reference, saying that they should include the finding of wrongdoing in both PO and Fujitsu. He always replies, though often dodging difficult questions. I'll see what comes back.
Struggling to understand....
I'm struggling to understand why this isn't being pursued criminally. These fucktards must have lied to the courts to get the postmasters prosecuted in the first place.
A huge suit is needed to nail these arseholes to the wall prior to them being flayed alive.
Re: Struggling to understand....
I haven't seen reported what the actual problem was - beyond missing money. Any lawyer worth his salt should have demanded supposed incoming cash vs actual incoming cash to see the values of differences. These should have been line item details so easily identifiable as erroneous.
Re: Struggling to understand....
Any lawyer worth his salt ...
Please don't presume the victims were let down by their lawyers. This is a part of the terrible tragedy; that the courts chose to believe evidence which was in fact false, chose to believe lies and reject truth, found guilt where there was only innocence.
There was a systemic failing in the justice system which let down, not just the victims, but all of us.
This goes far beyond any one group being severely hard done by. This could have happened to any one of us.
Zuckerburg could not have written it better
“The Post Office is committed to applying the lessons it has learnt.”
They spent over £23m of public money on legal fees and all the while they knew there were “high risk” issues with the computer system, but did nothing about it.
“In the past, we have fallen short.”
They falsely claimed sub-postmasters stole hundreds of thousands of pounds, leaving a number of the wrongly accused in prison and some to take their own lives. If that is "fallen short" what is "made serious prosecutable errors"?
“In the past, we got things wrong in our dealings with postmasters and we look forward to moving ahead now.”
They drove people to suicide. Those people cannot “move ahead now”, so perhaps "moving ahead" should involve a criminal trial of those responsible, from junior to senior positions, and a formal apology with proper public settlement, not one engineered between barristers over claret.
Can't wait to see how they will pull *this* one off!
"[…] and BY LISTENING TO THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN MOST AFFECTED"
Which branch of the Judiciary deal with seances? Or will it be a case of "Well, those most affected didn't bother to complain so this can now disappear"..?
Meally Mouthed Diversion
Talk about obfuscation. There should be criminal prosecutions.