News: 1619539573

"Speaking for the government, Paul Scully, minister for small business, consumers and labour markets, told MPs that a statutory inquiry, under the Inquiries Act of 2005, would take too long as the average length for such proceedings was nearly three-and-a-half years."

If statutory inquiry takes too long, that is a fault of the statutory inquiry system. We need to hold those responsible for this appalling travesty of justice to account.

Why did judges not know about software evaluation, CHECK or CREST certified technical testing of software, how System Administrators manage user accounts and query the PO lawyers on them?

Why were the accounts of customers not reconciled with both Horizon and the SPM accounts to check which were correct?

Why were the repeated statements of the Post Offices own lawyers and barristers that what was being done was illegal ignored?

These questions have to be answered. If it takes 3.5 years so be it: 'Though the mills of God grind slow, they grind exceeding small."

I think you are misunderstanding the role of the judge in the proceedings. The question you should be asking is how the PO was able to deny/bury material that should have been available to the defence team.

I suspect but don’t know that a number of cases did not proceed when a savvy defense solicitor or barrister was involved and it was dependent on luck of the draw and financial resources for the SPO’s involved.

Maybe, but (at least) one defendant was convicted despite the judge noting that there was no direct evidence of guilt. The judges just accepted the Post Office's insistence that Horizon recorded transactions accurately.

The judges decide what evidence is admissible in court, and I would be interested to know whether a more IT literate judiciary would have allowed the Post Office assertions to be presented in court without supporting evidence.

The legal profession, and any review, needs to take a hard look at how it operates, it seems that the 'presumption of innocence' apparently a core legal principle, did not exist for the PostMasters in these cases.

Once they were accused by the PostOffice, (a large body only existing for the public good, funny), multiple judges failed to question or research their assertions in any detail, in their defense its hard to imagine why a body would persecute people for the hell of it.

On the other hand the barest research anybody would known a bug free system is virtually non existent unless done to military/nasa levels of definition and validation.

Well, even military grade software can go wrong:

https://www.theregister.com/2007/02/28/f22s_working_again/

"Significant new capabilities have been added to the US Air Force's latest superfighter, the F-22 "Raptor". The USAF's Raptors cost more than $300m each, and are generally thought to be the most advanced combat jets in service worldwide. However, until recently they were unable to cross the international date line owing to a software bug in their navigation systems.

A group of F-22s heading across the Pacific for exercises in Japan earlier this month suffered simultaneous total nav-console crashes as their longitude shifted from 180 degrees West to 180 East."

The comments section for that article makes interesting reading too.

I absolutely agree that the full weight of the law (inquiries, or otherwise) should be put against those that contributed to this.

However, on the specific point about software certification, I believe that the problem was that a change to the law in 1999 was introduced to presume that computer systems operated correctly, unless there was evidence to the contrary. If such evidence was available (and there would seem to be a strong suggestion that it was, at some point), it was not available to the defendants.

I believe that the change to the law was introduced as a result of a large number of cases where it was questioned whether the operation of speed cameras could be proven. I expect that all this qualifies as unintended consequences.

I would absolutely recommend the BBC Sounds series (The Great Post Office Trial). It is despairing how this was allowed to happen but remarkably uplifting how those involved fought back (and still are).

BJC: "I would absolutely recommend the BBC Sounds series (The Great Post Office Trial). It is despairing how this was allowed to happen but remarkably uplifting how those involved fought back (and still are)."

They are working on a new episode to bring it up to date with the recent quashing of the convictions. This should be broadcast at the end of May, the existing series is on BBC Sounds, or at 09:45 Monday to Friday mornings on Radio 4, just before 'Woman's Hour'.

Judges, senior police, civil servants know perfectly well that once the precedent of public figures being held accountable is set, they are all next, and they will fall like dominoes. So they are dragging their heels as hard as they can.

I don't know why so much emphasis is put on the IT side of things. It's a gross miscarriage of justice that has shown gaping flaws in the UK's judicial system and its unwarranted deference to the establishment.

You need to be clearer on where to direct your ire. Which is on the current Government who are failing to enact a series of recommendations to clean up Private Prosecutions made by the relevant Parliamentary Committee 6 months ago. I encourage you to Google for it - makes good reading.

You are right, it is much more, considering this is a legacy of the Blair government and has continued to be kept as low key as possible by all subsequent governments.

In addition, the scandal extends to the procurement systems used by government departments and ministries that seem to be forever inadequate, failing to ensure sufficient specification, failing to write contracts that protect public(taxpayers) money and failing to enforce fully the contracts that are written.

Add to those failings the current fashion in government procurement at local and national levels that sees officials giving blatantly off the cuff reasons for awarding or extending contracts without even paying lip service to the tendering process, one could be forgiven for thinking it is all deliberate.

A full public inquiry could go some way towards highlighting some of those failings and perhaps encourage some remediation but I won't be holding my breath.

No accountability. Ever. This seems to be the standard mode of operation for this government.

"Standard mode of operation for this government"

"Sandard mode of operation for government"

Tftfy

Would be interesting to know if the lobbying company Paul Scully set up, and still has a large interest in, has done any work for The Post Office...

would be to presumptively jailing a large number of 'suspects' as flight risks.

There aren't a lot of hidden names here. We know the people at the PO and Fujitsu who made statements in earlier trials. Even the prosecutors who failed to do their job are known.

Best way to start speeding this up

would be to presumptively jailing a large number of 'suspects' as flight risks.

There aren't a lot of hidden names here. We know the people at the PO and Fujitsu who made statements in earlier trials. Even the prosecutors who failed to do their job are known.

Absoloutely. Arrest them all on charges of suspected perjury and contempt of court, then release them on bail whilst investigations continue. Confiscate their passports. Ensure they are unable to get meaningful employment whilst under arrest for the 3 1/2 years a proper enquiry will take.

This absolutely has to be the biggest scandal of the last 50 years (that we know about) and it needs a thorough investigation. Every single person in the UK is a customer of the post office, we deserve to know what went on.