Super-Twat

[chrisbainbridge]

Sorry, but in civil cases the burden of proof is “balance of probability” whereas in criminal it is “ stone reasonable doubt”. Civil is generally taken as 50.1% whereas criminal is seen as 90%.
I agree that some were sent to jail but most were not.

[Davef]

I really don't understand how their accounting practices were so poor that they accused people of stealing money that patently did not exist. What sort of business were they running?
And some blame should accrue to the police and CPS, whose credulity seems almost criminal in itself.

My understanding is that the PO largely bypassed the Police and CPS and were mostly able to prosecute without their their input.

I think they went for civil penalties rather than criminal.  I judge no jury and lower burden of proof.  Clearly suggests that they knew what they were doing.  Seems the missing money probably ended up in secret accounts in PO head office as well.

No - they were criminal prosecutions.  People were jailed. 

Also, the burden of proof in civil and criminal cases is the same.  It’s the quantum that may vary, albeit not as much as people may think, depending on what is alleged and the potential outcomes.

All prosecutions are for crimes. These were private prosecutions brought to the criminal courts by the post office rather than by the CPS but the same “beyond reasonable doubt” is required.

[Regulator]

Sorry, but in civil cases the burden of proof is “balance of probability” whereas in criminal it is “ stone reasonable doubt”. Civil is generally taken as 50.1% whereas criminal is seen as 90%.
I agree that some were sent to jail but most were not.

You're confusing 'burden of proof' (i.e. whose responsibility it is to make out the matters alleged, the onus) with the 'quantum of evidence/standard of proof' (the amount of evidence needed, the quality of proof).

In criminal cases in England and Wales, the quantum of evidence is 'so that you are sure'.  In civil cases, it is the 'balance of probability' but that is not "50.1%" as you suggest. 

In civil cases, the quantum/standard required will depend on the nature of the matters alleged and the potential outcomes - what is often referred to as the "heightened civil standard".  A good example of this is professional regulation - a civil procedure - where, given the potential impacts on someone's life and livelihood, the standard of evidence will be closer to the criminal standard.

[Polar Bear]

The reality is that inevitably somebody was thinking that the numbers and amounts were simply off the scale and therefore there might be another explanation?  People at Fujigsu apparently knew that there was a problem so it seems unlikely that this was not known by people at the PO.  Simply lacks credibility imo.

[Regulator]

The reality is that inevitably somebody was thinking that the numbers and amounts were simply off the scale and therefore there might be another explanation?  People at Fujigsu apparently knew that there was a problem so it seems unlikely that this was not known by people at the PO.  Simply lacks credibility imo.

When they first started having issues they did some manual on-site audits.  This showed that there was an issue with the software.  They stopped doing manual on-site audits.

[chrisbainbridge]

Sorry, but in civil cases the burden of proof is “balance of probability” whereas in criminal it is “ stone reasonable doubt”. Civil is generally taken as 50.1% whereas criminal is seen as 90%.
I agree that some were sent to jail but most were not.

You're confusing 'burden of proof' (i.e. whose responsibility it is to make out the matters alleged, the onus) with the 'quantum of evidence/standard of proof' (the amount of evidence needed, the quality of proof).

In criminal cases in England and Wales, the quantum of evidence is 'so that you are sure'.  In civil cases, it is the 'balance of probability' but that is not "50.1%" as you suggest. 

In civil cases, the quantum/standard required will depend on the nature of the matters alleged and the potential outcomes - what is often referred to as the "heightened civil standard".  A good example of this is professional regulation - a civil procedure - where, given the potential impacts on someone's life and livelihood, the standard of evidence will be closer to the criminal standard.

Sorry, they often get mis-stated and you are right the burden of proof, ie who is responsible for proving the case is the prosecution or the claimant in civil cases.  having been asked to decide probability on an almost weekly basis for the last 25 years i can say that it is very much 50.1%.  The increased standard for professional regulation is a specific matter.

[Polar Bear]

The reality is that inevitably somebody was thinking that the numbers and amounts were simply off the scale and therefore there might be another explanation?  People at Fujigsu apparently knew that there was a problem so it seems unlikely that this was not known by people at the PO.  Simply lacks credibility imo.

When they first started having issues they did some manual on-site audits.  This showed that there was an issue with the software.  They stopped doing manual on-site audits.

That makes it all the worse really.   

[Regulator]

The reality is that inevitably somebody was thinking that the numbers and amounts were simply off the scale and therefore there might be another explanation?  People at Fujigsu apparently knew that there was a problem so it seems unlikely that this was not known by people at the PO.  Simply lacks credibility imo.

When they first started having issues they did some manual on-site audits.  This showed that there was an issue with the software.  They stopped doing manual on-site audits.

That makes it all the worse really.

Oh yes... it was deliberate.

[ian]

So, if I understand, the PO brought private criminal prosecutions against them (did the CPS demur?). Astonishing. What were they thinking?

It's one of those things that makes no sense on any level, but they did it anyway.

[Beardy]

One wonders if the HR* department were involved in a bid to reduce the number of sub-postmasters either directly or through fear.


*HR. Many people think it stands for Human Resources, a dehumanising enough rename of the Personnel department, but I have it on good authority that it actually stands for Headcount Reduction which is as far as I can tell all they’ve done in most organisations for the past 30 years or so.

[Regulator]

One wonders if the HR* department were involved in a bid to reduce the number of sub-postmasters either directly or through fear.


*HR. Many people think it stands for Human Resources, a dehumanising enough rename of the Personnel department, but I have it on good authority that it actually stands for Headcount Reduction which is as far as I can tell all they’ve done in most organisations for the past 30 years or so.

Sub-postmasters aren't employees, I'm afraid.  They're self-employed 'agents' - so even fewer protections.

[grams]

So, if I understand, the PO brought private criminal prosecutions against them (did the CPS demur?). Astonishing. What were they thinking?

The Post Office has its own "Investigation Branch" and private prosecutions are standard procedure, which means it can sidestep most of the process involved in an actual police investigation.

Likewise the RSPCA, although they've been told to stop due to prosecuting Tories fox hunters.

[ian]

Seems like they encountered a 'sunk cost' – basically, once they'd sunk so many resources into chasing down and prosecuting these individuals, increasingly despite the obvious wrongness, no one wanted to lose face by admitting the fact, so they kept pushing forward, deliberately oblivious to the damage.

[Davef]

So, if I understand, the PO brought private criminal prosecutions against them (did the CPS demur?). Astonishing. What were they thinking?

The Post Office has its own "Investigation Branch" and private prosecutions are standard procedure, which means it can sidestep most of the process involved in an actual police investigation.

Likewise the RSPCA, although they've been told to stop due to prosecuting Tories fox hunters.

They must have produced sufficient evidence to convince a judge in a criminal court that the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[ian]

It seems the PO did have the benefit of being able to manufacture the evidence.

[Beardy]

It seems the PO did have the benefit of being able to manufacture the evidence.

And alter it to fit the narrative with the aid of Fujitsu and a lack of audit trail.
Which ever way you cut this, there is no doubt that there was reasonable doubt of guilt and definitely strong evidence in criminal conspiracy by the the PO.

[grams]

They must have produced sufficient evidence to convince a judge in a criminal court that the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The CPS has provisions in place to (hopefully) ensure evidence is gathered fairly and shared with defendants and their lawyers. The Post Office failed at this, so the defendants didn’t stand a chance.

[citoyen]

After finding out some more about the case...

George Thomson, former general secretary of the National Federation of Sub Postmasters, who sided with the post office and labelled the people he was supposed to be representing as thieves. Utterly despicable piece of shit.

[Redlight]

George Thomson, former general secretary of the National Federation of Sub Postmasters, who sided with the post office and labelled the people he was supposed to be representing as thieves. Utterly despicable piece of shit.

Playing devil's advocate - when Thomson did that, was he basing his judgement purely on the incorrect information being produced by the PO, in which case it might be understandable? You could see him feeling that he had to represent what would have been seen as the 'honest majority' and castigate the apparent bad apples.

[ian]

They must have produced sufficient evidence to convince a judge in a criminal court that the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The CPS has provisions in place to (hopefully) ensure evidence is gathered fairly and shared with defendants and their lawyers. The Post Office failed at this, so the defendants didn’t stand a chance.

Any prosecution (private or public, there's no difference) is legally obliged to share any information or evidence that may help the defence. The judgement summary makes it clear that they didn't disclose their knowledge of the issues with the Horizon system, despite the fact they were clearly known to Post Office Ltd (presumably these concerns were not shared with the prosecution, they'd have had to disclose it). In the majority of the cases, the Horizon data was the only evidence, and it was presented with absolute surety. Any hint they were issues with the reliability of the data would have been instant and reasonable cause for doubt. We think they took some money isn't a strong case.

Regardless, it's hard to sit back and look at the sheer number of cases they were prosecuting and not think hold on, something's off here. The worse thing is that they knew their evidence was shit, yet carried on anyway.

[citoyen]

George Thomson, former general secretary of the National Federation of Sub Postmasters, who sided with the post office and labelled the people he was supposed to be representing as thieves. Utterly despicable piece of shit.

Playing devil's advocate - when Thomson did that, was he basing his judgement purely on the incorrect information being produced by the PO, in which case it might be understandable? You could see him feeling that he had to represent what would have been seen as the 'honest majority' and castigate the apparent bad apples.

It's pretty clear that he was basically taking the PO's word for it, unquestioningly, that it wasn't a problem with the Horizon system. And automatically assuming that the 'missing' money must be a case of 'bad apples', again without questioning any of the evidence. And this is based purely on his public comments, so not much scope for ambiguity in understanding his meaning. His behaviour would be bad enough from PO senior management, but from a person who is supposed to be protecting the interests of the sub postmasters, it is simply scandalous.

In fact, it's potentially even worse - it's quite plausible to believe that he was actually colluding with the PO against the interests of his members.

This is a good listen, if you don't mind ending up very angry:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000jf7j

[citoyen]

Regardless, it's hard to sit back and look at the sheer number of cases they were prosecuting and not think hold on, something's off here. The worse thing is that they knew their evidence was shit, yet carried on anyway.

On the number of cases, they compounded their offence by telling each sub postmaster they were pursuing that they were the only one who was having problems with the Horizon system.

They make Boris Johnson look like a paragon of honesty.

[ian]

This is worthy of quoting since it perfectly explains the perverse nature of the prosecution.

We conclude [para 137] that POL’s failures of investigation and disclosure were so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the “Horizon cases” an affront to the conscience of the court. By representing Horizon as reliable, and refusing to countenance any suggestion to the contrary, POL effectively sought to reverse the burden of proof: it treated what was no more than a shortfall shown by an unreliable accounting system as an incontrovertible loss, and proceeded as if it were for the accused to prove that no such loss had occurred. Denied any disclosure of material capable of undermining the prosecution case, defendants were inevitably unable to discharge that improper burden. As each prosecution proceeded to its successful conclusion the asserted reliability of Horizon was, on the face of it, reinforced. Defendants were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced on the basis that the Horizon data must be correct, and cash must therefore be missing, when in fact there could be no confidence as to that foundation.

That said, I think we know at this point (see Grenfell, etc.) that precisely no sanction will be applied to those who knowingly instigated and continued this. Former and existing management will look contrite for a bit and then carry on.

[citoyen]

Vennells has already done the "vewy vewy sowwy" act, so she's off the hook. It's sickening.

[Davef]

It does all seem bizarre. From reading about the software problems you could end up with duplicate or missing transactions, particularly on things like cash sales of stamps.

This appeared therefore as an apparent shortfall in cash which was put down to theft. Surely there would have been a matching excess stock of stamps.