Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells

[Cowsham]

How were the PO Judges incompetent?

They obviously were when they convicted people wrongly sending them to jail. They didn't question the evidence.

I'm no legal expert but isn't it the job of the defence lawyer to question the evidence? eg in a jury trial the jury has no opportunity to ask any questions, just assess what is presented to them.

Maybe I've misunderstood the court system (my only experience was pre-trial being summoned to judge's chambers).

Ian

There are many things the judges could've done but didn't and also more importantly things they were asked to do but refused to.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/judge ... 52.article

[Psamathe]

They obviously were when they convicted people wrongly sending them to jail. They didn't question the evidence.

I'm no legal expert but isn't it the job of the defence lawyer to question the evidence? eg in a jury trial the jury has no opportunity to ask any questions, just assess what is presented to them.

Maybe I've misunderstood the court system (my only experience was pre-trial being summoned to judge's chambers).

Ian

There are many things the judges could've done but didn't and also more importantly things they were asked to do but refused to.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/judge ... 52.article

That article seems to only highlight one "thing" related to disclosure and there seems to be disagreement about even that.

"However barrister Flora Page, of 23 ES chambers who represented three postmasters in the Court of Appeal and is currently acting for more in the Post Office inquiry, told the bar conference that some judges had failed by not ordering disclosure of material that would have exposed the bugs and faults in the Horizon software. "

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

They obviously were when they convicted people wrongly sending them to jail. They didn't question the evidence.

I'm no legal expert but isn't it the job of the defence lawyer to question the evidence? eg in a jury trial the jury has no opportunity to ask any questions, just assess what is presented to them.

Maybe I've misunderstood the court system (my only experience was pre-trial being summoned to judge's chambers).

Ian

There are many things the judges could've done but didn't and also more importantly things they were asked to do but refused to.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/judge ... 52.article

Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of cases were guilty pleas to lesser charges, as advised by Defence Lawyers* as a result of the illegal (to be proven) and immoral (happy to state that as fact) conduct of multiple parties - so the Judges heard no evidence, they simply sentenced. Similarly, most cases were dealt with by Magistrates, not Judges.

Bear in mind also that Judges, in the limited number of cases where not guilty pleas were entered and a full trial ensued, were presented with a litany of compelling evidence from Expert Witnesses (who weren't acting as 'Experts' should, and whose evidence was wholly partial, it appears) regarding the watertight Horizon system. Also Prosecutors who were seemingly unbound by their codes of professional conduct. Company managers, lawyers and investigation specialists whose misconduct was ignored or actively rewarded by a PO hierarchy which seemed, on the basis of the evidence that many of us have listened to daily, actively engaged in the deception by act or omission.

Given the separation of roles Ian has already correctly identified, what widespread incompetence would you point to on the part of Judges who conducted trials and instructed the Juries who found SPMs guilty on the evidence to justify labelling them as incompetent'?

*Who come in for particular criticism in the article you have found, I note, certainly much more than the '...probably about a dozen...' trials that on his reading, the former DPP suggests may have been deficient, as they should have '...poked a bit more deeply...' - or is it the case that on this narrow basis you're content to label the Judiciary as 'incompetent?

Few if any people or institutions come out of these years and months of evidence well, but I think you're perhaps pointing to the wrong thing here, and certainly making a broad-brush statement that cannot be objectively justified.

[Cowsham]

I'm no legal expert but isn't it the job of the defence lawyer to question the evidence? eg in a jury trial the jury has no opportunity to ask any questions, just assess what is presented to them.

Maybe I've misunderstood the court system (my only experience was pre-trial being summoned to judge's chambers).

Ian

There are many things the judges could've done but didn't and also more importantly things they were asked to do but refused to.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/judge ... 52.article

Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of cases were guilty pleas to lesser charges, as advised by Defence Lawyers* as a result of the illegal (to be proven) and immoral (happy to state that as fact) conduct of multiple parties - so the Judges heard no evidence, they simply sentenced. Similarly, most cases were dealt with by Magistrates, not Judges.

Bear in mind also that Judges, in the limited number of cases where not guilty pleas were entered and a full trial ensued, were presented with a litany of compelling evidence from Expert Witnesses (who weren't acting as 'Experts' should, and whose evidence was wholly partial, it appears) regarding the watertight Horizon system. Also Prosecutors who were seemingly unbound by their codes of professional conduct. Company managers, lawyers and investigation specialists whose misconduct was ignored or actively rewarded by a PO hierarchy which seemed, on the basis of the evidence that many of us have listened to daily, actively engaged in the deception by act or omission.

Given the separation of roles Ian has already correctly identified, what widespread incompetence would you point to on the part of Judges who conducted trials and instructed the Juries who found SPMs guilty on the evidence to justify labelling them as incompetent'?

*Who come in for particular criticism in the article you have found, I note, certainly much more than the '...probably about a dozen...' trials that on his reading, the former DPP suggests may have been deficient, as they should have '...poked a bit more deeply...' - or is it the case that on this narrow basis you're content to label the Judiciary as 'incompetent?

Few if any people or institutions come out of these years and months of evidence well, but I think you're perhaps pointing to the wrong thing here, and certainly making a broad-brush statement that cannot be objectively justified.

Judges instruct juries and lawyers and the juries and lawyers believe them. Then when they are asked to get disclosure of evidence they can refuse. It seems from the outside that judges also protect judges so if one judge says another was acting responsibly then both are believed. It doesn't look too wholesome. No doubt most judges are honest but I suspect some in these cases have been either negligent or incompetent.

[Psamathe]

To my mind top priority should be to go for those who instigated and facilitated this scandal, the real big offenders (eg Post Office, some prosecution legal professionals).

To focus on those who might have questionably failed to force disclosure in a very small %age of cases that went to jury trial will take the spotlight from those who deserve significant long punishment.

Once the big offenders are locked-up then debate the nuances of the detail of a few trials.

Ian

[briansnail]

the real big offenders (eg Post Office,

At the snails pace they are proceeding.Everyone will be dead by time they decide anything.It seems to have faded from the papers.When does the inquiry end?
*************************
I ride Brompton,Hetchins 531

[Jdsk]

...
When does the inquiry end?
...

The current "indicative timeline":
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.or ... s-timeline

Jonathan

[Cowsham]

the real big offenders (eg Post Office,

At the snails pace they are proceeding.Everyone will be dead by time they decide anything.It seems to have faded from the papers.When does the inquiry end?
*************************
I ride Brompton,Hetchins 531

After the vultures all get paid enough for bucking it up the first time and fixing it when everyone is dead. Not fit for purpose. For expediency and their incompetence in the first place, a settlement should be set at a price no one can argue with and pay it out of court -- it'll be cheaper than paying the vultures + the settlement.

[Jdsk]

the real big offenders (eg Post Office,

At the snails pace they are proceeding.Everyone will be dead by time they decide anything.It seems to have faded from the papers.When does the inquiry end?
...

After the vultures all get paid enough for bucking it up the first time and fixing it when everyone is dead. Not fit for purpose. For expediency and their incompetence in the first place, a settlement should be set at a price no one can argue with and pay it out of court -- it'll be cheaper than paying the vultures + the settlement.

The compensation scheme:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... e-progress

And the latest data on progress:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... e-progress
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... a-for-2024

And the legislation for exoneration in England received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

To me this just beggars belief (worse given twe are effectively underwriting the Post Office)

Post Office pays £250m to law firms in relation to Horizon IT scandal
Amount paid to 15 firms and two barristers chambers since 2014 is almost equal to payouts for victims
...
The state-owned body paid out £256.9m to 15 law firms and two barristers chambers between September 2014 and March 2024, according to a freedom of information (FoI) request submitted by the Lawyer magazine.

The figure for legal fees is almost the same as the £261m of financial redress that has been paid out to victims of the scandal as of the end of last month.
...

Ian

[Cowsham]

To me this just beggars belief (worse given twe are effectively underwriting the Post Office)

Post Office pays £250m to law firms in relation to Horizon IT scandal
Amount paid to 15 firms and two barristers chambers since 2014 is almost equal to payouts for victims
...
The state-owned body paid out £256.9m to 15 law firms and two barristers chambers between September 2014 and March 2024, according to a freedom of information (FoI) request submitted by the Lawyer magazine.

The figure for legal fees is almost the same as the £261m of financial redress that has been paid out to victims of the scandal as of the end of last month.
...

Ian

Disgusting -- I wished less claimants took the £75k offered ( see Jons post above ) it's just disgusting. Nothing more to be said.

[Carlton green]

To me this just beggars belief (worse given twe are effectively underwriting the Post Office)

Post Office pays £250m to law firms in relation to Horizon IT scandal
Amount paid to 15 firms and two barristers chambers since 2014 is almost equal to payouts for victims
...
The state-owned body paid out £256.9m to 15 law firms and two barristers chambers between September 2014 and March 2024, according to a freedom of information (FoI) request submitted by the Lawyer magazine.

The figure for legal fees is almost the same as the £261m of financial redress that has been paid out to victims of the scandal as of the end of last month.
...

Ian

Disgusting -- I wished less claimants took the £75k offered ( see Jons post above ) it's just disgusting. Nothing more to be said.

I haven’t been following this thread recently but the more I see of how the courts work the more concerned I become about justice. For some time I’ve thought that just because a court judges something to be so doesn’t actually mean that it is so. As for newspapers what they print is only loosely connected to the truth and above anything else they are commercial devices masquerading as something else.

To my mind it’s unlikely that those responsible for this outrage will be held to account and certainly there will be no meaningful punishment of those guilty. I too am disgusted, but that’s life.

[simonineaston]

What it is with all this and everything else too is that everyone subliminally worried sick about climate chaos and The End. Thus nobody feel a need to stick to doing things right anymore. On the other hand, we should be grateful we’ve had a Good Time.

[toontra]

I haven’t been following this thread recently but the more I see of how the courts work the more concerned I become about justice.

Indeed. This whole affair isn't so much about the failure of an IT system - it's about the failure of the justice system. When lawyers and barristers feel free to commit perjury and pervert the course of justice to suit their client, and the system doesn't have the checks in place to prevent this, the door is open to miscarriages of justice.

[pete75]

How were the PO Judges incompetent?

They obviously were when they convicted people wrongly sending them to jail. They didn't question the evidence.

I'm no legal expert but isn't it the job of the defence lawyer to question the evidence? eg in a jury trial the jury has no opportunity to ask any questions, just assess what is presented to them.

Maybe I've misunderstood the court system (my only experience was pre-trial being summoned to judge's chambers).

Ian

The jury may ask questions. Via a court clerk, the foreman passes a written question to the judge who then asks it on behalf of the jurors.

You're right though, it's the job of defence counsel to question the prosecution evidence, it's not the function of the judge who, theoretically at least, is impartial.