Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells

[Bonefishblues]

Excellent legal analysis from DAG:

"How the legal system made it so easy for the Post Office to destroy the lives of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses – and how the legal system then made it so hard for them to obtain justice":
https://davidallengreen.com/2024/01/how ... n-justice/

Jonathan

That's an excellent summary. Some reflections:

I didn't know about the presumption of computer infallibility until this affair came to light. Absolutely agree it should be treated like every other piece of evidence produce.
Linked to this, we saw in Bradshaw's evidence how tardy and negligent the PO was routinely allowed to be in terms of the (non) disclosure of evidence. I hope that WW will get to the bottom of this, because it reflects particularly badly on the Judiciary that allowed this to happen as a routine (ISTM from the available testimony)
The section on private prosecutions is an excellent deconstruction of what seems to have become seen as something of a 'dark art' whereby the PO exercised some extra powers. No, they just did it routinely, because history and most importantly, nobody supervised its widespread use and abuse. Needs fixing, for sure - but it's almost inconceivable this could happen again, so the horse is already well down the field.
This is the most worrying couple of paras though, in reference to the second of two pieces of luck that Bates & Group had in the selection of Justice Fraser as Judge (and the failure of the PO to get him removed!):

In a sequence of judgments, Fraser skilfully and painstakingly dismantled the Post Office’s legal and technical case.

(It is difficult to imagine many, if any, other High Court judges with the technical understanding and confidence to do this – and it is scarily easy to imagine many High Court judges instead nodding-along with Post Office counsel.)

If true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it says alarming things about the Judiciary worthy of significant review.

And still it wouldn't have happened at anything other than a glacial pace without this lady (who took 3 years to write the brilliant account we saw) Notably, in interview she was saying that the whole production team were dampening each others expectations of viewers during the post NY slump - how wrong she was!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ma-horizon

[toontra]

Excellent legal analysis from DAG:

The Post Office actually does not have any special standing to bring prosecutions; it has the same right to bring a private prosecution as any other person.

Excellent and concise piece. Clears up the power of the PO (or anyone else) to bring a private prosecution. But the PO abused this power, bringing hundreds of prosecutions of SPM's and, crucially, not giving full and proper disclosure to the defence. To their shame they're still attempting to withhold essential data from the ongoing enquiry. Their lawyer's performance yesterday was, in its way (although far drier), as shameful as that of Bradshaw on Thursday.

[Cowsham]

The Post Office, which unlike Royal Mail is still wholly owned by the government, therefore now has "a perhaps unique position as a private prosecutor"

[Cowsham]

The Post Office could be facing a £100m bill and insolvency after claiming tax relief for its compensation payments to post office operators, according to a tax expert.

Dan Neidle, the head of non-profit organisation Tax Policy Associates, said the Post Office claimed £934m tax relief for its compensation payments, and suggested it could be unlawful.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ays-expert

[Bonefishblues]

Mr Neidle's attention is bad news for any individual or organisation playing fast & loose with tax matters.

Ask Mr Zahawi...

[Psamathe]

The Post Office could be facing a £100m bill and insolvency after claiming tax relief for its compensation payments to post office operators, according to a tax expert.

Dan Neidle, the head of non-profit organisation Tax Policy Associates, said the Post Office claimed £934m tax relief for its compensation payments, and suggested it could be unlawful.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ays-expert

At what point does the Gov. decide that the costs of keeping the Post Office going exceed the value to society (and costs of alternatives)?

Are there parts of the Post Office business that could be sold (as when their broadband/phone business was sold to Shell). Or would selling off profitable parts just mean even more subsidy for the remaining services (eg with so many bank branches closing and older pensioners using PO for banking services).

Of course those affected should be properly compensated but I feel western society is sometimes prepared to deflect blame to "corporate responsibility" where in reality this scandal was carried out by real people making decisions. Those individuals need to be held to account and punished for what they did.

Ian

[pete75]

Ironically, it's the concept of fairness in the legal system which may mean Paula Vennells never stands in the dock. Such is the level of publicity and villifaction she's received, her solicitor would put up a strong argument that it would be impossible to find jurors without bias, and thus impossible for her to receive a fair trial.

What's also ironic is that the Church of England appointed her a member of it's Ethical Investment Advisory Group.

[Bonefishblues]

They might try, it'd be unlikely they would succeed.

[Jdsk]

They might try, it'd be unlikely they would succeed.

Is that about the fair trial? If so I agree: it's not uncommon for there to be a lot of publicity before charges are made. That includes public inquiries but of course not usually a television series.

The timing on this was always going to be difficult. i hope that exoneration and compensation of the victims can be separated from criminal prosecution etc.

Jonathan

PS: The concern about primary legislation for exoneration continues:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ation-bill

[Jdsk]

The thing I didn't know about the post office was that they have their own judicial powers or the full power of the criminal justice system at their disposal ( I've got that right -- correct me if that's wrong ) and have done for 300 years. If that's correct it's little wonder the place was riddled with corruption.

The powers and the background:
https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/artic ... osecutions

As I've previously posted I don't expect this to survive.

"Bar Council calls for review of private prosecution powers":
https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/ ... lease.html

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

They might try, it'd be unlikely they would succeed.

Is that about the fair trial? If so I agree: it's not uncommon for there to be a lot of publicity before charges are made. That includes public inquiries but of course not usually a television series.

The timing on this was always going to be difficult. i hope that exoneration and compensation of the victims can be separated from criminal prosecution etc.

Jonathan

PS: The concern about primary legislation for exoneration continues:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ation-bill

It was Jonathan.

I think that the two actions will naturally separate themselves - I think that the exoneration Bill (assuming it does proceed) will precede the criminal trial(s) - which will be predicated on the outcome & findings of the WW Enquiry.

[toontra]

See also another abuse of the UK legal system under review - SLAPPs

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... %20system.

[Psamathe]

Ironically, it's the concept of fairness in the legal system which may mean Paula Vennells never stands in the dock. Such is the level of publicity and villifaction she's received, her solicitor would put up a strong argument that it would be impossible to find jurors without bias, and thus impossible for her to receive a fair trial.
...

Might the "fair trial" depend on the evidence? If pretty black and white eg jury takes 10 mins to reach unanimous verdict then bias in jury less likely and it becomes more of an issue of fair sentence?

Ian

[Cowsham]

They might try, it'd be unlikely they would succeed.

She handed back her CBE but that's not enough -- she got paid £5m in bonuses of our money -- she should be made to hand that back.

People have been ostracized in their own communities because of her actions it won't matter if the jury is biased or not the facts have to be judged after all these poor sbm's were subject to a jury who were probably biased against them because of the nature of the crime they were being accused of and the 'hard facts ' of their guilt in figures produced by the infallible Horizon computer system.

If it's trial by media so be it and she deserves it.

But it should not stop with just her the long list of other criminals should include
1. Tony Blair and advisors
2. Those at Horizon involved in the cover up
3. Those at the post office involved in the cover up.
4. Judges who were involved and didn't question the po's evidence.

[Jdsk]

They might try, it'd be unlikely they would succeed.

Is that about the fair trial? If so I agree: it's not uncommon for there to be a lot of publicity before charges are made. That includes public inquiries but of course not usually a television series.

The timing on this was always going to be difficult. i hope that exoneration and compensation of the victims can be separated from criminal prosecution etc.

PS: The concern about primary legislation for exoneration continues:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ation-bill

It was Jonathan.

I think that the two actions will naturally separate themselves - I think that the exoneration Bill (assuming it does proceed) will precede the criminal trial(s) - which will be predicated on the outcome & findings of the WW Enquiry.

Thanks

That sounds likely to me. But I sometimes wonder if the inquiry in its present form will survive.

Jonathan