To draw your attention to Mr Bates vs The Post Office

And senior managers didn’t want things to get re - examined because they didn’t want the Post Office’s reputation to be damaged.

So it was ok to damage the reputation of innocent post masters , who often were arrested and taken away in handcuffs in full view of their communities , losing their homes and freedom?

Former Post Office CEO Paula Vennells asked her husband to find a “non-emotive word for computer bugs”

"Bugs" became “branch exceptions”; innocent postmasters continued to be prosecuted.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/23/ex-post-office-boss-paula-vennells-searched-for-non-emotive-words-to-describe-horizon-bugs-inquiry-hears

I'm definitely here for Angela van den Bogerd next week (Thurs and Fri). I'm regretting that I have a full day out with friends that will keep me away from my viewing her testimony.

Oooh, fortuitous x-post with you @nauticant !

How similar is that!

Can't devote chunks of time to it today, but you're making it sound like a day I should watch in entirety when I get the chance...

Meanwhile, I'm reading this very informative article on the 2019 JFSA legal action:
https://www.thelawyer.com/how-justice-done-in-post-office-scandal/

'[The judge] then went onto lambast [Angela van den Bogerd] for deliberately trying to mislead the court. When cross-examined about a document relating to losses the lead claimants had suffered, van den Bogerd sought to come across as unprepared and had “come to the matter cold”. '

'In fact, as MacKenzie had skilfully spotted, she had signed a very detailed witness statement a few days before in preparation for the upcoming Horizon Issues trial which dealt with those very issues. It was an example of, as Donnelly describes, “just proper good lawyering” made possible by having the same team on top of the documents across all trials.'

No he's not. It's a remarkably awful performance as a witness. His main problem is that he was in the thick of it and the documents are damning and he can't claim not to have been involved or that he couldn't have been expected to understand the significance of what he was dealing with. What makes it worse is that he's still employed by the Post Office in a senior role, and I have doubts whether he'd get a similar role elsewhere, and so is stupidly fighting this to protect him and his employer.

He is not coming across very well is he!

That's counsel for the Inquiry done with Rodric Williams. Next is the counsel for the core participants really going for him.

Just started listening to today's evidence. It began looking at the Post Office policy of shredding documents they wanted to make not to exist. Rodric Williams is arguing that this issue is not very connected to the issue of the Post Office using an expert witness (well, someone they presented to the court as an expert witness who wasn't), who withheld important information in the evidence that he gave to the court.

The way he's arguing, he's suggesting that withholding information in giving evidence to a court is unrelated to not providing information in the form of documents to a court because you've destroyed them. What is he trying to do? He is destroying any credibility he might have had remaining from yesterday.

I do think that the SRA will need to take a very good look at all the lawyers involved on the Post Office side at the earliest possible opportunity. But also someone needs to look at the way the PO Legal Department was set up. In a well-run company, the Head of the Legal Department is very senior and may be a board member, and there's an understanding that the others have to listen to and follow their advice even if at first sight it's against the interests of the company. There should never be a question of solicitors feeling afraid to advise their employers fully out of fear for their jobs, or feeling that they've got to help them cover things up when it's directly against professional ethics.

I know lawyers are sometimes guilty of withholding evidence that should be disclosed (as are the police), but in the Sally Clark case the failure was down to the prosecution's pathologist, Alan Williams, not the lawyers. Williams knew there was evidence that one of the children had died of natural causes but did not share that information with other medical witnesses, the police or the prosecution lawyers.

The writer of that email was very junior. Who was supervising her?

Amy Prime was being supervised by the much more experienced Andrew Parsons who controlled what went into the email. Andrew Parsons will be up in front of the Inquiry in May. Apparently there are drafts of the email.

Rodric Williams has another day of testimony tomorrow.

The Sally Clark case was so very sad, and she was a solicitor! before her life got destroyed over and over and over again.

I'd have a teeny bit of respect for Rhodri if he at least admitted that it was his job to defend, under civil law, his employers (Post Office Ltd) to the hilt.

But he pretends to be/or actually is really stupid or has developed some condition that affects his ability to remember. In which case he shouldn't find any similar employment again, if any.

The Law Society Gazette is reporting on this. I think chickens might come home to roost for some of these lawyers. And rightly so. A solicitor's first duty is to the court. It's drummed into you on Day One. Or it used to be.

The writer of that email was very junior. Who was supervising her? In my day letters, the old school kind typed on paper and signed in ink, were read by a partner or at least a senior associate before they left the building.

Lawyers withheld evidence in the Sally Clark case as well. I have no idea how they get away with it.

I haven't watched the TV Programme but I am watching the Inquiry (Live), probably more than I should, but it's compelling viewing. It's almost like a public evisceration so sometimes a bit painful to watch but the various explanations of I didn't know, it wasn't me, I don't the answer and today's favourite, "can you repeat the question" basically says I'm a complete idiot as their defence/explanations, etc.

I haven't watched the TV programme because I know I would find it too upsetting; not because I have any connections with any sub-postmasters but because I know what it's like to be steamrollered by 'professionals'. I've taken them on 3 separate times in my life - won 1, lost 1, drew on 1 but won on goal difference and took away the 'sporting' cup.

Only because they tried getting away with fucking me or my ds over, it wasn't my choice. I knew about the injustice of the Horizon Scandal for a few years before the Mr Bates programme but will watch it one day.

Yeah. People need to go to jail.

And not the ones who did.

"For now, we'll do what we can to avoid disclosure of these guidelines and try to do so in a way which looks legitimate. However, we are ultimately withholding a key document and this may attract some criticism from Freeths [SPMs' lawyers]. If you disagree with this approach do let me know. Otherwise, we'll adopt this approach until such time as we sense the criticism is becoming serious.
[...]
Kind regards,
Amy"

This email, from the Post Office's external litigation lawyers to internal litigation lawyer Rodric Williams, from this morning's evidence is extraordinary:

"I don't remember. I don't recall " terrible memories some of these important people have. I'm surprised they're able to make their way back home at the end of the day.

It's amazing evidence today. For example, Rodric Williams was saying just before lunch that just before Second Sight were about to hand over their report to the Post Office, the Post Office were looking into the possibility of suing Second Sight for defamation when they had no idea what Second Sight might say in the report that had been commissioned by the Post Office.

Thank you for the summary.

I haven't been able to watch much over the last few days, but this matches to a T the bits I did catch!

Here's the man himself: https://twitter.com/Jusmasel2015

I'd imagine he would not be the most biddable person the Post Office had to deal with.

BBC has caught up now with the McCormack email:

The inquiry is presented with an email from campaigner Tim McCormack to Paula Vennells - chief executive of the Post Office between 2012 and 2019 - about the bug in the Horizon system.

McCormack writes that it’s the last chance for Vennells to accept what he's been telling her – there is evidence of the bug in Horizon.

The money doesn’t exist, he says in the email, adding the error could be the reason for many of the Justice For Sub-postmasters Alliance (JFSA) cases.

McCormack asks her to travel to the branch in question and see for herself.

McCormack continues that he wants to “appeal to your sense of decency and compassion” and accept that many of the claimants in the JFSA saga are honest.

If she ignores the email she will be exposed and possibly be open to criminal charges, McCormack adds.

The inquiry sees emails in which the execs discuss how to respond to this.

Williams then emails a reply saying that McCormack is a "bluffer" who expects the board to march to his tune. Williams says they should respond with a “straight bat”.

Counsel to the inquiry asks Williams if by this time he was aware of the bugs.

Williams replies that he was.

He's asked what he meant by a straight bat - Williams says it means "appropriately."