Paula Vennels being questioned at the Post Office Inquiry, followed by others - thread 2

10 years ago I was working for a company that had a terrible tech system and when I joined the company, not particularly having any tech expertise, I asked a lot of relevant questions and significantly improved matters. I wouldn’t remember individual emails but I would remember clearly what I had been trying to do and the problems we were facing and not make vague ‘i can’t recall’ ‘nobody told me’ statements. And if put on the stand I would answer clearly and not add insult to injury by not even trying to answer. If she’s not been working except on this inquiry (as she states) it beggars belief that she hasn’t refreshed her memory on some of these details before taking the stand. She’s a disgrace to herself, let alone anyone else.

Can I ask this about criminal activity

https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/vennells-day-2-cover-up-finally-acknowledged/

in this blog it says the head of legal, Hugh Flemington, would give “signals” to the Criminal Case Review Board (or whatever it’s called).
For me, this is sufficient evidence that he knew the convictions didn’t stand up, and he wanted to delay or undermine attempts to put the miscarriages of justice right.

Would that be enough in and of itself to lead to a prosecution of perverting the course of justice?

I think that the whole shoddy crowd should give their bonuses back and, if the evidence is there (which it seems to be) be prosecuted and justice should be served.

But…. I do have some sympathy with the ‘I do not recall’ responses. I very much doubt I would remember e mails that I sent more than a decade ago.

Not to mention those that were /arewaiting for their convictions to be overturned. There was a poor guy on the news a while ago who struggled to find employment due to his 'conviction' and having a criminal record. He said even things like getting insurance could be affected. Absolutely disgraceful.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’ve only just started watching the live streaming and watched the PV sessions, but have subsequently read far more about the others involved and the Simon Clark advice.

I can’t imagine what some of those wrongly convicted must be feeling when they are hearing the endless “I can’t recall”. For those who’ve been directly affected and had their lives ruined to then see these major players desperately trying to not incriminate themselves by all manner of avoidance just adds to their injustice in this awful travesty

The victim list goes wider. The knock on effects from the loss of good character. No longer a good character witness or sponsor for visa applications. Some people have been deported as a result.

The loss of home and income impacts the whole family.

The Post Office people involved didn't care. Even when they knew their evidence was false they doubled down on it.

Thankyou for this thread and the link . I managed to watch the first link for a couple of hours . Could someone in the know please tell me how to watch the whole enquiry and will the enquiry continue and when.?

Thankyou

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uB3-hID1-aw

This guy is often pretty good at explaining legal things....

Can any action be taken against Vennells for Dereliction of duty as CEO? Because her whole testimony appears to be that of she didn't know, she didn't question, which surely she should have done.

It hasn't. No suicide in custody has led to a corporate manslaughter charge. No employers have been prosecuted following an employee suicide. The only suicide-related cases of which I am aware are NHS trusts being prosecuted after suicides by inpatients on psychiatric wards. Maybe it should be different, but this is where we are at the moment.

Although I’m not sure if that’s ever actually been applied in a prison context either as people do definitely kill and harm themselves in prison.

Corporate manslaughter can definitely apply when someone commits suicide but I don’t know if they’ll apply it here. I used to work in prison education and if someone harmed or killed themselves because of your negligence it would be a matter of corporate manslaughter. That was part of our training anyway.

No, you don't have to conspire but, as there were others involved, the authorities could go for conspiracy. It doesn't really affect the sentence and may be easier to get a conviction as all the prosecution have to show is that she agreed with others a course of action that would result in justice not being served on subpostmasters. They wouldn't have to show that she directly prevented proper administration of justice. So, for example, agreeing with others that Post Office would hide evidence that should clearly have been disclosed to defendants is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

You wouldn't get her for accessory to perjury. You would have to show that she had encouraged Jenkins to commit perjury or helped him to do so. You might get Jarnail Singh, the Post Office lawyer who instructed Jenkins, on that basis, but I doubt it would stick.

Whilst the judge did accuse van den Bogerd of lying, I don't think she will be done for perjury. It is pretty much unheard of for someone to be charged with perjury for evidence in a civil case, let alone convicted.

Most subpostmasters did not confess. They simply pleaded guilty to false accounting. Even where there was a confession accompanying the guilty plea, you wouldn't get anywhere with an argument that Vennells or the Post Office was using false instruments. Apart from anything else, if the Post Office believed the confessions were genuine, which they clearly did, that is a complete defence.

I just think of those poor victims.

Noel Thomas led in handcuffs to jail. He spent his 60th birthday in a cell.
Janet Skinner , sent to prison whilst leaving two teenage children at home.
The post mistress who was pregnant and sent to jail.

The countless others that were arrested infront of their communities. Many lost their homes, many were left bankrupt.

Some of them were sent to mental health units because they couldn’t cope anymore. The people who tried to commit suicide, the people who did commit suicide.

The people who died as convicted criminals and never got justice.

The crime is perverting the cause of justice. You do not have to conspire.

According to lawyer friends, you would have to show that her actions prevented the proper administration of justice, and that is a hard thing to do. This is why the Gareth Jenkins / Susan Crichton / Simon Clark part of story is so important. I think it is the strongest link between her actions and the disruption of justice (Seema Misra). This is why her and all the lawyers deny knowledge of the Clark advice. Had they properly read and acted upon that advice then the Misra would probably not have been convicted.

You can also be an accessory to a crime, even after the crime has been committed. To my (non legal) brain, she seems to have been an accessory to Jenkins' alleged perjury. I think angela van den Bogard may well be done for perjury. The judge practically accused her of in court, and Beer accused her on making an incorrect statement to the court.

There is also "using a false instrument". This is one of the things Jeffery Archer got done for. He got a friend to write a statement giving him an alibi. On the basis of that statement a case was settled out of court. As it was an out of court settlement, the statement was never presented to a court. He therefore had not committed perjury, but did "use a false instrument to obtain a financial gain". He did commit perjury as well, but the "false instrument" charge was a surprise for him.

Sub postmaster confessions of false accounting were obtained under threat of prosecution for theft. If that threat of a theft charge had no legal basis (because the PO didn't know where the money was and therefore had insufficient evidence to support a theft charge), then maybe the confession was a false instrument that was used to pervert the cause of justice.

I must speak to Lawyer friends.....

Going back to this and apologies for picking your brains does this make the relevance of the Moya(?) exchange more damning?

Are RMG being held to account for prosecutions done on their watch?

(Ex POL employee) Your PV timeline is correct. I knew her as the Network Director from when she joined until she got promoted to MD after Dave Y Smith left in late 2010. The CEO role was a step up again and while most of us assumed the job was going to be hers, it wasn’t a given.

I noted that PV was asked in the Inquiry if she was COO and I think she agreed although I never knew her to have that job title. Her predecessor, Dave Miller did go by the COO title but I always thought that was due to some inflation of job titles from when David Mills referred to himself as CEO. Mills’ successors (David Y Smith and PV) were both styled as MD rather than CEO until separation in 2012.

Vennells is not the only person employed or formerly employed by Post Office who could face charges. However, it now seems from her evidence that she could be charged with:

• Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (a lot of the Post Office witnesses could face this charge)
• Misfeasance in public office
• Her contact with other witnesses after the inquiry was set up may be an offence under the Inquiries Act
• Suppressing information about Horizon from Royal Mail's prospectus when it was floated on the Stock Exchange could also be an offence

What happened to all that money?

Paid out in bonuses to those involved in the cover up, and the rest would have gone to the Exchequer.

If nearly 1000 SPMs were convicted, do we know how many others just paid up to avoid being prosecuted? What happened to all that money?

Correct.