to think that the computer is not always right.

[HelenaDove]

its about the Post Office and the Horizon computer system I saw it on the ITV London news tonight. i cant find a link to an itv London item online.

This is a Mail link but its just over two years old.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568762/Post-Office-facing-paying-millions-compensation-staff-wrongly-accused-taking-missing-cash-glitch.html

www.postofficetrial.com/2019/05/what-kind-of-games-are-you-playing-with.html

Or just read Private Eye.

www.computerweekly.com/news/252459564/Subpostmasters-achieve-stunning-victory-against-Post-Office-in-Horizon-case

www.theregister.co.uk/2019/12/12/post_office_horizon_case_settled/?fbclid=IwAR2NJh3osU-K393YmBI1GuSEg6zzGw7-F4BtbdUTOMZ4HrUtn5mtTn3Kpm8

www.computerweekly.com/blog/Computer-Weekly-Editors-Blog/The-Horizon-scandal-is-over-but-the-fight-continues-an-inquiry-into-the-Post-Office-is-essential?platform=hootsuite

www.computerweekly.com/news/252475611/Subpostmasters-proved-right-on-IT-system-failures-as-calls-for-full-public-inquiry-mount

www.computerweekly.com/news/2240089230/Bankruptcy-prosecution-and-disrupted-livelihoods-Postmasters-tell-their-story

www.computerweekly.com/news/252476160/Call-for-former-Post-Office-CEO-to-step-down-from-public-roles-after-IT-court-battle-lost

Another step forward today. 61 convictions were referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Post Office said that few, if any, would be referred to the courts for appeal. In fact 39 have been referred and no decision has been taken on the other 22, with CCRC needing to do further work on those. The basis for the referrals is that the prosecutions could have been an abuse of process.

www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-in-the-post

Another 7 convictions sent to appeal by the CCRC. Of the outstanding 14, the CCRC has rejected 7 and is continuing to investigate the rest.

Post Office has engaged solicitors to review 900 (yes, nine hundred - that isn't a typo) convictions that may have used Horizon evidence.

The CCRC has called for a review of the rules around private prosecutions. They say, "in the context of the Post Office's combined status as victim, investigator and prosecutor of the offences in question – the CCRC considers that there are reasons for significant concern as to whether POL at all times acted as a thorough and objective investigator and prosecutor, ensuring that all reasonable lines of inquiry were explored". The CCRC say they are firmly of the view that a formal review is needed into how and when it should be permissible for prosecutions to be brought when the prosecutor is also the victim and investigator.

900 Fucking hell!!!!!!!!!!!

Panorama tonight 7.30 BBC1

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52905378

@prh47bridge Thanks for posting and explaining whats going on in legal terms.

I know it has been a long time but just a quick update for those who are interested.

CCRC has now referred 51 cases back to the courts. Of these, 6 have already had their convictions quashed. They were convicted by magistrates, so their appeals were dealt with by the Crown Court. Two more were convicted by magistrates so should be heard by the Crown Court. The Court of Appeal is already dealing with 41 cases with a hearing due late next month. The remaining two may be rolled into this appeal but that is not yet clear.

Post Office is not contesting 38 of the outstanding appeals (in broad terms - I'll qualify that a little below). They are contesting 3 appeals and have yet to make a decision on 3 more. The remaining outstanding case was originally prosecuted by DWP rather than Post Office, so it is up to DWP to decide whether to contest.

CCRC is still considering a further 20 cases and we know that at least 30 more are being prepared for submission to CCRC. It would not surprise me if the number of convictions overturned gets comfortably into three figures by the time this is over.

The appeals next month will be on two grounds. The first is that Post Office's failure to disclose relevant information meant that the defendants could not have a fair trial - in simple terms, they should not have been convicted. The second is that the prosecutions were an affront to the public conscience - in simple terms, they should never have been prosecuted. Post Office is contesting the second ground for all appellants. Indeed, they tried to stop the second ground being heard on the basis that they were not contesting the first ground and the appellants only need to succeed on one of the two grounds for their convictions to be quashed. If the appellants succeed on ground 2 it will be hard, if not impossible, for Post Office to defend cases if the appellants choose to sue them for malicious prosecution.

Post Office now say that 736 people were convicted over Horizon-related discrepancies. As they are arguing that 3 of the cases currently before the Court of Appeal were not Horizon-related when the CCRC said they were, the true figure may be higher.

And the senior figures involved are still senior figures elsewhere.

@prh47bridge

I suspect the answer is no, but does bringing a "malicious prosecution" give rise to a criminal liability? ie could the directors of the PO find themselves in the dock?

No, I'm afraid it doesn't.

Holding senior people to account is, unfortunately, where politics comes in. Statements made by the PM in the House of Commons suggest he wants a proper public enquiry that will hold people to account and could lead to criminal prosecutions. However, the Civil Service clearly don't want that. They just want the whole thing to go away, especially as it is increasingly apparent that, despite Post Office being nominally an arm's length body, civil servants at the BEIS, UKGI and Cabinet Office are complicit. That is why the civil service has persuaded the relevant ministers at BEIS to hold an emasculated enquiry that can't force people to give evidence and is specifically barred from holding any individuals responsible.

Imagine being convicted of a crime thanks to completely false evidence.

Locked up.

Losing your savings and house.

And then not getting a penny in compensation.

We'll put to one side the fact that you will also be on the hook for your board and lodging in prison anyway.

Now remind me about justice. Because it's not really an English thing. Not when you have law and order instead.

Putting aside Post Office's institutional inability to accept that there could be anything wrong with Horizon (as the judge in the civil case said, the modern day equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat) and the fact that they appear to have used the criminal courts as a method of debt collection (getting convictions so they could use the Proceeds of Crime Act to take people's assets), these cases expose two issues with our criminal justice system.

The first is that, following a recommendation by the Law Commission, the law was changed in 1999 (Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act) so that there is now a presumption that a computer is working properly at all material times. That presumption is rebuttable but clearly the defendants would not have the expertise or the evidence to do so. Given the complexity of computer systems, that presumption was wrong and always has been. A system like Horizon will have thousands of defects. It is clearly not safe to assume that any defects affecting branch accounts will be obvious.

The second problem is around disclosure. The prosecution has far more resources available for gathering evidence than the defence. It is therefore vital that the prosecution discloses all relevant evidence to the defence. Indeed, that is what the law requires. However, time and again in miscarriages of justice we see that the police or, in these cases, Post Office, has failed to disclose evidence that might undermine their case. Indeed, we can see in minutes of Post Office meetings that conscious decisions were taken not to publicise information about bugs as it might compromise existing prosecutions. I'm not sure what the answer is on this one. We could require the prosecution to disclose all evidence but that won't necessarily change behaviour. Indeed, there are miscarriages of justice where the police have "lost" (i.e. destroyed) evidence that undermines their case to avoid disclosure.