MR BATES VS THE POST OFFICE - mon to thur ITV 9pm - tv pace no spoilers

[Blondeshavemorefun]

Mon to thur

Mr Bates vs The Post Office is an ITV drama based on a true story of injustice starring Toby Jones, Julie Hesmondhalgh, WIll Mellor and Monica Dolan.
(https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=www.whattowatch.com/watching-guides/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office-cast-plot-and-everything-we-know) (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Mr%20Bates%20vs%20The%20Post%20Office%3A%20release%20date%2C%20cast%2C%20plot%2C%20trailer%2C%20interview%20and%20everything%20you%20need%20to%20know&url=www.whattowatch.com/watching-guides/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office-cast-plot-and-everything-we-know) (https://pinterest.com/pin/create/Button?url=www.whattowatch.com/watching-guides/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office-cast-plot-and-everything-we-know&media=cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NxQdido3aDgZDeD93geoYm-1200-80.jpg)

Mr Bates vs The Post Office is a hard-hitting ITV1 drama starring Toby Jones, Monica Dolan and Julie Hesmondhalgh among others.

The series details one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British legal history, where thousands of Post Office sub postmasters and postmistresses were wrongly accused of theft, fraud and false accounting due to a defective IT system.

Mr Bates vs The Post Office follows Alan Bates (Toby Jones), a sub postmaster who decided to fight back against a scandalous miscarriage of justice.

He was one of thousands of sub postmasters and postmistresses who between 2000 and 2013 were falsely accused of theft due to financial discrepancies thrown up by the flawed Horizon computerised accounting system.

More than 700 were prosecuted and several went to prison while others lost their homes and life savings trying to pay back the money the Post Office claimed was missing.

Many were unfairly ostracised from their communities, who believed they were criminals.

In 2009 Alan Bates decided to form the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance (https://www.jfsa.org.uk/), uniting thousands of his colleagues to
fight to clear their names.

Because we have an adversarial system with decisions made by juries. It's not about truth like an inquisitorial system, it's about who has the most power (including social power).

This was the advice they were given to plead guilty and it's true, especially as the Post Office was concealing evidence they could have used in their defence:

"He said 'no jury in the land would believe an institution as cherished as the Post Office could possibly have a computer system that is rubbish.'"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67929023

It's similar with the police - it's very, very difficult to persuade a jury to convict a police officer even when they've killed people and the evidence is there. Did any of the police officers responsible for the Hillsborough deaths go to prison? No.

See also, rape trials where juries make decisions based on social myths.

Jury trials are unsafe.

I felt sorry for the young woman who pleaded guilty , her family paid back the 'missing 'money and she still ended up in prison aged 19 ( Holloway )
Appalling.

I think the solicitor offers advice - what might happen if you do this, what might happen if you do that. And then their client instructs them.

They cannot defend someone who they know to be guilty (eg if their client has disclosed guilt to them) if that client then pleads not guilty and instructs them to defend them.

But apart from in that instance (which obviously does not apply in the PO cases), I think they have to do what the client instructs them, after being given the best advice the solicitor can give them.

They weren't convicted without evidence. They were convicted on the basis of faulty evidence from Horizon.

A lawyer advises their client. In this case, the advice would have been that pleading not guilty risked a conviction for theft and a jail sentence, but Post Office was willing to drop the theft charge in return for a plea of guilty to false accounting. If the accused accepted this offer, a jail sentence was unlikely.

The lawyers would also have advised their clients that, as the law stands, it was almost impossible for them to fight the Horizon evidence. It used to be the case that, if the prosecution wanted to use evidence from a computer, they had to prove that the computer was operating reliably. That was changed in 1999. Any computer evidence is now presumed to be reliable. If a defendant wants to challenge this, they have to produce evidence to show that the computer was not reliable. That was an insurmountable challenge for the defendants. They simply didn't have the evidence they needed to challenge Horizon, and Post Office, supported by the courts (where judges showed an appalling lack of understanding of complex computer systems), did not disclose the evidence defendants needed.

A few defendants rejected the offer and stuck to their not guilty pleas. Juries found them guilty. Given that no defendant successfully fought a case unless Post Office withdrew, it looks like the advice to accept the deal and plead guilty to false accounting was good advice.

This is correct.

Tallisker apparently the PO did not have to disclose all the evidence or lack of it they possessed on the SPMs so the PO gaslit them and told them better to plead false accounting then go to trial for theft even if the PO had no evidence. The part Ed Davey is culpable is as the postal affairs minister at the time if he had met, listened and felt it deserved oversight by a third part he was in the position to refer the cases to the Crown prosecution services (Keir Starmer was the director at this point). Who could demand the PO had to present all the evidence they had over on the SPM to them and at that point the cases would have collapsed and been thrown out due to the lack of evidence

Sorry it should read the SPM were advised to plead guilty to false accounting or go trial for theft with the possibility of prison if found guilty

Thanks all, I'd forgotten about the 'computer says no' defence - it was made clear in the documentary.

Shocking behaviour by the PO and Fujitsu. Mr Bates showed such strength of character when he refused to sign his accounts, but of course it cost him dear in other ways than a criminal conviction.

thats a really good explanation upthread re adversarial v inquisitorial.

But that seems unfair as a justice system.

I'm not very bright today

😮

That's shocking!

I heard that Fujitsu is still getting govt contracts - I heard that Inland Revenue, NHS etc use their systems.

Makes you wonder if a few palms ar being greased.

Who were the people in charge and involved before Adam Crozier CEO 2003-2010 and Paula Vennels CEO 2012-2019
The Horizon system was rolled out in 1999.
By 2000 there were 6 shortfall convictions !!!

He's destroyed the CodE in my opinion.

Closing churches everywhere, but pushing priests to grow the congregations. How can you have a congregation with no church? Some priests are looking after 3-5 parishes, and I've heard that others have even more (most I heard was 7). It's totally impractical.

Adam Crozier was CEO of Royal Mail, which owned Post Office at the time. His predecessor was John Roberts (2000-2003). Not sure who was in charge before that. David Mills was CEO of Post Office 2002-2005 and was succeeded by Alan Cook. He left in 2010. There was then a gap before Paula Vennells was appointed in 2012, by which time Post Office was no longer owned by Royal Mail. Again, not sure who was in charge before Mills.

They should all be called before a parliamentary committee and grilled. Along with Ed Davey.

I'm not sure I'd have survived if I was falsely convicted of stealing by the Post Office. The opprobrium from family, friends, customers and local people would be appalling to endure.
All the usual old chestnuts would be thrown out -
There's no smoke without fire.
The lady doth protest too much.
She would say that ( claim innocence) wouldn't she.

A few defendants rejected the offer and stuck to their not guilty pleas. Juries found them guilty. Given that no defendant successfully fought a case unless Post Office withdrew, it looks like the advice to accept the deal and plead guilty to false accounting was good advice.

The advice appears contextually good, and the system that we use to deprive people of their liberty and destroy their lives is terrible.

(Former POL employee here) Dates are based on what I can remember plus a bit of digging online. Dates may be a bit off but are roughly right.

The CEOs were John Roberts (1995-2002); Adam Crozier (2003-2010); Moya Greene (2010-2018 - although her role as CEO for Post Office would have ceased in 2012 when Post Office was created as a separate entity from Royal Mail).

While part of Royal Mail Group (also known as Consignia and Post Office Group at different times) POCL had Managing Directors. These were John Roberts (1985- 1993); Richard Dykes (1993-1996); Stuart Sweetman (1996-1999). There was an odd period around 1999-2002 when Consignia created 17 business units, each with its own MD. Dave Miller ran Network Operations and Basil Larkins ran Network Banking. There were others that I forget. In 2002, POCL became POL. Its first MD (albeit badged as CEO) was David Mills (2002-2005); Alan Cook (2006-2010); David Smith (2010); Paula Vennells (2010-2012).

After 2012, POL became a separate entity and so a CEO role was created which Paula Vennells held from 2012-2019. Nick Read took over in 2019 and is still in post.

Not sure that last but is right.
CPS have already admitted to being involved in 27 prosecutions and the number is likely to rise to 50 or more.
That's 50 miscarriages of justice CPS could/should have prevented.
They haven't released dates of these yet. But they will have to.
Public is sick to the teeth of cover ups in this scandal.

Just seen a post office life cover ad. It made me bristle!

The government is saying that there could be people convicted who did actually steal from the post office and will now have their convictions quashed and also be compensated.
Whilst I see what they’re saying , surely this would be quite a tiny amount of people?

Agree and they’ll have to aug. There was no wrong doing so could be fine for fraud if caught later.

I think the risk is worth it.

⬆️Can’t edit

”they (SPM) will have to sign something to state..”

I think they’ve to sign a statement of innocence which means if proven to be a lie they can be prosecuted down the line.

Plus, isn't British justice allegedly predicated on the foundation that it is better that ten guilty men walk free than one innocent one convicted?

Indeed it is.