7 ms·

The answer to this question is that senior executives within the Post Office knew that Horizon had faults and deliberately withheld the information when prosecu

The answer to this question is that senior executives within the Post Office knew that Horizon had faults and deliberately withheld the information when prosecuting the sub-postmasters. This is a fundamental breach of the prosecutor's duty to disclose any evidence that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case. This duty continues to exist after conviction so timing of knowledge is irrelevant. The judgment is telling in that there are records in which Post Office officials made statements that minutes of meetings about faults in the Horizon system should not be taken so as to avoid having to disclose them in proceedings. It is corporate failure on an unimaginable scale and three convicted individuals have died before having their convictions quashed. Yesterday's judgment is long but very readable. I would anticipate further fallout and understand there may be a live police investigation on the basis that several individuals may have perverted the course of justice by either proceeding with prosecutions or omitting material evidence from testimony.

silexia 5y ago
A big part of the problem is that the post office is not accountable as it's a government organization. A private company would be bankrupted by this, but the post office will just be bailed out by taxpayers.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  At one point the Post Office's own barrister had to tell them in no uncertain terms that their attempts to prevent disclosure might amount to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (a pretty serious crime). The Post Office might not be bankrupted, but I don't think this is going to go well for many of the people involved in the prosecution. The wheels of justice run slow but grind exceedingly fine etc.
  - afandian 5y ago
    Can you cite that specifically? I'm reading through the judgment but its slow going.
    - sjy 5y ago
      See paras 82 to 90.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  Instead of viewing the problem as "bailing out", maybe it should be viewed at mitigated and fixed - because a system that people rely upon, one that needs to work, should be kept working - there are no better alternatives. With private companies, everyone else is often left holding the bag - esp e.g. with mining and drilling companies. But with private corruption companies too - the bankruptcy of the company typically involves all of those being owed money taking a hit if not losing their money completely.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > owed money taking a hit if not losing their money completely. You mention that as if it’s a bad thing? Wiping out bad investments is one of the major tenets of free market approaches. It’s the negative feedback loop for bad investments. If something is unsustainable, it should go out of business and the investors should take a loss.
    - silexia 5y ago
      I agree with the grandparent. Externalities should be born by the company making the profits. Example: imagine an oil company that can pump toxic fluids into the ground in order to cheaply extract lots of oil. Those toxic fluids render miles of ground as wasteland far into the future. The owners of the company should not be allowed to take the profits now, then allow the company to go bankrupt so they don't have to pay back and repair the damage they did. The limited liability company should be eliminated as it encourages terrible behaviors.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        > I agree with the grandparent. Externalities should be born by the company making the profits. You ignored what I wrote. Wiping out investors is making externalities born by the company. My statement has nothing to do with externalities. It’s about investors being on the hook a good thing. The grandparent implied that poor investors lose their money on one hand and complain about externalities going to public on the other, which makes no sense. Holding companies, and subsequently shareholders, accountable for all of the company liabilities is the capitalist way.
- rectang 5y ago
  > it's a government organization You're conveniently overlooking the role that Fujitsu, the software contractor, played. The issue is concentration of power at large organizations, relative to the rights of individuals in society. It is problematic when any organization accumulates too much power and runs roughshod over an individual citizen, whether that organization is government or private enterprise.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  The UK post office was privatized in the middle of the period in question, so your assertion is half-true. Of course, even as a private entity it retains an aura of state authority which may have swayed perceptions of juries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail#Privatisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail#Privatisation
  - jayelbe 5y ago
    No, this is not accurate. The Post Office was split from Royal Mail; Royal Mail was privatised while the Post Office remained (and still remains) in the public sector.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      A good point, I misremembered the structure of the companies post-privatization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Ltd
- kergonath 5y ago
  Well, then reality is a direct contradiction of your point of view. The Post Office is actually a private company, and yet here we are...
Buttons840 5y ago
I don't think that is the answer to the question. The OP asked, "doesn't there need to be evidence beyond just 'a computer said so'?". You said the answer is that "the computer said so" and then the operator of the computer said "I agree with the computer". In my mind, the question still remains. Isn't there any requirement to show where the money went, what account it went into, give dates and details about how they stole the money, etc? Of course, hiding the known bugs in the software is a scandal and worth talking about, but it doesn't answer the original question I think.
- smallnamespace 5y ago
  Money is just a number in a database somewhere, so you’re also advocating for ‘the computer said so’, for a slightly different set of computers.
  - Buttons840 5y ago
    I'm not advocating for anything. Just saying that "Why isn't there a higher legal standard for proof?" answered with "The Post Office management knew about the bugs." isn't a satisfying question/answer exchange.
- mcguire 5y ago
  What kind of standard of proof do you expect, beyond "convincing to a jury"?
pmarreck 5y ago
> This is a fundamental breach of the prosecutor's duty to disclose any evidence that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case So this is basically saying "the system is only as just as the integrity of the persons involved with the case when factoring in perverse incentives"

silexia 5y ago

A big part of the problem is that the post office is not accountable as it's a government organization. A private company would be bankrupted by this, but the post office will just be bailed out by taxpayers.

pmyteh 5y ago
At one point the Post Office's own barrister had to tell them in no uncertain terms that their attempts to prevent disclosure might amount to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (a pretty serious crime). The Post Office might not be bankrupted, but I don't think this is going to go well for many of the people involved in the prosecution. The wheels of justice run slow but grind exceedingly fine etc.
- afandian 5y ago
  Can you cite that specifically? I'm reading through the judgment but its slow going.
  - sjy 5y ago
    See paras 82 to 90.
dv_dt 5y ago
Instead of viewing the problem as "bailing out", maybe it should be viewed at mitigated and fixed - because a system that people rely upon, one that needs to work, should be kept working - there are no better alternatives. With private companies, everyone else is often left holding the bag - esp e.g. with mining and drilling companies. But with private corruption companies too - the bankruptcy of the company typically involves all of those being owed money taking a hit if not losing their money completely.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > owed money taking a hit if not losing their money completely. You mention that as if it’s a bad thing? Wiping out bad investments is one of the major tenets of free market approaches. It’s the negative feedback loop for bad investments. If something is unsustainable, it should go out of business and the investors should take a loss.
  - silexia 5y ago
    I agree with the grandparent. Externalities should be born by the company making the profits. Example: imagine an oil company that can pump toxic fluids into the ground in order to cheaply extract lots of oil. Those toxic fluids render miles of ground as wasteland far into the future. The owners of the company should not be allowed to take the profits now, then allow the company to go bankrupt so they don't have to pay back and repair the damage they did. The limited liability company should be eliminated as it encourages terrible behaviors.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > I agree with the grandparent. Externalities should be born by the company making the profits. You ignored what I wrote. Wiping out investors is making externalities born by the company. My statement has nothing to do with externalities. It’s about investors being on the hook a good thing. The grandparent implied that poor investors lose their money on one hand and complain about externalities going to public on the other, which makes no sense. Holding companies, and subsequently shareholders, accountable for all of the company liabilities is the capitalist way.
rectang 5y ago
> it's a government organization You're conveniently overlooking the role that Fujitsu, the software contractor, played. The issue is concentration of power at large organizations, relative to the rights of individuals in society. It is problematic when any organization accumulates too much power and runs roughshod over an individual citizen, whether that organization is government or private enterprise.
anigbrowl 5y ago
The UK post office was privatized in the middle of the period in question, so your assertion is half-true. Of course, even as a private entity it retains an aura of state authority which may have swayed perceptions of juries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail#Privatisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail#Privatisation
- jayelbe 5y ago
  No, this is not accurate. The Post Office was split from Royal Mail; Royal Mail was privatised while the Post Office remained (and still remains) in the public sector.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    A good point, I misremembered the structure of the companies post-privatization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Ltd
kergonath 5y ago
Well, then reality is a direct contradiction of your point of view. The Post Office is actually a private company, and yet here we are...

Buttons840 5y ago

I don't think that is the answer to the question. The OP asked, "doesn't there need to be evidence beyond just 'a computer said so'?". You said the answer is that "the computer said so" and then the operator of the computer said "I agree with the computer". In my mind, the question still remains. Isn't there any requirement to show where the money went, what account it went into, give dates and details about how they stole the money, etc? Of course, hiding the known bugs in the software is a scandal and worth talking about, but it doesn't answer the original question I think.

smallnamespace 5y ago
Money is just a number in a database somewhere, so you’re also advocating for ‘the computer said so’, for a slightly different set of computers.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  I'm not advocating for anything. Just saying that "Why isn't there a higher legal standard for proof?" answered with "The Post Office management knew about the bugs." isn't a satisfying question/answer exchange.
mcguire 5y ago
What kind of standard of proof do you expect, beyond "convincing to a jury"?

pmarreck 5y ago

> This is a fundamental breach of the prosecutor's duty to disclose any evidence that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case So this is basically saying "the system is only as just as the integrity of the persons involved with the case when factoring in perverse incentives"