Lates news round-up

Hello!

Apologies for being quiet recently, I’ve been dealing with notes from my publisher on the latest book draft (on pre-sale here). That has been completed and the pre-legalled accuracy checks are now being made, which will take several weeks.

It means, however, that I am able to briefly surface for air and sneak in a quick secret email, which I hope finds you well.

Interviews under caution

I have put up a blog post confirming the Sunday Mirror’s scoop that two people have been interviewed under caution about perjury. I am grateful to Tony Collins for putting that information in the Sunday Mirror article into the online sphere. Read his post here.

A torturous series of emails yesterday with the Met Police press office gave me enough information to get confirmation of something, and whilst something is better than nothing, it is, as you will read, not much.

Academic study into the Post Office scandal

Professor Richard Moorhead from the University of Exeter has got the funding together to launch an academic study into the legal and ethical failures of organisations and individuals involved in the Horizon scandal.

As well as reading the launch site’s summary of the study’s aims (and request for information), I would thoroughly recommend reading the first briefing paper which has been published alongside it.

It is online here and also linked to from the study’s website. The briefing paper lays out so many transgressions you are left shaking your head in disbelief. It’s useful to see them collated in one place.

Electronic Evidence and how the courts perceive it

The latest edition of Electronic Evidence and Electronic Signatures edited by Stephen Mason and and Daniel Seng has just been published. £55 in physical form, but free as a pdf!

Stephen Mason was the first expert I spoke to (back in 2013) who was absolutely unequivocal that IT networks were entirely capable of serious error, even whilst apparently performing well. It was partly his expertise and encouragement which gave me the impetus to continue banging my head against the wall with this story when very few other people were doing much.

The new edition of Mr Mason’s book contains, as you might imagine, lots of references to the Horizon network and what Mr Justice Fraser thought of it. It also contains a reference to James Christie, who got in touch yesterday…

Incompetence at Fujitsu and the Post Office

… to tell me about his latest blog post, entitled “Privileged accesses” – an insight into incompetence at Fujitsu and the Post Office. Mr Christie is a former internal auditor who became very exercised by the Post Office scandal in the light of the Fraser judgments. Some of his early blog posts on the Post Office’s inept internal audit functions are superb – I mentioned them last year and they are worth revisiting.

Mr Christie tells me he is working on a paper for Stephen Mason about “failings in the corporate governance of IT at the Post Office” which will be published soon. He has looked at the evidence given by Paula Vennells to the BEIS Select Committee last year and thinks some of it is “highly misleading”. As soon as the piece is published, I will let you know.

Hundred thousand pound hoops

The government recently announced it was going to give up to £100,000 as an interim payment to those Postmasters whose convictions have been overturned. Not just like that of course, there’s a lengthy application form to fill out, put together by big city law firm Herbert Smith Freehills. HSF negotiated the settlement to Bates v Post Office for the Post Office, about which the Post Office CEO subsequently said was understandable to consider unjust.

A few applicants secret emailers have sent me blank copies of the application form, which includes the questions:

Do you receive any social security benefits?

and

What is your current income (gross of tax)?

Which is very odd. What bearing does that have on compensating someone for what happened in the past?

The application form also asks a lot of questions about the sort of claims for damages the applicant is making. Putting this information in the hands of the Post Office’s lawyers ahead of a malicious prosecution claim could be dangerous.

This interim payment was presented by the government as a helpful gesture to tide people over which would not

“prevent people from bringing civil claims through the Courts”.

It might not prevent them, but there’s nothing to stop it affecting their claims.

I spoke to one anonymous Subpostmaster who has no intention of going anywhere near an interim payment. He wants his full claim settled in one go.

Others are not so financially secure and need the money now. They would be forgiven for having concerns it might be a trap. I hope every single one of the 59 people whose convictions have been overturned takes careful legal advice before doing anything.

Legal presumption of reliability

The Law Commission’s boneheaded legal presumption that computers are working properly at all times if they look like they are is the subject of attention from the British Computing Society.

The BCS has joined a campaign now spearheaded in parliament by the MP Darren Jones, to get rid of this dangerous presumption, which did for so many Subpostmasters in court. It has warned more miscarriages of justice are inevitable unless the presumption is removed.

New legal action against the Post Office?

The Post Office’s Historical Shortfall Scheme for people who were not claimants in Bates v Post Office and who did not have criminal convictions was opened and closed very quickly last summer.

One lawyer (Neil Hudgell) went on the record expressing doubts as to whether it was fair, another (Paul Marshall) tried to get it halted and changed via judicial review. He failed.

The Post Office thought it was going to get £35m worth of claims via the scheme, it ended up with more than £300m from more than 2000 applicants. It is the claims to this scheme which has made it cease to be able to operate as a going concern without a bailout from the government. The scheme was a condition of the settlement to Bates v Post Office.

There were many former Subpostmasters and their families who missed hearing about the scheme and its 17 week opening window who are now stuck. They lost money to the Post Office, they weren’t part of Bates v Post Office and they don’t have criminal convictions to overturn.

The daughter of one such Postmaster is looking to put together a legal action against the Post Office to get her family’s money back.

Myra Philp and her mum bought Auchtermuchty Post Office (made famous by the TV adaptation of Dr Finlay’s Casebook) in 2001. Myra said “Horizon got it wrong from Day 1” and soon swallowed up £46K of their savings.

“We were closed down, then strangers were brought in to run the PO counter. My mum was suspended and told that if she was younger she would have been prosecuted. We were told to hand over the branch to a local mini-supermarket. Mum never got over the shame and never worked again. She died in Jan 2018.”

Myra would like to hear from anyone who might have missed the application window to the HSS, and, she would be more than willing to speak to any journalist reading this who would like to publicise her situation. Hit reply and I’ll put you in touch.

New Post Office inquiry protocols

As part of the shift in scope for the Post Office Horizon inquiry, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams, several new protocols for the disclosure of documents and anonymity/redaction orders have been published on the inquiry website. I haven’t yet read them. I’m trying to write a book…

Thanks to everyone who has been in touch since the last newsletter. It is always great to get any correspondence. Hello to all the new secret emailers who have signed up after buying a pre-sale copy of the book. I hope you find this occasional service useful.

Right – back to the accuracy checks and exciting things like choosing fonts and quote styles. This newsletter will return in a few weeks

Yours

Nick