Keeping their knees on Seema’s neck

Seema Misra sitting next to her barrister, Ed Henry KC

Today we got some insight into the catastrophic and frankly sinister failings of a group of lawyers at the heart of the Post Office scandal. The lengths Brian Altman (then) QC et al went to to avoid their post-conviction disclosure duties to former Subpostmaster Seema Misra (who was sent to prison whilst eight weeks pregnant) are mind-boggling.

Fujitsu engineer Gareth Jenkins had given expert evidence at Seema Misra’s 2010 trial without disclosing his knowledge of bugs, errors and defects within the Post Office’s Horizon system. In June 2013, Simon Clarke, an in-house barrister at Cartwright King (who prosecuted Subpostmasters on behalf of the Post Office) became aware of the draft Second Sight Interim Report.

Second Sight were independent investigators being paid by the Post Office (at the behest of MPs and the Justice for Subpostmasters’ Alliance) to look into Subpostmaster complaints. The Second Sight Interim Report contained notice of at least two serious bugs in Horizon.

On seeing the draft report, Clarke and his colleague Martin Smith called Gareth Jenkins. Without telling Jenkins, they recorded the conversation.

During the call, Jenkins candidly admitted he was the information source for Second Sight’s bug notice. That led to the first Clarke Advice in which Simon Clarke told the Post Office that Jenkins was a tainted witness who could not be used in future court cases. Clarke also recommended that all Post Office prosecutions should be reviewed.

So far so good. Simon Clarke had (correctly) thrown an enormous spanner in the works of the Post Office’s bent prosecution machine. What has mystified legal folk since is why Seema Misra was not told her conviction may be unsafe.

We know that Gareth Jenkins was not properly instructed as an expert witness, but no one to date disagrees with Clarke’s analysis. Jenkins knew about the extent of bugs in Horizon, but did not reveal them to Seema’s defence team or the court. As Martin Smith today agreed, Jenkins had potentially perjured himself, perverted the course of justice or both. This should have been disclosed to Mrs Misra, but was not.

Martin Smith giving evidence today

Crawling out of the Woodwork

The review of Post Office prosecutions became a Cartwright King review of prosecutions post-2010 on fairly arbitrary grounds. Furthermore, the question for the review was not whether to tell Postmaster defence teams that Gareth Jenkins was a tainted witness. It was whether or not to give them two documents (the Second Sight Interim Report and the Helen Rose Report) which revealed bugs in Horizon.

Brian Altman QC was brought in to review the Cartwright King review. On 9 September 2013, eight lawyers gathered at the feet of Altman. They were Susan Crichton, Rodric Williams, Jarnail Singh (all Post Office), Simon Clarke, Harry Bowyer, Martin Smith (Cartwright King), Andy Parsons and Gavin Matthews (both Bond Dickinson).

The issue of Gareth Jenkins is front and centre to the discussion. Altman brings up Seema Misra and voices his concern that Jenkins (uniquely) gave oral evidence at her trial. The case was brought before 2010, and therefore before the arbitrary cut off date the Post Office had chosen to review its prosecutions. According to Smith’s typed notes of the meeting, Altman wondered how they were going to “deal” with Seema Misra if “she comes forward”.

“So she’s got to come forward”, noted Henry. “The impetus is on her. No one is going to tell her.”
Smith did not demur.
“It seems, by this stage, no one wanted to provide Mrs Misra with a ‘ticket’ to use your expression, to the Court of Appeal. Adopt a passive approach. Correct?”.
“I would certainly agree”, replied Smith “the Post Office did not want, at that stage, to be actively encouraging people to go to the Court of Appeal.”

Mrs Misra was sitting next to her barrister Ed Henry KC as he took Martin Smith through these notes.

The minutes also record Altman approving (as “sensible”) the 2010 cut off date for what became known as the CK Sift Review and reviewing pre-2010 applicants on a case-by-case basis. He then notes the Post Office “can’t avoid the possibility [the? more?] Misras might crawl out of the woodwork”. Like insects, Brian, right?

Smith’s typewritten note of the meeting with Altman

Henry wanted to know why Seema Misra wasn’t a slam dunk for disclosure, given that an expert witness, who may have committed perjury during her trial, was now accepted by all present as tainted.

“I don’t know”, replied Smith.

The meeting minutes show the gang of lawyers keep coming back to the Misra issue. When Gavin Matthews suggests apologising, Altman says “I wouldn’t.” He is also adamant she needs to be kept out of the mediation scheme, or the Post Office is “storing up trouble”.

Sir Wyn Williams

During his questioning, Henry brought Smith’s mind to focus. “You realise of course that I am sitting next to Mrs Seema Misra today?” he asked.

“I… I… I didn’t realise that”, replied Smith, with some surprise in his voice.

The inquiry Chair, Sir Wyn Williams, had a question for Smith about his notes: “What does ‘Misra unique’ mean, so far as you are concerned?”
“I am afraid I’ve got no idea, sir.” Smith replied.
“Let me jog your memory”, Henry interjected. “It’s because it’s the only case in which Mr Jenkins gave oral evidence against a defendant.”
“That may be the case”, Smith accepted.

Clearly passes the disclosure threshold

Henry took Smith to a Cartwright King note likely written by Smith’s colleague Harry Bowyer which stated that by December 2013 it was his opinion that the Misra case “clearly passes the disclosure threshold” and that Cartwright King “will be disclosing the Second Sight Interim Report and the Helen Rose report to Misra’s lawyers”.

By January 2014, this advice has somehow, magically changed. Simon Clarke is now reviewing the Misra case, and he concludes she is due no disclosure, advice Henry told the Inquiry Clarke forwarded to his colleague Martin Smith with a covering email simply stating “Phew!!!”

Henry asked Smith if he believed Seema was “owed the truth”. Smith agreed “absolutely”. So, Henry asked, what happened between December 2013 and January 2014 to change Cartwright King’s advice?

Smith suggested more documents about Seema Misra’s case had become available to Cartwright King, but how they had a bearing on the final – reputationally essential – decision not to disclose, was not something he could opine on.

Simon Clarke will be giving evidence to the Inquiry next week, as will Brian Altman (now) KC. I wonder if they will be asked if they ever considered that in not disclosing crucial evidence to Seema Misra they might have been perverting the course of justice.

An Enemy of the Business

Another previously unseen document surfaced today. It is a draft briefing by Second Sight which was commissioned by Post Office General Counsel Susan Crichton and given to her successor Chris Aujard in January 2014. It is a review of the investigation function of the Post Office. The language in the document is stark. Second Sight state:

“POL [Post Office] Investigators often appear to have paid scant attention to the interviewee’s assertions of innocence or his/her reference to specific transaction anomalies. They seem to have shown little or no willingness to establish the underlying root cause of any given shortfall.”

Second Sight accept that in coming to their conclusions they “have not interviewed any of the members of the Investigation Team, nor its senior management. We have not reviewed its mandate, manpower or workload.”

Nonetheless they are confident enough in what they had seen to conclude:

“The overwhelming impression gained from reviewing the transcripts of investigative interviews is that the SPMR [Subpostmaster] was viewed as an enemy of the business. The culture within the Investigation Team appears to be one of a presumption of guilt when conducting an investigation, rather than the aim of seeking the truth.”

A presumption of guilt is an obvious precursor to a miscarriage of justice, and the authors of the report (Ron Warmington and likely Ian Henderson) note that the mishandling of investigations has led to where the Post Office had got itself in 2013 – dealing with some very angry people claiming they had been falsely prosecuted. Second Sight explains why bad investigations are bad for business:

“Because identifying loss drivers and correcting systemic weaknesses is such an essential part of Effective Loss Management, it is absolutely vital that the organisation does that job really well… It is hard to overstate the importance of this function in maintaining the health of the organisation.”

Second Sight make a series of recommendations and add contextual references over eight very readable pages.

The report was described today by Chris Aujard as “heavily caveated”. The barrister Flora Page wondered if it did not demand “immediate attention.” Despite the clear warnings about the state of the Post Office’s investigation function and the potential for miscarriages of justice, Aujard disagreed. He told the Inquiry he read the report and then “put it to one side.”

I have scanned and uploaded a fully searchable version below.


I am currently touring Post Office Scandal – the Inside Story. Please do come and see us as we make our way around the country (all dates here). We desperately need to sell more tickets in Hayes (Sunday 5 May) and Swindon (Mon 13 May) for some reason. All the rest are doing quite well. If you can make it to Hayes or Swindon, I’d love to see you!


The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.


Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

42 responses to “Keeping their knees on Seema’s neck”

  1. Whatever else this is a failure of ethical compass and integrity.

  2. If you rewatch the Elaine Cottam interview that attitude epitomises the attitude of POL.
    If you could possibly put aside the seriousness of the issue, and just accept it for it’s comedy value, it’s a world beater.

    1. I disagree. Elaine Cottam likely has early onset dementia and is not representative. What the decision makers at Post Office did was cynically calculated to avoid consequence by continuously feeding lawyers.

    2. I agree with Howard Jones. The attitude of POL *is* epitomised by that ghastly creature.

      To wit,

      “What do we care what happened to these SPMs?”

      “Even if a few of them are innocent on this count, no doubt they’re guilty as hell on other counts.”

      “Let’s destroy their lives, ruin their reputations for ever, bankrupt them, seize their private pensions under POCA, and preferably jail them – specially any pregnant ones, what fun! Hopefully not too many will have the guts to top themselves and end it all.”

      “(Oh, and ethinically label them too, we have former policemen working for us who can assist.)”

      The only material differences between the Cottams and the Croziers is that the latter is a lot more cunning, much better at plotting, lying, and concealment.

  3. I’m not legal…I’m a medical consultant. We are occasionally required to deliver a witness statement, under oath, in a medical public enquiry. We may face questioning from the chair (the coroner) or other parties including those who have an interest in the case or their legal representatives. This is called a coroners court. At the end of the inquest into events surrounding a patients death the coroner will pronounce on cause of death BUT…if he feels that there has been criminality he can refer to the police for further investigation and possible criminal action. Does Sir Wyn have this option?…the stock responses of “I don’t recall”, It wasn’t my job, I wasn’t there, I didn’t read it in spite of overwhelming evidence that none of these pathetic excuses are true would seem to point to criminality…I really hope it is treated as such in due course.

  4. Can someone who is following this story fill me in a little.

    Fujitsu must have realised the system was faulty immediately it started operating in 1999. They were manually correcting the records. The ITV documentary doesn’t say when this knowledge reached the Post Office but it must have been fairly early on. Between the two, dozens or hundreds of staff must have known. How is it possible that there was not a single whistleblower in all that time, say well before 2010? And why didn’t Fujitsu try to actually fix the software?

    1. There were Fujitsu whistle blowers. There were known bugs that led to significant accounting errors being fixed by a team at Fujitsu. Unfortunately there was also a grand corporate plan to make the Post Office a profit making business. By the looks of it, the smaller less profitable Subpostmaster run shops incurred more faults (due to in part to unstable internet connections). This was ‘convenient’ for the POL super corporation looking to downsize and streamline services. Post Office ltd used unfair contracts and legal processes to chill all discussion and control the narrative much like the Horizon help line’s now famous “But you are the only one …” cynically scripted response.

    2. As far as I can see from the Inquiry evidence, Fujitsu were fixing bugs and were carrying out the technical management of Horizon for the PO who owned it and operated it, managing its use within their business processes. This is why there were two service desks (helplines) The key issue to understand is that in any normal management of IT services, there should be no need for whistle-blowing. There are industry-standard processes, with qualifications and certification, that handle the resolution of issues raised by users, problem identification, fixes, and crucially, communication back to users about the performance of the system and any issues they should know about. The key question is why this seems to have not happened for Horizon.

  5. Who instructed these characters? Where did the ethos originate? This question is one that bugs me. From the early days of “you are the only one” to the chairman saying that he did not see complaints from SPMR etc to ms Crichton being kept out of a board meeting one wonders who was driving this scandal?
    I cannot see Tim Parker being kept in the dark, his profile on Wikipedia portrays a man who takes no prisoners (note his nickname) and was in charge for the court case.
    Hopefully all will be revealed in time.

  6. Richard Bell avatar

    JB: what does that paragraph mean?
    JS: I don’t know.
    JB: You wrote it?
    JS: Well, certainly, I did……

    ‘Nough said……

  7. Richard Sutton avatar
    Richard Sutton

    Having now watched most of the Jarnail Singh testimony on the 3rd May, I have changed my opinion about whether the burden of proof of criminal wrongdoing can be met. To put it succinctly, Jarnail has been nailed by his own hand. He is such a poor performer that a decent criminal prosecution barrister will undoubtedly be able to demonstrate to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he has sought to pervert the course of justice.
    Unfortunately, as is usually the way, I suspect that the more senior culprits will evade justice and Mr Singh will become the fall guy. However, in this case, he carries a high degree of culpability.

  8. Richard Sutton avatar
    Richard Sutton

    Surely nearly all of these witnesses will be castigated by the inquiry Chairman in his subsequent report as the “I can’t recall anything that relates to anything I might have done wrongly but remember every detail of something that someone else might have done wrongly” is so obviously a tactic to try and avoid being held responsible for any wrongdoing?
    Unfortunately, as things stand, I am struggling to see how criminal charges would ever succeed against any of these corrupt individuals unless further incontrovertible evidence comes to light which shows categorically that an individual has perverted the course of justice.

  9. No punishment, however grim, for the guilty could suffice.

    None.

    None.

    None.

  10. There was Mr Beer’s wonderful observation to the hapless Jarnail last year, about his grotesque “destroyed” email: “Was this an indication of the degradation of the law in your office?”

  11. michael mcmullen avatar
    michael mcmullen

    “i can’t recall” must have been uttered thousands of times during this enquiry mostly by either investigators or Legal professionals. It seems they use this “covers all” defence when the question might implicate them in some way, even when there is recorded evidence of what they said and to whom. As soon as they are asked a question which might seem to show them in a favourable light, or one that shifts the blame to others they remarkably seem to regain their memories. I am 61 years old and have held various positions in corporate companies. If i was shown an email to or from a client from 30 years ago. even if the content was trivial, I would have no problem in recalling the main context of the conversation. I also served as a juror about 25 years ago and even to this day i can remember details of the 3 cases i attended. I really hope that every single one of the witnesses who have been shown to be either incompetent or obstructive (singh and the utterly repulsive Bradshaw for example) are brought to account for their disgusting behavior not only over the last 30 years, but also during this enquiry

    1. A pity there was no push back on their selective use of can’t recall. Did they really try hard enough to recall? They were not just superficially involved in the cases. Did they really have other higher priority work at the time and this was so incidental. Did nothing jog their memory given all the publicity. One can normally start to remember if given enough clues and its importance. Perhaps a gun to their heads may have made a difference.

    2. I agree. Never mind colleagues and clients from early in my career I can remember teammates from my early school days aged 69 now.The dissembling and clear inability to cope with the situation is appalling. The half baked apologies are meaningless when they so often omit the necessary reference to their part in the scandal ,”I am sorry for what has happened to the SPMRS” doesn’t cut it. Maybe ‘I am sorry for my part in what happened ” may be a bit more meaningful. Continued congratulations to Nick for his terrific work.

  12. Time for Trumpton.

    It’s December and disclosure is in the air. The local village postmistress and her baby who are in Chigley Nick could be freed and her conviction overturned.

    But wait, someone has called the Trumpton fire brigade to extinguish the fire of disclosure in the local solicitors office.

    Phew! Coup!, Simon’s Review, Woodwork, Misra, Grub

    PC McGarry where are you?

    1. I see the makings of a Post Office scandal parody here

    2. lol

  13. Second Sight report page 3:

    “Had POL’s investigators handled their assertions more sympathetically
    – and professionally – at the outset, and invested a little more time in
    reaching closure with them, there would now be far fewer of them
    calling for their cases to be re-investigated.”

    does that mean that SS consider many of the SPMs seeking to have their cases re-investigated are “jumping on the Hz bandwagon?

    1. No, the imputation is if sympathy, common sense and a degree of natural curiosity were exercised that there would have been a much smaller number of people prosecuted in the first instance, so leading to fewer appeals overall.

    2. I don’t think so. This was a carefully written report that put simply says to the Post Office ‘you have created a massive problem’. It is frankly scary that this document didn’t quickly get to the Audit Committee and trigger a major investigation of the investigators. The lack of information flow is at the core of the problems in PO. It clearly was a textbook pathological organization.

  14. Thank you for was another excellent commentary. The download suggests lots of areas where PO didn’t use any sort of best practice. I bet it hasn’t changed even now.
    It was set up to fail as an organisation by being foist with an appalling IT system to begin with.
    I can’t imagine Post Office would be the best career option for anyone senior who was really good at their job, so I’m assuming the people filling the senior jobs couldn’t find anything better and settled for these jobs in desperation. Or maybe they were used to lax practice.
    The same would seem to apply to some law firms too from this transcript.
    Given Vennell’s comment about Crichton favouring her professional duties to the law over those to the PO there were some poorly educated people here doing professional roles without doing any professional development courses, or just ignoring the ones they did.
    Big issue is that professional bodies don’t have the money to truly hold their members’ feet to the fire.
    I regularly see Seema and Jo in attendance and what they hear must make them so angry. That’s besides all the hundreds of other SPMRs and their families treated so badly, of course.

    1. Wasn’t the Post Office always considered a joke as a public utility. Never highly regarded and probably near the bottom in ranking of the Government bodies in terms of skill, accountability etc. Given this how many professionals worth their salt would really apply for the unglamorous career stifling positions in the PO. So recruitment was all about the scraping the barrel or picking the scraps

  15. Eileen Colebrook avatar
    Eileen Colebrook

    It has been excruciating watching these lawyers wriggle and squirm within their corporate amnesia.
    It is almost unbelievable and utterly shocking. I applaud all the victims who sit in the inquiry room listening to this dreadful miscarriage of justice. Also thankful that little by little the truth will out.

  16. Lawyers and barristers working or prosecuting for the client (POL) who pays them and not for any truth or fairness. More so also when they have to hide their incompetence. Should not be a surprise and the judge/courts should have been wise to this

  17. I found Smith’s Evidence highly dubious. examples… recorded interview with Jenkins, when asked how and on what equipment? reply I don’t remember. Surely something an event as serious and extraordinary as warranting recording leaves some kind of psychological imprint? He remembers in astonishing detail conversations and events that implicate his colleagues yet seems to have no recollection of far more recent events in which he is front and centre of the allegations. He was sadly all too eager to name names and it will be very interesting to listen to J. Singh today and more over Simon Clark next week, – Thanks Nick for all the many days-months-years of dedication to this travesty.

  18. Something I picked up yesterday was that Martin Smith, Simon Clarke and Harry Bowyer resigned from Cartwright King, setup their own company (still live today according to LinkedIn) and then sold their time back to Cartwright King to work on the Post Office account. Martin Smith even had a CK email address after the split. Not an unusual move, they saw the opportunity to run their own company and seized it. The PO was an obvious source of reliable work where they were known and had an established relationship while they tried to establish other work streams. (They now seem to have a niche in road transport regulatory law.)

    One has to wonder the extent they were bending over backwards to keep the PO sweet so they had enough work to keep their fledging company afloat.

    1. Angus Cameron avatar
      Angus Cameron

      Has the enquiry been told how CK won the PO work? It would be a very big account for a regional office in Derby. Your thoughts on the need for a new business to have an anchor client like the PO have a lot of merit. Hanging onto the revenue stream would be a major consideration in a services business.

    2. These 3 lawyers revealed their only true priority was how much they could individually milk from the ruinous and flailing Post Office. All of them happy to continue the grim work after a simple collective exercise in contract renegotiation. No surprise they were able to continue pretending to be CK with the information they held as leverage.

    3. And they made Smith the CoLP!!!!

  19. Alan Cornforth avatar
    Alan Cornforth

    Now that we are seeing the legal representatives employed by the Post Office, it is clear that this is the core of the problem. For some reason they have ignored the law and decided that POL must be protected at all costs. Why would that be? What could possibly be more important than ‘upholding the rule of law and acting at all times with integrity’? Oh, of course, money!! They had acquired a lucrative contract and saw it disappearing before their eyes if they gave “negative” advice to the POL hierarchy. Surely, these people, at the very least, can be brought to justice as they have clearly flouted the disclosure protocols?

    1. “it is clear that this is the core of the problem.”

      I disagree. The root of the problem is/was the software design… (and failures to address those issues arising) Then there was the problem, IIRC, of not incorporating some form of double entry bookkeeping into it. All else stems from those things.

      In civil engineering, when a structure fails, any casualties are dealt with immediately, as best they can be, then the cause of the failure is investigated. The failed structure is inspected, weather conditions are considered, design is checked to ensure the design was sound, that an adequate factor of safety was included. Samples of materials will be taken. Was the steel of the specified quality, of specified sections, were fixings correct and installed correctly, was concrete of the correct quality/mix, and only thereafter would user / human error be considered. Unusual loadings, for instance…

      Only after that, would the legal chappies get involved to attempt to minimise the impact upon the main contractors, try to place it onto subbies. Were fasteners torqued correctly, and of the correct spec? lots of people can’t get to grips with that. You can tighten a fastener to the point it actually breaks or torque it to the point where it’s on the edge of failure needing just a bit more loading to actually break… But, of course, civil works’ failures often occur in full view. Horizon was failing less overtly, less spectacularly…

      The legal teams were not at the root of the problems. (doesn’t mean I like them…) If anything, in defending / attemptng to defend the indefensible, they ensured the core problems were not addressed as quickly as they might have been, and they prevented the various CEOs over the years from being made answerable for failures… In other words, they seemed to impede justice…

      1. No.

        The root of the problem is the institutional incompetence and adversarial subpostmaster contracts which meant the PO didn’t require Horizon to do normal double entry bookkeeping.

        If a bunch of qualified engineers build a structure and it falls down, the root cause is whatever mistake(s) the engineers made.

        If a bunch of monkeys build a structure and it falls down, the root cause is that they are a bunch of monkeys

      2. If anyone has the time and wants to understand software design, then it is well worth watching the evidence of Charles Cirpione given to the inquiry on 18 October 2022.

        Having personally spent many years in the IT industry* I found this a masterclass in presenting a highly technical issue to the masses.

        So much so that I would encourage anyone embarking on a career in IT to take note of the content. They can then compare and contrast with the Horizon debacle and the impact of poor project management, system analysis and software development on society.

        The Post Office scandal will be analysed in Business and Management Schools and hopefully the legal profession for many years.

        I agree with your point around robust Financial systems and sound double entry bookkeeping. But Horizon was not built for the purpose it was eventually used for, it was under resourced and as once said… ‘bolted together’… ‘we undo the barbed wire, stick a bit in and then wrap it back up’.

        The lack of a financial reporting suite in Horizon that could be used to query Horizon data was highlighted early on by Alan Bates.

        Any system lacking referential integrity was bound to fail.

        The integrity of POL management and their legal team was based on a simple equation

        Horizon data = True
        Subpostmasters logic = False

        If challenged then
        Post Office Brand > Subpostmasters lives

        The lesson being for all professions…

        The only way is Ethics.

        * If any qualified lawyer would like a masterclass in how to print and save a document my rates are reasonable.

      3. Alan Cornforth avatar
        Alan Cornforth

        I note your contrary opinion but I still believe, no matter whether the software was Horizon or the previous Capture software, that the methodology for dealing with alleged shortfalls by sub-postmasters was ingrained into the PO psyche. Force them to plead guilty and threaten them with jail if they don’t comply as a deterrent. I believe the PO could have dealt with bugs/errors and ambiguities in any software that had been written for them if only they had the correct mindset and not rely on a legal iron rod to compensate for a lack of insight in to the people they were in partnership with!

      4. Not to disagree too much but ..
        in this case the same bridge collapsed 1000’s of times and the legal chappies just kept accepting their fees to prosecute/defend.
        Because it was Great Business! Slam dunk “proof of false accounting” and therefore implied guilt of theft. Easy to prosecute , easy to plea.
        Why POL believed Horizon over the integrity of 1000’s of their own people and bought these cases is something the Inquiry may well find out.

      5. I don’t think you can compare this with civil engineering. I agree that the initial problem was the software but once this had failed to be rectified and people had been wrongly sent to jail it was up to the legal profession to rectify the wrongs. Non disclosure of evidence in a court case is an extremely serious matter, which could and should lead to many people in this scandal, including several lawyers and barristers involved, facing jail time for perverting the course of justice*. Taking your example – it’s akin to building a bridge with dodgy steel and then when it falls down and the truth is discovered, all and sundry cover it up to protect the wealthy steel manufacturer who pays their salaries. They claim it was the builders fault and continue to build the bridges with the same weak steel. Many builders are wrongly sent to jail and the legal people, despite knowing it’s the steel, continue to withhold this fact from the court.
        * It should happen but whether it does or not is a test for the legal system in the UK. Mr Justice Fraser has already acknowledged the wrongdoing in his High Court judgement and Sir Wyn seems to be taking a strong interest in the legal matters so we are hopeful.

      6. Brian Poster avatar

        The software was like any other software. It went wrong from time to time and in unexpected ways. If anything the inquiry has suggested that it worked remarkably well.
        The problem was that very few people seem to understand how to deal with computer systems.

    2. A horrific meeting of opportunity, disrespect and greed: screw the ‘guilty’ posties; protect POL; take the fat cheques…..and repeat….

  20. Seems to me that all these forgetful lawyers are hoping that being disbarred will be their punishment, rather than a spell a His Majesty’s pleasure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *