Post Office Scandal

Reporting the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal

Post Office Scandal

Reporting the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal

What Hugh Didn’t Do

Nick Wallis

42 comments

3 min read
That would have been Susan Crichton’s area of responsibility

Hugh Flemington is a very careful man. The former Post Office Head of Legal spent his morning in the Inquiry witness chair characterising his involvement in the Post Office scandal as accidental, at best.

The problem was, the documents do seem to suggest he was involved at some level, though he couldn’t recall how. He didn’t remember doing things and mostly he didn’t remember not doing things and if he didn’t do something it wasn’t a failing on his part, it just hadn’t occurred to him at the time.

The tone was set quite early on when barrister for the Inquiry Sam Stevens asked if Mr Flemington knew that the standard of proof in a criminal trial was that a jury had to be sure of guilt. Mr Flemington wasn’t sure, telling Stevens he was reliant on comedy Post Office lawyer Jarnail Singh for his education in criminal law. Stevens was a little taken aback, as well he might be. If Flemington, a senior lawyer, was going to tell the Inquiry he was not able to confirm he knew what the criminal standard of proof was, it was going to be a long morning.

And it was. Flemington did receive emails but didn’t open attachments. He became aware of the Clarke Advice via osmosis. He didn’t have a view on the Jarnail Singh as the PO’s only criminal lawyer being supervised by Susan Crichton, a General Counsel with no experience of criminal law.

His one on the record observation about Jarnail Singh (to Susan Crichton) was that Mr Singh “doesn’t seem to be able to do recommendations” ie provide legal advice, the basic job of a lawyer. When asked whether this raised concerns about Singh’s competence, Flemington said it was a comment made in annoyance rather than anything more serious, giving him an excuse not to have to escalated the issue.

At the end of his session, Flemington told the inquiry:

“I just wanted to say how sorry personally I felt for all the pain and suffering that has been caused by this scandal to all the people who have suffered. I hope today that in some small way my witness appearance will help the inquiry establish lessons learned.”

“Small” being the significant word.

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).

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.

Share This:

,
, ,
Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates


42 responses to “What Hugh Didn’t Do”

  1. Sheila Howe avatar
    Sheila Howe

    I have never seen such a bunch of bandits. I believe you go into the Post Office and a cleaner and then what do you know, you are elevated to Head of Legal, incredible!

    Reply
  2. Richard Bell avatar
    Richard Bell

    He came out with an eye-blinking pearler at 10:54:- on Jarnail Singh: “He wouldn’t have survived at Royal Mail for 17 years without knowing what he was doing”….!! Isn’t this just the crux!?

    Reply
  3. Bob Carruthers avatar
    Bob Carruthers

    For years these people burned through our money having fun in court playing their own pompous version of Rumpole of The Bailey .
    Surely no business on earth would employ a senior lawyer who publicly states that he purposely refuses to read attachments.
    The Post Office pays huge salaries to complete idiots who are professionaly qualified and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but who take ‘sabbaticals’ from their job during which they answer e-mails saying ‘important see attached’ but on principle they have a policy of not reading the attachments.
    How ludicrous is that ?

    Reply
    1. Richard Hopkins avatar
      Richard Hopkins

      The Solicitors Regulation Authority, Bar Standards Board and police are going to have to deal with this “robustly” after the Inquiry is done. If they don’t it’ll send a message that this kind of behaviour is normal and acceptable.

      And of course, the worrying conclusion is that it is/has been regarded as acceptable by too many people, for far too long.

      Reply
  4. Terence Smith avatar
    Terence Smith

    Its all getting too pathetic and alarmingly demonstrating how the top jobs in Govt. owned organisations are appointed and how the holders of these posts are totally incompetent.
    Singh is an incompetent fool who was rinsed by Jason Beer and van den Bogey should be virtually unemployable now.-or is she.?

    Reply
  5. Mick Taylor avatar
    Mick Taylor

    LIFE IMPRISONMENT, with the possibility of parole after twenty years served.

    Reply
  6. STEVE OLDFIELD avatar
    STEVE OLDFIELD

    The performance of Hugh Flemington was astounding, as have been the performances of those having lived in a vacuum with regards to the repeated voicings of lawyers over many decades, many who state that failures to fully disclose have sent hundreds of innocent people to jail. Add to these breaches of procedure by including the Perjury of literally hundreds of Police Officers and Court Officials, often punished by early retirement and a fat pay out, then actions within the prosecution of those running Post Offices, should surprise no one. The unaccountability of many corrupt people within the Justice System is legendary. My findings have confirmed that Judges are permitted to falsify Trial Transcripts before dispatch to the Royal Courts in London as are Juries hand picked to include someone to steer the other Jurors in cases of sensitivity. There will be no worse crimes discovered within the Post Office Inquiry, than those occurring within day to day prosecutions where the accused is having to self defend against a Freemason Judge, Freemason Prosecutor or Freemason Police Officer.

    Reply
    1. Mary J avatar
      Mary J

      Your post is an accurate description of the so-called British Justice System.

      Reply
  7. Malcolm Sharp avatar
    Malcolm Sharp

    Surely a lawyer whose recall is so poor should not be practicing?

    Reply
    1. Mick Taylor avatar
      Mick Taylor

      Surely a liar whose recall is so poor should not be practicing?

      Reply
  8. Michael Wohl avatar
    Michael Wohl

    It’s amazing how many of the senior figures in this appalling scandal have now delivered public apologies (something they did not see fit to do at any point in the decades since this all began). There’s also an alarming correlation between these public apologies and the poor memories of those delivering them.

    The apologies have clearly been offered because their roles in these malicious prosecutions has now been laid bare for all to see, rather than because they are sorry for what they did.

    Reply
  9. James McBryde avatar
    James McBryde

    A perfect summary of his appearance. A total waste of time. Hope that his current employer watched it.

    Reply
  10. Richard Lilley avatar
    Richard Lilley

    Brilliant I love your deadpan style. I found this somewhat typical corporate creature particularly slippery and unconvincing. From experience large Corporations with guaranteed (often monopolistic) revenue streams tend to attract pointless placeholders with fancy titles but no apparent responsibilities. The BBC is another prime example – stuffed full people who are very good at acquiring and keeping lavishly remunetrated positions blame shifting and doing as little as possible.

    I still think the most extraordinary omission from this enquiry is the judiciary. A simple point: if as is now widely agreed POL’s “Expert” Evidence was so obviously not only inadequate but more importantly from this perspective not formally in the correct format; subject to proper instruction and in conformity with the rules and Practice Directions why didnt the judges pick this up? It is their primary judicial function to ensure trials over which they preside are just. In Mizra especially the performance of the Judge was lamentable capped by a manifestly cruel and unecessary sentence. Why isnt he being held to account?

    Reply
  11. Richard Lilley avatar
    Richard Lilley

    Brilliant I love your deadpan style. I found this somewhat typical corporate creature particularly slippery and unconvincing. From experience large Corporations with guaranteed (often monopolistic) revenue streams tend to attract pointless placeholders with fancy titles but no apparent responsibilities. The BBC is another prime example – stuffed full people who are very good at acquiring and keeping lavishly remunetrated positions blame shifting and doing as little as possible.

    I still think the most extraordinary omission from this enquiry is the judiciary. A simple point: if as is now widely agreed POL’s “Expert” Evidence was so obviously not only inadequate but more importantly from this perspective not formally in the correct format; subject to proper instruction and in conformity with the rules and Practice Directions why didnt the judges pick this up? It is their primary public judicial function to ensure trials over which they preside are just. In Mizra especially the performance of the Judge was lamentable capped by a manifestly cruel and unecessary sentence. Why isnt he being held to account?

    Reply
  12. Rapscallion avatar
    Rapscallion

    Another damning display of corporate amnesia…..who actually within their legal Dept had any criminal law expertise or compotence? For each of these amnesiacs my last question to them would be “so if none of this was your responsibility who is accountable?”

    This Organisation had fragmented itself into areas and Departments overstuffed with Managers and Senior Managers who could safely exist with a completely blinkered mentality – major problems? Not my responsibility. Truly appalling.

    Rather than mail services, most of these senior executives should have been in trouser manufacturing – the amount of backside covering going on.

    Reply
  13. Vicky B avatar
    Vicky B

    To my mind the most significant comment from today’s evidence was Flemington’s statement that there was ‘no restraint or limit’ on the POL legal team when seeking advice from Cartwright King in relation to the criminal prosecutions. His comment, in answer to the first question from Gareth Jones’ legal team, seemed to be aimed at others in POL legal for failing to take advice – but I took a different point.

    External legal advice surely comes at many hundreds of pounds per hour. Compare and contrast with the advice to POL investigators that they should not seek ARQ data from Fujitsu on grounds of cost – very much a ‘restraint and limit’.

    As was explored in previous hearings, an ARQ query of around £3,000 would have exposed the issues relating to at least one case (Misra or Hamilton I think). This would have saved POL many thousands of pounds in court – not to mention the pain and injustice to the postmaster concerned. We now have ‘no restraint or limit’ clearly stated in evidence. While this was in the context of advice rather than the pursuit of prosecutions, it must surely have coloured the mindset of the legal team, much as the awareness of financial constraints re Fujitsu arguably inhibited the investigations team.

    Can’t wait to hear how the POL CFO balanced the cost of ARQ requests in the Fujitsu contract against the cost of court proceedings – be it in financial terms or, for the wider board, in terms of reputational (not to mention ethical) risk.

    Those ethics apply not only to transparency in court proceedings but also transparency with shareholders – Ministers and the taxpayer. Here was a government-sponsored quasi business trying to expand into financial services while relying on a back office system that was prone to false accounting. Which brings us back to how POL got lumbered with this system in the first place.

    Reply
  14. Richard Bell avatar
    Richard Bell

    This chap knows so little, it’s a mystery how he found his way to court today…..

    Reply
    1. Mary J avatar
      Mary J

      So next time a serial killer ends in court all he’ll have to do is claim amnesia.

      Reply
  15. Paul avatar
    Paul

    I thought I watched Hugh Flemington’s testimony. But now, several hours later, I just can’t recall if I did.

    Reply
    1. Mary J avatar
      Mary J

      😂😂😂😂

      Reply
  16. Janice Hudson avatar
    Janice Hudson

    thank you

    Reply
  17. John Galajsza avatar
    John Galajsza

    Nick Great show in bishops Stortford thank-you for your perceverence and tenacity exposing POL

    Keep up the good work

    Reply
  18. Rob avatar
    Rob

    The number of times we heard “I don’t recall” this morning reached laughable levels. When asked if he had done anything to satisfy himself of the Horizon reliability claim, we know he did nothing, he knows he did nothing and yet there it was “I don’t recall”

    It seems the higher up the tree we go the more amnesia they have. I’d be bloody shocked if Paula Vennells can remember her own name by the time she takes the stand.

    One of the core participant lawyers was spot on when he asked about the total lack of accountability. No one in the senior management of POL seems to want to admit they were accountable for anything. No wonder the business was running at a loss when they were paying that many people to sit around and do nothing all day.

    I just wish someone in a senior position would finally have the courage to sit there and say “This is what I did, this is why I did it, I was wrong, I’m sorry” but I very much doubt anyone has the guts to do that.

    Reply
  19. John Galajsza avatar
    John Galajsza

    Hi Nick
    Came to see you and Tony & Katie Downey at Bishops Stortford Saturday… great insightful show you kindly signed my book what’s KOB ? Is it churchills quote? Keep on Buggering

    Flemington excuse for not opening the email attachment while on sabbatical he couldn’t read it on his BlackBerry ..pathetic Liar

    Reply
  20. Big Chris avatar
    Big Chris

    Total Non Recall ?

    Synopsis- Post Office Rekall Ltd has implanted its employees (and others) with fake memories of a life they would have liked to have lived if only their IT systems hadn’t contained bugs, errors and defects.

    ‘You are what you do. A man is defined by his actions not his memory.’

    Most of the lawyers so far have only succeeded in appearing incompetent at best while suffering from total non recall.

    They prefer to blow carbolic company smoke up their own orifices rather than admit they were highly paid legal professionals with disclosure responsibilities.

    Our friend today was probably dreaming all the time and never was employed as head of legal at Post Office Rekall Ltd.

    I’m expecting this exchange in the next instalment of the Total Non Recall (working title Post Office Inquiry)series.

    What have you been feeding the Post Office Rekall, its automatons and lawyers ?

    ‘Sub Post Masters’

    I think it’s still hungry.

    Reply
    1. Mick Taylor avatar
      Mick Taylor

      lol

      Reply
  21. Paul B avatar
    Paul B

    I consider it is “beyond reasonable doubt” that he has contracted the Post Office lack of recall disease.

    Reply
  22. nicola avatar
    nicola

    Am I missing something here?

    Stevens: “I ask it again um were you aware of the criminal standard of proof”
    Flemington: “I cannot I cannot recall being specifically aware of that”

    As a member of Joe Public, I took in, if not with my mother’s milk, then as soon as I was aware of matters going to trial, that there were two standards of proof: balance of probabilities for civil cases, and beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases. Is this man seriously saying he did not know that? Or have I got something wrong? These jokers are making me begin to doubt myself.

    Reply
  23. Bob Lawson avatar
    Bob Lawson

    Comedy Post Office Lawyer Jarnail Singh… My fear is that in posting remarks like that, guilty parties, if such they are, may claim it would be impossible for them to secure a fair trial, post inquiry. Of course, it appears SPMs were denied fair trials, and not because of media attention / ridicule…

    Worth thinking back to the Guinness scandal Ernest Saunders was convicted and jailed in 1991 for share trading fraud, IIRC, spent 10 months in jail, was released early on the basis of his having asome form of dementia, and experienced a recovery, post release, that was nothing short of miraculous… I can only hope my wife experiences such a “recovery” I doubt she will…

    Reply
  24. Julian Max Hofmann avatar
    Julian Max Hofmann

    It is a self-defeating tactic as each new document makes the denial, or “can’t remember” look more suspicious.

    Reply
  25. Matt H avatar
    Matt H

    He’s kidding, right?

    I suppose if you’ve got a choice between being potentially prosecuted or coming across as a total dimwit then you choose the latter.

    It does beg the question just what *did* he do whilst being paid a fortune at the Post Office?

    Reply
  26. Steven avatar
    Steven

    Thanks for all your hard work Nick. I couldn’t agree more with unhelpful Hugh! It was a painful watch, I found myself second guessing what his answers were going to be, though to be fair, he only had two…. “I cannot recall” or “I expected Susan/Jarail to deal with that.” I thought AvB had the cushiest job in PO by being paid a lot of money for doing nothing, but it seems we have a new contender! Maybe he spent his days scrolling on his Blackberry? Oh that’s right, he never looked at anything on it.

    Reply
  27. Matt avatar
    Matt

    A very “careful” man indeed…. A mishmash of don’t recalls, wasn’t me’s, shuffling, a bit of back-pedalling and self-serving assertions to which we’ve become tiresomely accustomed, though I concede nowhere as bad as many we’ve heard.

    The P.O. (and its predecessor R.M.) sure had a knack for hiring only such “team players” into high office.

    From https://www.linkedin.com/in/hugh-flemington-11357886 https://archive.is/L3lWI
    Experience:
    Head of Commercial Law team, TSB Bank May 2014 – Present · 10 yrs
    London, United Kingdom
    “I head up a team of commercial and property lawyers operating across various locations in the UK. We support all manner of commercial contracts and property deals which the Bank undertakes.”

    Notes:
    TSB’s UK press department, to whom TSB’s Spanish parent bank refer enquirers, are unable to find a Hugh Flemington on their current staff list.
    The SRA database shows one Hugh Flemington, who does not have an authorisation to practise.
    No mention of the Post Office or Royal Mail on the LinkedIn account, despite the very senior position held. No earlier archives available to indicate if such an entry had been deleted.
    Could there be more than one solicitor named HF, one the R.M./P.O. one, the other the TSB one?
    Unlikely, IMO. Age and dates mesh; e.g., the dates of HF leaving the Post Office (early 2014, per Inquiry evidence) and (per LinkedIn) joining TSB in May 2014. Odd that TSB now all but deny the existence of HF on their payroll….

    Reply
  28. Richard Bell avatar
    Richard Bell

    Your name please? “I can’t recall.”
    Were you head of Legal, without any advocacy background?
    “I can’t recall.”
    I have here a copy of the “Senior PO Exec Job Spec” when you applied.
    Please bring up ‘POL:Yahoo54321’
    It says, under desired characteristics, ‘two faces, painted on ears, abject sycophancy’, and ‘unknowability’. Do you recognise this document?
    “I can’t recall.”
    Here, under essential characteristics, are ‘wilful blindness, selective amnesia, blunt thinking, hypocracy’ and ‘callous sociopathology’. Do you recognise those?
    “Ok, you got me: great being me, isn’t it?”
    No further Your Honour.

    Reply
    1. Paul B avatar
      Paul B

      Thanks for making me laugh. It is ridiculous though that the PO head of legal department was so strangely incompetent.

      Reply
  29. Kay FJ avatar
    Kay FJ

    Flemington’s oral evidence could be summarised thus: “I’m not responsible.”

    Reply
    1. Mary J avatar
      Mary J

      Could you repeat that, please? recall what you said.

      Reply
      1. Kay FJ avatar
        Kay FJ

        No, sorry, I don’t remember. 😉

        Reply
  30. David Mercer avatar
    David Mercer

    Nick, your prediction last week about this week’s hearings was “ . I don’t think it’ll have the same fireworks as this week, but you never know…” . Well, no actual fireworks from Flemington but his damp squib was really just as revealing and indicative of the “Can’t remember”, “wasn’t me”, “didn’t care”, “cover my back at all costs” disease that infected all of the Post Office hierarchy throughout the years that innocent SPMs were suffering so much.

    Reply
  31. James Antoniou avatar
    James Antoniou

    I missed this today
    Are we saying another liar with no memory or care of the people he damaged ( negligent or is he a faker ) is he even qualified?
    I don’t get why they all have bad memories and lie ? Can the inquiry not bring in contempt charges ? So bad

    Reply
    1. Mary J avatar
      Mary J

      I didn’t watch it yet but looks like same old fake amnesia stunt.

      Reply
    2. Mary J avatar
      Mary J

      I can’t recall is what you say when you’re covering up a serious criminal offence, in this case perjury and concealing evidence leading to miscarriage of justice. The fact that I can’t recall is repeatedly used collectively at this inquiry would suggest collusion between the perpetrators. Hugh Flemington claims he has no knowledge of criminal law. Yet he repeatedly uses I can’t recall knowing the outcome in criminal law is based on beyond all reasonable doubt, in this case I can’t recall is the perfect get out of jail card.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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