Have Norwich appointed their new manager?
5 Likes
Interestingly, Jason Beer KC is still asking the right questions today, however his delivery is slightly slower and in a much softer tone than he took on the first day.
Let’s keep politics off the forum please - especially now it’s going to be just about everywhere else. Thanks.
3 Likes
It is – my ears are taking this is in as ‘I would never do this’, but yet here we are.
1 Like
Many/most of the points & aspects you’ve identified have been aired before the SI, and the multiple failings recognised e.g. why a small regional (at best) firm was engaged to prosecute many of the cases, when those involved had no/minimal experience of criminal law and governing procedures, nor had the Counsel of the PO at time, as her background was in commercial law. Vennells has stated that PO should have used a much higher quality firm (yet more penny pinching was it ?), who would have pointed out the weaknesses in the cases and the risks the PO would be running if it pursued them. PO subsequently obtained a more robust view, obviously after the horses had bolted.
1 Like
Fair points all but my focus was more on the defence and the courts.
1 Like
I think the adage “quantity has a quality all of it’s own” may apply here in that the PO was prepared to financially bludgeon the accused via the legal process into either plea bargaining or being found guilty in lieu of being able to fund a proper defence.
Adam Crozier seems to be getting off lightly though…
1 Like
Today it might be said the committed Christian, who doesn’t know about atonement, is about to be fed to the lions of the other participants who, unlike Jason Beer, aren’t as adapt at keeping their cynicism and contempt restrained/hidden.
1 Like
Agree Mike, the defence counsels and even the presiding judges should have highlighted blatant ommisions or shortcomings in the prosecution cases.
2 Likes
Chair’s statement on Jane MacLeod.
“ Her recognised legal representative informed the Inquiry that, due to the passage of time, Ms MacLeod considered that her written statement was the best evidence that she could offer and that she was “questioning…whether she would be able to assist the Inquiry further” by providing oral evidence. The Inquiry restated its position that it considered it important to hear oral evidence from Ms MacLeod. Further, it offered to meet Ms MacLeod’s travel and accommodation expenses. However, Ms MacLeod has made it clear that she will not co-operate with the Inquiry by providing oral evidence, whether by attending the Inquiry in person or by giving evidence remotely via live video link.”
He explores his options, his view is that even if he got her taken to the High Court and found guilty in absentia of failing to comply with his Section 21 notice and then applied for extradition that it would take too long for her to be in the U.K. before the inquiry closed.
2 Likes
Pity she can’t be forced to attend, these people are running like rabbits to avoid responsibility.
3 Likes
On the upside if, following the PI, consideration is given to pursueing criminal prosecutions of certain parties involved then refusal to co-operate fully with the PI may be relevant in any proceedings that might take place.
It does beg the question what she might be afraid of revealing under forensic examination by the PI counsel.
1 Like
I’ll have a read of her witness statement when it is put up.
Edit, it’s 211 pages, I’ll do a skim of sections that might be material.
I’ve had a speed read of the substantive sections, from the Swift report through the outcome of the GLO.
There were things in hindsight she wished she’d had done earlier.
They always acted in good faith.
She took advice from external lawyers and trusted them.
The Deloitte and Altman reports gave her a lot of confidence in the system (my comment presumably because they only identified a few things that were wrong).
The Swift report was only shared with the chair to protect privilege, and she thinks she verbally briefed the board, but not minuted and she can’t remember the content.
They defended the GLO because they had the interests of all SPMs at heart and if they’d just settled with the 550 the wider issues wouldn’t have been seen or closed down.
Their approach to disclosure was in all good faith, she was surprised to find that some wasn’t disclosed.
They felt the judge was anti-POL and that they should appeal on those grounds, so their external advice was that as they would be appealing in large part in grounds of judge bias they had to make the recusal application.
She’s really sorry about all the suffering.
1 Like
What never seems to occurred to the PO Executive team and Board is the level of moral hazard they were engaging. IME, lawyers will give you different views around the same issue, and, most will broadly align. In the case of the PO they were saying don’t commission a review of Horizon, as this would be disclosable and could work against PO whatever the outcome – in the event had they engaged Deloittes, it could have been £2m(?) well spent.
So the Board and Vennells see mitigations in their positions from the legal advices. But their responsibility is moreso to conduct the PO business within generally accepted commercial practices and within legal bounds e.g. to ensure the base operations are accurate, morally robust et al. These considerations must be seen to outweigh what was ‘defensive’ legal advice. That they didn’t lift their heads to see this is beyond staggering.
They created a moral maze for themselves, with so many devices, which only the courts & judiciary could solve for them as the ‘truth seekers’.
1 Like
Wonder if she has a Post Office Pension? if so stop it till she appears.
1 Like
i love how Jo Hamilton, one of the wrongly accused subpostmasters, was sitting there in complete silence, just staring at Vennells as the KCs just ripped her (PV) to pieces.
8 Likes
Tim, I have yet to read Nick Wallis’s book. However one fact emerged in PV evidence on which you might have a view with your expertise. The PO was described as a complex organisation. In reporting or management terms perhaps. You would describe a modern airliner as complex.
In terms of basic PO functionality, with retail counters, you surely have stock both physical and cash, then daily transactions, which impact the former, either over the counter or by remittances to branch.
Perhaps that is too simple, be interested to know?
When Horizon was introduced and prosecutions followed, transactions in cash would have likely been the norm. Seems very likely that parallel running, bookkeeping alongside the new Horizon system, was inadequate and iirc, there was a suggestion the intro was rushed.
It was a practice I witnessed elsewhere at the time, with management failing to be realistic.
That lack of realism still remains, as your post illustrates. I would see perhaps a no questions asked, £1m to each subpm prosecuted (if one of the early ones) or £50k for each year from date of first accusation, the data error, not prosecution. Given loss of earnings et al, not a large sum.
As we know, those concerned have been massively impacted by their wrongful convictions.
2 Likes