Breaking News: Post Office Scandal

[J-G]

It is the Post Office which initiated the prosecutions and needs to take responsibility.

The Post Office (I assume) would also have signed off on the software and are responsible for ensuring that it works as intended.

Fujitsu liability would arise only if they had either mislead the Post Office with performance claims not delivered, or non-contracted post implementation tampering with the system.

The real failure is within the Post Office - either the technical competence of those responsible for specifying, implementing and managing the system; or those responsible for governance failures which lead to the prosecution of the innocent.

Senior management and the board should be accountable for the appointment and appraisal of IT staff given responsibility for the system.

An enquiry needs to establish whether those responsible for governance (senior management, board, political masters) whether they:

• knowingly allowed prosecution to proceed despite explicit awareness of system flaws
• allowed prosecution to proceed having reasonable suspicion that there were issues
• were repeatedly assured by senior and operational management that all was in order

With all due respect, Terry, I think you are missing the point that I made earlier, that FUJITSU were/are not just the providers of the software/system but also the OPERATORS.

They have appologised for their part in providing the Post Office with 'inappropriate' information which gave rise to prosecutions which fact I take as an admission of responsibility.

It seems that 'Senior management and the board' (of the Post Office) were not 'accountable for the appointment and appraisal of IT staff' - it seems that this was in the hands of Fujitsu -- as the 'Operators'.

I posit that it is already known that Fujitsu employees (by their recent admissions) have failed all three of your enquiry points.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

With all due respect, Terry, I think you are missing the point that I made earlier, that FUJITSU were/are not just the providers of the software/system but also the OPERATORS.

They have appologised for their part in providing the Post Office with 'inappropriate' information which gave rise to prosecutions which fact I take as an admission of responsibility.

It seems that 'Senior management and the board' (of the Post Office) were not 'accountable for the appointment and appraisal of IT staff' - it seems that this was in the hands of Fujitsu -- as the 'Operators'.

I posit that it is already known that Fujitsu employees (by their recent admissions) have failed all three of your enquiry points.

I understand the points you are making but there are some basic legal concepts:

• AFAIK the sub-postmasters contract with the Post Office not Fujitsu
• AFAIK Fujitsu operate under a contract with the Post Office

Assuming the above, I doubt very much (although no lawyer) that sub-postmasters have a claim against Fujitsu with whom they have no contractual relationship in respect of actions by the Post Office over which Fujitsu have no control.

That Fujitsu were developers, implementation, operators etc is not unusual.

Many companies outsource large parts of their activities to those who provide a comprehensive service - not just accounting systems but delivery and transport logistics, cloud computing and database management, payroll systems etc etc.

It would appear (admitted?) that Fujitsu have been deficient in their contract performance, and the Post Office may have a claim. Whether is is out of time, or evidence still exists I don't know. Fujitsu may even agree a settlement to avoid compromising other contractual relations.

IMHO it is the Post Office which has prime responsibility for the failings - they let a contract (which may or may not have been adequate), and failed to manage it (to which Fujitsu may have contributed). It was not a single failure but repeated many times over a decade.

If the actions of the Post Office were in good faith (they clearly need to exert financial control) it betrays simple incompetence. If done having some knowledge of the systems failings it is potentially negligent or corrupt behaviour. We will have to wait to see where the buck stops.

 

[John Brown]

I gave up reading Private Eye, it was too depressing to see nothing happen about all the incompetence, corruption and lying they uncover.

 

[Blackswanwood]

It seems that 'Senior management and the board' (of the Post Office) were not 'accountable for the appointment and appraisal of IT staff' - it seems that this was in the hands of Fujitsu -- as the 'Operators'.

That may be how they (the Post Office Board) want to portray it but directors have fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders and other stakeholders. This would include ensuring any outsourced operations are being run competently.

I expect it’s a case of both being at fault. I’d also be interested to know where the Post Office’s auditor has been throughout this.

 

[Keith Cocker]

Fujitsu was apparently responsible for the NHS systems fiasco as well.

Fujitsu are in partnership with Palantir for the latest and greatest (!!!) government NHS contract as well. They have also been donors to the Tory party - whoda thout it!!!

 

[Keith Cocker]

Where was the head of the CPS when all this was going on?

Good morning Jeremy.

 

[Noel]

Can the CPS intervene in private prosecutions? I suspect not.
@SammyQ I agree, that was a good example of the truth being buried, literally.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Can the CPS intervene in private prosecutions? I suspect not.
@SammyQ I agree, that was a good example of the truth being buried, literally.

Yes they can.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ecution Service can,heard in the Crown Court.
That being the case though I expect they are then reliant on the information presented to them which seems to me to be where the problem was.

 

[Noel]

Yes they can.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ecution Service can,heard in the Crown Court.
That being the case though I expect they are then reliant on the information presented to them which seems to me to be where the problem was.

Thanks, didn’t know that.
Also, just read that the CPS were involved in 10 PO prosecutions.

 

[Fergie 307]

Fujist were not 'merely contracted to provide Horizon' - they were/are also the operators of the system and, in that capacity, they were/are responsible for the day-to-day safe and accurate operation. They plainly failed and not only that, contributed to the whole debackle/cover-up in an attempt to secure further employment - which they are still enjoying!

To my mind they are culpable in the extreme.

And of course Horizon still in use, with a multi million pound contract recently signed to further extend it. And they also have billions in contracts with other gov depts. Laughable really.

 

[Noel]

And of course Horizon still in use, with a multi million pound contract recently signed to further extend it. And they also have billions in contracts with other gov depts. Laughable really.

Yesterday I asked my local SPM if his system always balanced, his reply was “not always”…..

On another note:


“There are 4,000+ victims - not 'hundreds':

** 983 overturned convictions
** 2,750 HSS (lost money, weren't prosecuted)
** c. 500 more in #MrBatesVsThePostOffice group (exc OC)
** 100+ more came forward post-ITV.

Total = 4,333”

 

[treeturner123]

Re Fujitsu

1 - If they did the lied in court then the CPS need to prosecute for perjury. Simple legal principal.
2 - If they were interfering with the system without PO being aware, then they were exceeding their remit and the PO should take action. They won't because they are also implicated in the deceit.
3 - Of course Horizon is still in place. What would be the cost of changing to another system? Vast. And, how many new 'Bugs' might that have!!

The Post Office legal team of prosecutors SHOULD have been challenged as to where the so called missing money had gone. This is ne of the main issues with a 'Private Prosecution', the burden of proof is less than a criminal prosecution. The PO were clearly NOT willing to carry out many prosecutions as criminal offences. Also of course, Legal Aid is virtually impossible to get so justice is stacked on the side with the most money and resources!

Phil

 

[Phil Pascoe]

A good point made this morning - maybe we should ask ITV to do a documentary on HS2 and the Government's handling of Covid.

 

[J-G]

I understand the points you are making but there are some basic legal concepts:

• AFAIK the sub-postmasters contract with the Post Office not Fujitsu
• AFAIK Fujitsu operate under a contract with the Post Office

Assuming the above, I doubt very much (although no lawyer) that sub-postmasters have a claim against Fujitsu with whom they have no contractual relationship in respect of actions by the Post Office over which Fujitsu have no control.

I understand your points Terry but I was never suggesting that there should be a case for 'Sub-Postmaster' vs Fujitsu. My stance is that it should be The Crown vs Fujitsu.

That Fujitsu were developers, implementation, operators etc is not unusual.

Although not unusual it is still hardly the best way to secure proper accountability

IMHO it is the Post Office which has prime responsibility for the failings - they let a contract (which may or may not have been adequate), and failed to manage it (to which Fujitsu may have contributed). It was not a single failure but repeated many times over a decade.

If the actions of the Post Office were in good faith (they clearly need to exert financial control) it betrays simple incompetence. If done having some knowledge of the systems failings it is potentially negligent or corrupt behaviour. We will have to wait to see where the buck stops.

Agreed, removing Fujitsu from their entrenched position would be equitable but I suggest virtually impossible. There is no way that A.N.Other 'operator' would be able or indeed willing to take on the role, and creation of a different system would be both expensive and still prone to similar error - though naturally, 'hindsight' would have some bearing!

 

[Spectric]

There are some really amazing failures highlighted by this scandal and Fujitsu has to be held to account for their part because although the post office was there customer as in they purchased the horizon system from Fujitsu, Fujitsu were the IT experts and failed to deliver a product that met the required standards. They should not have had access to the actual live network of horizon and any of the post office accounts, that should have only been in the post office domain. What they should have had was an independant horizon network in house with terminals to mimic the post office for all work on beta versions and testing that had no interface with the real working system. The other question is down to access, there should have been a log of all details regarding access log on's including date and time for anyone accessing the horizon system and the post office must have had a means to produce customisable reports because they needed the information for their accounting and stock control. Was it a case of there was a means to produce these reports but no one bothered, there were reports but no one took action or just they did not believe the information being presented. On any database you can interogate the information to retrieve specific data, so with a number of reported errors then someone must have been keeping track of this information and if nothing else asking the question of why since Horizon are we having this number of postmasters with accounting errors that we had not seen before. Then you get onto Ed Davies who was apparently in control from a government position and did not acknowledge the issues being raised by the postmasters and appears to have taken the side of the post office without any further investigation, I would have thought that overseeing the smooth running of the post office was his job.

 

[Jacob]

Can the CPS intervene in private prosecutions? I suspect not.
@SammyQ I agree, that was a good example of the truth being buried, literally.

Private Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service.

"When will the CPS take over a prosecution?
The CPS will take over and continue a prosecution if the information it has acquired from the private prosecutor, defendant or police shows that:
• The evidence meets the standard of the Full Code Test, which is the test applied by prosecutors when deciding whether a case should be prosecuted.
• The case meets the Full Code Test’s requirement of being in the public interest.
• There is a particular need for the CPS to take over the prosecution. This may be because, for example, the offence is serious, it involves disclosure of highly sensitive material or there is a need for witness anonymity.

The CPS will only take over and continue a prosecution if all three of these requirements are met. If it does so, it should write to both the private prosecutor and the defendant to explain the reasons for its decision."

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Then you get onto Ed Davies ...

You are assuming some competence, which is a huge leap of faith.

 

[Cozzer]

Perhaps the PO should revert to the accounting system used prior to Horizon.
Pen, paper and calculator.

 

[Spectric]

I suppose politicians have something in common with a lot of our woodworking machinery in that it is all much the same except it comes in different livery !

 

[alan895]

I'm still blown away about how the driving factor behind the government finally doing something about this years-old fiasco has been pressure rather than integrity.