The investigation into the Post Office Horizon information technology disaster has been full of dramatic events, including the discovery of emails, public apologies, and tears shed by employees. However, will it result in the victims receiving justice?
“the worst miscarriage of justice in recent British legal history” is a phrase that could be used to describe the Post Office Horizon IT crisis.
This is not a light-hearted statement, as Jason Beer KC, the counsel for the commission that has been conducting the investigation into the affair, put it.
After four years of arduous labor, senior executives reduced to tears, and innumerable terrible stories of the devastation inflicted to the personal lives of sub-postmasters, the investigation into the Post Office has finally completed gathering its primary evidence.
The purpose of this investigation was to determine why more than seven hundred sub-postmasters were wrongfully tried and considered criminals for theft and false accounting, when in reality, the flawed Horizon IT system that was manufactured by Fujitsu was being held responsible for the situation.
The purpose of the investigation has been to determine when the Post Office became aware that sub-postmasters were not responsible, investigate the reasons why the Post Office never overturned prosecutions, and determine whether or not there was a cover-up.
We learned throughout the procedure that the Post Office, the media, and most importantly, activists, had all raised alarms.
In the course of the investigation, there have been a few appearances that have been shocking, revelatory, and emotional.
Sky News examines some of the most significant instances that occurred during the investigation.
“Subbies with their hands touching the cash register”
There is no other interaction that comes close to Alan Cook’s email, the former managing director of the Post Office. In his email, Cook argued that the problem was with the sub-postmasters and not with technology.
Despite the fact that victims repeatedly denied any involvement, this occurred.
During the course of his testimony, an email was read aloud which stated that the reason for account deficits was due to “subbies with their hand in the till [who] choose to blame the technology when they are found to be short of cash.”
It was a statement that Mr. Cook claimed he would “regret for the rest of my life” about.
In addition to this, he brought attention to the Post Office’s systematic shortcomings.
He asserted that he was “unaware” that the Post Office had brought prosecutions and that he did not have the impression that the Post Office “had a crisis on its hands.”
‘I believe that you were aware of it.
The presence of Paula Vennells was most likely the thing that garnered the most attention during the investigation.
A successful drama on ITVAccording to Mr. Bates vs. The Post Office, Ms. Vennells, who had previously served as the chief executive officer of the Post Office, was at the center of the controversy.
Several times during the investigation, she was moved to tears as she expressed her regret for the role that she had played.
An exchange of text messages that took place not too long ago between Ms. Vennells and Dame Moya Greene, the former chief executive of Royal Mail, was one of the most damning moments for her. This conversation undercut her defense that she was unaware of what was going on with the prosecutions.
After the broadcast of Mr. Bates vs. The Post Office, which rekindled attention in the controversy at the beginning of this year, Dame Moya sent a text message to Ms. Vennells, in which she stated, “When it was clear that the system was at fault, the Post Office should have raised a red flag.” Interrupted all of the activities. The individuals were given their money back, and then an attempt was made to compensate them for the destruction that this had created in their lives.
Dame Moya responded, “I don’t know what to say,” in response to Ms. Vennells’s confirmation that she was in agreement. I believe you were aware of it.
“It is my desire to believe you. You were questioned twice. I recommended that you have an impartial review conducted and report back to me. I had a growing concern that you were being misled. According to what you indicated, the system had already been examined on many occasions. Why would you have been so oblivious to it?
According to Dame Moya, “I am unable to support you at this time.”
“I have worked to help you. Over the course of all these years, to my own undoing. She continued by saying, “After what I have learned, I am unable to support you at this time.”
Additionally, Dame Moya provided evidence in support of this viewpoint, stating, “I think she knew on the basis of the evidence that has emerged at this inquiry that there were faults in the system.” Dame Moya’s testimony was presented during the investigation.
As was to be expected, Ms. Vennells denied having any knowledge of any problems or miscarriages of justice. She referred to the situation as “complex” and added that there are “some things I did not know… I wish I had known.”
Post Office told to stop prosecuting, but continued
The Post Office was told years before convictions were stopped that a key witness used to prosecute sub-postmasters was unreliable.
The barrister, Simon Clarke, told the inquiry that he was advised this after he found serious errors and “an almost religious panic” about the Horizon IT system.
He wrote a key piece of legal advice in 2013 that made the issue of past prosecutions clear to executives.
“Tainted” and “unreliable witness” were two words that Mr. Clarke used to describe Gareth Jenkins, who was the Horizon IT architect for Fujitsu.
According to Mr. Clarke, Gareth Jenkins had broken his court obligation by failing to disclose known bugs and flaws with Horizon, as stated in a dossier that the Post Office had commissioned.
It is possible that the sub-postmasters were able to fight their convictions and have their criminal records overturned as a result of these acknowledged concerns.
In addition to this, Mr. Clarke maintained that the Post Office should not utilize Gareth Jenkins as a witness and suggested that all prosecutions be reviewed.
As has been the case so frequently throughout the course of the scandal, the Post Office disregarded this recommendation by not conducting a review of the cases and by continuing to prosecute sub-postmasters until the year 2015.
The Metropolitan Police Services is currently conducting an investigation into Mr. Jenkins’ potential involvement in perjury.
The pregnant woman sent to prison in ‘test case’
The extent of the harm the Post Office scandal did to the sub-postmasters’ lives was evident in each and every one of their stories.The extent of the harm the Post Office scandal did to the sub-postmasters’ lives was evident in each and every one of their stories.
Sub-postmaster Seema Misra’s conviction was hailed as “brilliant news” in an email between Post Office executives, the inquiry revealed, despite her sentence including 15 months in jail and having to serve four months while pregnant.
The inquiry also heard that executives and Post Office lawyers treated her as a “test case”—if her prosecution was seen as successful, then senior officials stated it proved Horizon was “robust.”.
Ms. Misra stated, “How can they do a test on a human being?”
“I’m a living creature,” she explained.
When Mr. Jenkins, the expert who testified in court defending Horizon, was summoned to give testimony to the investigation, he apologized to Ms. Misra.
Mr. Jenkins claimed he did not comprehend his responsibility of disclosure as an expert witness at the time, and he vehemently denied that he misled the court or concealed information.
Ms. Misra rejected his apologies.
What’s next for the investigation?
The inquiry’s last part will begin in the autumn, and it will examine the Post Office’s current policies and provide recommendations for the future.
A report will also be issued; however, when this will happen is uncertain.
Sir Wyn Williams, the inquiry’s head, has already stated that it will be “as soon as is reasonably practicable” following hearings on present practices in September.
The chair may also report executives and people who have worked at the Post Office and Fujitsu to the police if he believes any criminal inquiries are required.