The Post Office instructed investigators to incorporate potential evidence in experiences to their very own legal professionals, however not the subpostmasters they suspected of theft
By
-
Karl Flinders,
Chief reporter and senior editor EMEA
Published: 06 Jul 2023 9:45
The Post Office security division intentionally held again info on potential evidence that might assist the instances of subpostmasters being investigated for alleged monetary crimes, an official coverage doc has revealed throughout public inquiry.
During the newest listening to within the Post Office Horizon scandal public inquiry, it was revealed that experiences despatched to legal professionals after preliminary investigations of subpostmasters suspected of theft and fraud included details about potential Post Office failures if related, however investigators had been instructed to withhold this from the subpostmasters being investigated and probably prosecuted.
Following the introduction of the Horizon pc system by the Post Office in 1999 to automate department accounting, subpostmasters in giant numbers started reporting unexplained accounting shortfalls. The Post Office blamed the subpostmasters and greater than 700 had been prosecuted, with many despatched to jail. Thousands misplaced big sums of cash, with many going bankrupt.
Subpostmasters claimed the brand new pc system was inflicting the shortfalls, however the Post Office persistently denied this and suspected that subpostmasters didn’t have the pc experience or sources to show that errors existed. The Post Office used its energy to prosecute privately and took benefit of the rule on the use of pc evidence that presumes that a pc system has operated accurately except there may be specific evidence on the contrary.
In 1999, this rule changed part 69 of the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which said that computer-based evidence needs to be topic to proof that the pc system was working correctly. The Post Office was a supporter of this alteration and, as Computer weekly wrote in 2021, had replied to a Law Commission session on the proposed rule change claiming the prevailing rule was “somewhat onerous” when prosecuting people charged with crimes, such because the subpostmasters that run and personal its branches.
Since a multimillion-pound High Court case led to December 2019, when subpostmasters proved that Horizon contained errors that might trigger unexplained losses, 86 former subpostmasters have had wrongful convictions for fraud and theft overturned, with many extra anticipated.
Phase 4 of a statutory public inquiry into the scandal is at present below approach, it is anxious with: “Action against subpostmasters and others: policy making, audits and investigations, civil and criminal proceedings, knowledge of and responsibility for failures in investigation and disclosure.”
A query of withheld evidence
During the newest listening to, former Tony Marsh, head of security at Post Office till 2006 was requested a couple of Post Office coverage utilized by groups investigating suspected theft or fraud by subpostmasters when reporting their findings.
It was revealed that two paperwork had been created, which the investigators would full with their findings following preliminary investigations.
The first was referred to as the Offender report, which Marsh described as a full report despatched by Post Office investigators to the legal professionals within the authorized division. It detailed every part the investigator had established surrounding the alleged offences and alleged offender. Within this, the investigator would make feedback about security weaknesses, different procedural and product integrity weaknesses, in addition to the angle of the suspect once they had been interviewed, mentioned Marsh.
“This must be a comprehensive list of all identified failures in security procedures and product integrity. It must be highlighted in bold in the report,” Post Office steering said. Marsh described this as a “full report” that will go to case administration groups and Post Office authorized providers.
The different report, referred to as the Disciplinary report, which went to the suspect, was described as a subset of the Offender Report that will not embody sure particulars. This report would typically be given to the suspect, however would exclude sure info that was directed to the lawyer engaged on the potential prosecution.
It warned that the inclusion of info on “significant failures” may scale back the probabilities of a profitable prosecution of a suspect and/or trigger “significant damage” to the Post Office’s enterprise. It mentioned this details about “significant” failures, together with in regard to product integrity, have to be “confined solely” to the confidential Offender report.
It added: “Care must be exercised when including failures within the Disciplinary report as obviously this is disclosed to the suspect offender and may have ramifications on both criminal elements of the inquiry and as being potentially damaging to the reputation or security of the business. If you are in any doubt over the appropriateness of its inclusion or exclusion, you must discuss this with your team leader.”
Inquiry barrister Jason Beer KC requested Marsh whether or not he sees any downside with these statements. Marsh mentioned all the data needs to be disclosed, however added that there have been fears within the Post Office that if weaknesses had been highlighted within the Disciplinary report, which went to suspects, they might be “exploited much more widely by people in the community.”
Beer mentioned: “It is saying, ‘If there are facts and matters which undermine the prospect of [successful prosecutions], they must be confined solely to the confidential offender report’, doesn’t it?”
“So, ‘Facts which support a suspects defence, or which undermine the allegation against him, must be kept confidential’ is what this document is saying.”
Marsh disagreed and mentioned it would go to the authorized division who would have “a duty of disclosure” and there’s no query that the data wouldn’t discover its approach, having been seen by a lawyer, to a suspect’s authorized group if a call to prosecute was made.
Beer mentioned: “It doesn’t say that at all, it doesn’t say, ‘And then there must be consideration to release to the suspect any facts or matters that undermine the case against them’.”
Marsh admitted that he was making an attempt to interpret a doc he didn’t create and had no involvement in.
Beer mentioned: “This is written into a policy, as bold as brass in black and white, ‘Don’t tell a suspect anything about the case against them that might undermine it’.”
During the listening to, Marsh was additionally proven a Post Office doc relating to its prosecution technique. It said: “There is no single statement of current policy, but it can be summed up as normally to prosecute all breaches of the criminal law by employees which affect the Post Office, and which involve dishonesty. However, there are exceptions…”
One of the exceptions listed within the doc was the place the “Legal Services Dept advise that the prosecution is unlikely to succeed”. Evidence of pc issues would have made prosecutions troublesome for the Post Office.
This isn’t the first-time evidence of the Post Office security division hiding evidence has emerged. During a Court of Appeal listening to in 2021, it was revealed that the Post Office instructed staff to shred paperwork that undermined the integrity of the Horizon pc system. The particular person answerable for giving directions to shred paperwork was, like Marsh, a former head of security on the Post Office. This was John Scott, who is because of face questions within the public inquiry on Wednesday 12 July.
At the tip of giving evidence, Marsh admitted that he didn’t ask the proper questions on Horizon throughout his time on the Post Office, including that he was responsible of “absorbing the group think within the Post Office that [Horizon] was a good robust system”.
In 2009, a Computer Weekly investigation first revealed that subpostmasters had been being blamed for unexplained accounting shortfalls, which they believed to be brought on by software program errors (see timeline of Computer Weekly articles beneath.)
It has grow to be a nationwide scandal involving the federal government, the Post Office and IT provider Fujitsu. Three phases of a statutory public inquiry into the scandal have been full.
Read extra on IT for retail and logistics
-
Post Office is not going to oppose potential Horizon conviction appellants
By: Karl Flinders
-
Post Office lawyer bragged how group ‘destroyed attack on the Horizon system’ and put girl in jail
By: Karl Flinders
-
More Post Office software-related convictions overturned takes complete to 86
By: Karl Flinders
-
CCRC says ‘door open’ for extra opinions of subpostmaster convictions
By: Karl Flinders
…. to be continued
Read the Original Article
Copyright for syndicated content material belongs to the linked Source : Computer Weekly – https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366543482/Public-inquiry-hears-how-Post-Office-security-withheld-evidence-from-people-it-suspected-of-theft