November 2020 - BEIS, HMG and the Parliamentary Ombudsman
The Campaign continues....
With the funding raised, we moved forward to prepare our complaint of maladministration against BEIS and HMG, and over the last few months considerable work has been undertaken which has led to the complaint being sent to BEIS at the end of October.
In order for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to consider a case for investigation, the offending department must have an opportunity to respond, so BEIS has been given until the end of November to reply before the complaint is submitted to the Ombudsman on 1st December 2020.
As has recently been mentioned to the JFSA victim group in an email, in light of our complaint it is possible for BEIS and HMG to admit they got it wrong and to provide us with the financial redress we are owed, but by the same reasoning it is possible for us to wake up tomorrow morning in POL’s universe and find that the Earth is actually flat.
Find full details of the complaint here
With the funding raised, we moved forward to prepare our complaint of maladministration against BEIS and HMG, and over the last few months considerable work has been undertaken which has led to the complaint being sent to BEIS at the end of October.
In order for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to consider a case for investigation, the offending department must have an opportunity to respond, so BEIS has been given until the end of November to reply before the complaint is submitted to the Ombudsman on 1st December 2020.
As has recently been mentioned to the JFSA victim group in an email, in light of our complaint it is possible for BEIS and HMG to admit they got it wrong and to provide us with the financial redress we are owed, but by the same reasoning it is possible for us to wake up tomorrow morning in POL’s universe and find that the Earth is actually flat.
Find full details of the complaint here
The Government Whitewash Review and why we won’t be conned by it.
You may have come across the BEIS Post Office Horizon IT inquiry 2020, a non-statutory inquiry into what they insensitively describe as the 'Post Office’s Horizon IT dispute' (it seems that the civil service consider a 'dispute' as something that has devasteted the lives of hundreds of Subpostmasters and their families, caused numerous bankruptcies, wrongful prosecutions and imprisonments, resulting in many deaths along the way. Did they not consider 'tiff' or 'spat' as alternatives, or were they thought to be too hard and inquiring?)
What really should have happened..........
For a number of months government has been well aware of what we, the JFSA victim Group, are looking for in any inquiry that was set up and in which we would engage. It has been put in writing to it on numerous occasions, we would require:
Definition of a Whitewash Review i.e. what government decided to do (the scope of the BEIS whitewash review). Its review intends to:-
So this government prefers the whitewash review approach, as it:
This is why the JFSA and others who have seen the true extent of the damage BEIS has allowed POL to inflict on its Subpostmasters will never take part in the whitewash, the victims have nothing to gain if they attended, and not even the real guilty will be brought to account.
Government already has over 1000 pages of court tested evidence from the judgments of the Common Issues and Horizon Issues trials, which at the moment the victims have had to pay £46m for, but the judgments show exactly what went on – incompetence and cover up by POL management supported by the POL Board and HMG. It is utterly pointless the JFSA victim Group taking part in their whitewash review, there is nothing in it for the victims, all we would achieve is to give our stamp of approval to this pointless internal whitewash review.
Whatever happens behind those closed doors will not make the slightest difference to the position POL and HMG have left the victims in - which is why we continue to pursue BEIS and HMG with the maladministration complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
You may have come across the BEIS Post Office Horizon IT inquiry 2020, a non-statutory inquiry into what they insensitively describe as the 'Post Office’s Horizon IT dispute' (it seems that the civil service consider a 'dispute' as something that has devasteted the lives of hundreds of Subpostmasters and their families, caused numerous bankruptcies, wrongful prosecutions and imprisonments, resulting in many deaths along the way. Did they not consider 'tiff' or 'spat' as alternatives, or were they thought to be too hard and inquiring?)
What really should have happened..........
For a number of months government has been well aware of what we, the JFSA victim Group, are looking for in any inquiry that was set up and in which we would engage. It has been put in writing to it on numerous occasions, we would require:
- That the inquiry would need not initially be a statutory inquiry, on the basis that the Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu and HMG would give undertakings to cooperate fully with the Inquiry, including in the provision of documents, witnesses and information. If they will not give those undertakings or the Judge reports that he needs the powers of a statutory inquiry, HMG would take the necessary steps to turn the Inquiry into a statutory inquiry;
- The Inquiry will be entirely independent of the government, the Post Office and any other party;
- The Inquiry would not re-examine the findings of Fraser J, but will accept those findings as accurate unless it is plain in the light of evidence heard by the judicial enquiry a finding was inaccurate;
- The Inquiry should be able to make recommendations as to compensation which should be paid by Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu and HMG to the Group to reflect what their legal liability would require without regard either for limitation defences or the effect of the mediation (save to the extent that any sums paid direct to the Subpostmasters (as opposed to sums paid to meet legal costs liabilities of the Subpostmasters) as a result of the mediation shall reduce the liability of the paying party to that Subpostmaster;
- The conduct of the hearing will be a matter for the Judge;
- The reasonable legal costs of the Group in connection with the Inquiry will be paid by the Post Office Ltd. (The Group having legal representation at the Inquiry would mean witnesses could be cross-examined, and you will recall that it was only under the cross-examination of the POL and Fujitsu witnesses during the trials that the truth started to appear, as in many cases their written witness statements turned out to be highly dubious or worse)
Definition of a Whitewash Review i.e. what government decided to do (the scope of the BEIS whitewash review). Its review intends to:-
- A: Understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to Horizon, leading to the Group Litigation Order, by drawing on evidence from the Horizon judgments and affected postmasters’ experiences and identify what key lessons must be learned for the future.
- B: Build upon the findings of Mr Justice Fraser, by obtaining all available relevant evidence from Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu and BEIS to establish a clear account of the implementation and failings of Horizon over its lifecycle.
- C: Assess whether Post Office Ltd has learned the lessons from the criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser in the ‘Common Issues’ and ‘Horizon Issues’ trials and those identified by affected postmasters and has delivered or made good progress on the organisational and cultural changes necessary to ensure a similar case does not happen in the future.
- D: Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office Ltd within the mediation settlement – including the historical shortfall scheme – have been properly delivered.
- E: Assess whether the processes and information provided by Post Office Ltd to postmasters are sufficient:
- i) to enable both parties to meet their contractual obligations
- ii) to enable postmasters to run their businesses. This includes assessing whether Post Office Ltd’s related processes such as recording and resolving postmaster queries, dispute handling, suspension and termination are fit for purpose. In addition, determine whether the quality of the service offer for postmasters and their relationship with Post Office Ltd has materially improved since the conclusions reached by Mr Justice Fraser.
- F: Examine the governance and whistleblowing controls now in place at Post Office Ltd and whether they are sufficient to ensure that the failings that led to the Horizon case issues do not happen again.
- The Inquiry will consider only those matters set out in the preceding sections A-F. Post Office Ltd’s prosecution function, matters of criminal law, the Horizon group damages settlement, the conduct of current or future litigation relating to Horizon and/or the engagement or findings of any other supervisory or complaints mechanisms, including in the public sector, are outside the Inquiry‘s scope.
So this government prefers the whitewash review approach, as it:
- will not look at compensation;
- will not allow witnesses to be cross-examined;
- does not have the power to make any of them turn up;
- exists only to see if Post Office has learnt its lesson and promises to do better in the future.
This is why the JFSA and others who have seen the true extent of the damage BEIS has allowed POL to inflict on its Subpostmasters will never take part in the whitewash, the victims have nothing to gain if they attended, and not even the real guilty will be brought to account.
Government already has over 1000 pages of court tested evidence from the judgments of the Common Issues and Horizon Issues trials, which at the moment the victims have had to pay £46m for, but the judgments show exactly what went on – incompetence and cover up by POL management supported by the POL Board and HMG. It is utterly pointless the JFSA victim Group taking part in their whitewash review, there is nothing in it for the victims, all we would achieve is to give our stamp of approval to this pointless internal whitewash review.
Whatever happens behind those closed doors will not make the slightest difference to the position POL and HMG have left the victims in - which is why we continue to pursue BEIS and HMG with the maladministration complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Court of Appeal - Wednesday 18th November 2020
It would seem that after all the evidence that has eventually been uncovered to support the overturning of the convictions of those prosecuted by POL, they now have to wait until next March for the full hearing by the Court of Appeal.
From what I can gather, when the Court of Appeal was in session on the 18th, it appears that most time was spent dealing with a legally sensitive document that had 'leaked' to the media. It seems the document raised the issue of the veracity of the evidence given by two Fujitsu employees in previous court hearings. It also seems these are two of the Fujitsu employees being investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the request of the DPP following matters being raised in a letter sent by the managing judge of both the Horizon and Common Issues trials (the letter forms part of the Ombudsman complaint and can be found in the accompanying documentation).
From what I can gather, when the Court of Appeal was in session on the 18th, it appears that most time was spent dealing with a legally sensitive document that had 'leaked' to the media. It seems the document raised the issue of the veracity of the evidence given by two Fujitsu employees in previous court hearings. It also seems these are two of the Fujitsu employees being investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the request of the DPP following matters being raised in a letter sent by the managing judge of both the Horizon and Common Issues trials (the letter forms part of the Ombudsman complaint and can be found in the accompanying documentation).