19 November 2021
Further to publication on 17 November 2021 of the final List of Items to be investigated by the Inquiry, the JFSA formally withdraws from being a Core Participant.
Following its notice of withdrawal being sent to the Inquiry the JFSA circulated update to its members, the content of which follows:-
Further to publication on 17 November 2021 of the final List of Items to be investigated by the Inquiry, the JFSA formally withdraws from being a Core Participant.
Following its notice of withdrawal being sent to the Inquiry the JFSA circulated update to its members, the content of which follows:-
The Post Office Statutory Inquiry
The Post Office Horizon Inquiry and is there any benefit to you and the victims group remaining as a Core Participant?
From the first time any Inquiry was mentioned the financial redress the victims group is owed has always been the one key issue the JFSA has wanted addressed at the outset of any Inquiry. As has been mentioned many times, the courts found Post Office not just guilty, but that it was incredibly guilty of the way it had mistreated the group and other SPMRs ever since Horizon appeared – that is fact. We don’t need the minutiae of who did what and when to be exposed before we are paid the monies we are owed, if the Inquiry does what it says it aims to do, the guilty should be exposed during the course of it anyway, unless they are allowed to hide behind their lawyers.
Despite the sterling work submitted by Howe & Co pleading our case for the need for the financial redress we are rightfully owed to be dealt with first, points so ably voiced by Sam Stein QC at the hearing on 8 November 2021, the powers that be have decided the real and desperate needs of the victims are of no importance. The final List of Issues published on 17 November 2021 contains just 2 paragraphs purporting to deal with financial redress. Neither of them have any relevance at all to the victims group – probably, because in their eyes, we have had full and final settlement and we can be ignored from now on.
I doubt the Inquiry’s findings will vary much from identifying that the main trouble with Post Office and its Horizon system is that it was actually a series of disasters welded together by incompetent management led by a Board that was asleep at the wheel and overseen by government mandarins who didn’t give a damn.
The JFSA’s position has never changed nor waivered, the matter of financial redress for the victims has always been of paramount importance and it had to be dealt with first if we were to willingly engage with the Inquiry. Yet it has now become clear that the Inquiry has refused to do this and subsequently the JFSA has written to the Inquiry to withdraw its application as a Core Participant.
If you are one of the 555 who were part of the JFSA group litigation action against Post Office, then there now isn’t the slightest benefit to you or the victims group by staying engaged in the Inquiry as a Core Participant. And whilst the 40 in the group action who had convictions overturned and now have their own legal representatives pursuing their particular financial redress may think this does not apply to them. I have no doubt that the other 500 would greatly appreciate your support in backing their continuing campaign to obtain the monies that they too are owed, and you can do that by joining with the rest of the group who are withdrawing from being a Core Participant.
So I now write to all of you who have registered as Core Participants to ask you to withdraw your applications and show solidarity over the failure of the Inquiry to be concerned in the slightest of the victims’ greatest priority and most desperate need. Many of the group have already told me they will be doing so, and it is important that we demonstrate through actions, that as a group, we are solid in our demands and stance; after all, we only want what we are rightfully owed. And do you really want to be named as a Core Participant in the Inquiry that abandoned the rest of the victim group?
Already it can be seen that millions of pounds are being spent on lawyers by some of those taking part in the Inquiry, no doubt in an effort of damage control for their clients. The way they are trying to limit the evidence that can be heard and the issues to be addressed is a prime example of the attempted cover-up the Inquiry is heading towards. It is far more likely that most truths will now be revealed outside the Inquiry rather than within.
So now it’s down to you to decide. But in doing so, try to consider what is in the best interests of the whole victims group, because it is only as a group that we have achieved what we have managed so far, and we need to send a message about what we think of an Inquiry that continues to ignore the victims and their ongoing suffering. Bear in mind that by not withdrawing you are willingly validating and giving credence to a system that has demonstrated it is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on lawyers rather than pay victims what we are rightfully owed.
From the first time any Inquiry was mentioned the financial redress the victims group is owed has always been the one key issue the JFSA has wanted addressed at the outset of any Inquiry. As has been mentioned many times, the courts found Post Office not just guilty, but that it was incredibly guilty of the way it had mistreated the group and other SPMRs ever since Horizon appeared – that is fact. We don’t need the minutiae of who did what and when to be exposed before we are paid the monies we are owed, if the Inquiry does what it says it aims to do, the guilty should be exposed during the course of it anyway, unless they are allowed to hide behind their lawyers.
Despite the sterling work submitted by Howe & Co pleading our case for the need for the financial redress we are rightfully owed to be dealt with first, points so ably voiced by Sam Stein QC at the hearing on 8 November 2021, the powers that be have decided the real and desperate needs of the victims are of no importance. The final List of Issues published on 17 November 2021 contains just 2 paragraphs purporting to deal with financial redress. Neither of them have any relevance at all to the victims group – probably, because in their eyes, we have had full and final settlement and we can be ignored from now on.
I doubt the Inquiry’s findings will vary much from identifying that the main trouble with Post Office and its Horizon system is that it was actually a series of disasters welded together by incompetent management led by a Board that was asleep at the wheel and overseen by government mandarins who didn’t give a damn.
The JFSA’s position has never changed nor waivered, the matter of financial redress for the victims has always been of paramount importance and it had to be dealt with first if we were to willingly engage with the Inquiry. Yet it has now become clear that the Inquiry has refused to do this and subsequently the JFSA has written to the Inquiry to withdraw its application as a Core Participant.
If you are one of the 555 who were part of the JFSA group litigation action against Post Office, then there now isn’t the slightest benefit to you or the victims group by staying engaged in the Inquiry as a Core Participant. And whilst the 40 in the group action who had convictions overturned and now have their own legal representatives pursuing their particular financial redress may think this does not apply to them. I have no doubt that the other 500 would greatly appreciate your support in backing their continuing campaign to obtain the monies that they too are owed, and you can do that by joining with the rest of the group who are withdrawing from being a Core Participant.
So I now write to all of you who have registered as Core Participants to ask you to withdraw your applications and show solidarity over the failure of the Inquiry to be concerned in the slightest of the victims’ greatest priority and most desperate need. Many of the group have already told me they will be doing so, and it is important that we demonstrate through actions, that as a group, we are solid in our demands and stance; after all, we only want what we are rightfully owed. And do you really want to be named as a Core Participant in the Inquiry that abandoned the rest of the victim group?
Already it can be seen that millions of pounds are being spent on lawyers by some of those taking part in the Inquiry, no doubt in an effort of damage control for their clients. The way they are trying to limit the evidence that can be heard and the issues to be addressed is a prime example of the attempted cover-up the Inquiry is heading towards. It is far more likely that most truths will now be revealed outside the Inquiry rather than within.
So now it’s down to you to decide. But in doing so, try to consider what is in the best interests of the whole victims group, because it is only as a group that we have achieved what we have managed so far, and we need to send a message about what we think of an Inquiry that continues to ignore the victims and their ongoing suffering. Bear in mind that by not withdrawing you are willingly validating and giving credence to a system that has demonstrated it is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on lawyers rather than pay victims what we are rightfully owed.
26 August 2021
Sir Wyn Williams published the ‘provisional list of draft issues’ for the Statutory Inquiry into Post Office and its Horizon system.
Sir Wyn Williams published the ‘provisional list of draft issues’ for the Statutory Inquiry into Post Office and its Horizon system.
Key wording at the start of that document is the sentence:-
'For the avoidance of doubt, the Chair will be guided by the evidence that emerges throughout the Inquiry and the completed list of issues will not bind the Chair to investigate only those issues set out therein or necessarily to investigate a listed issue irrespective of the sufficiency of evidence that is identified' [emphasis added]
So regardless of the final list of issues, Sir Wyn Wiliams may decide to ignore any or all of them despite overwhelming evidence being available or in his possession. A further point to bear in mind is that there is considerable evidence of the failures of BEIS in this scandal, yet it is BEIS which is the sponsoring department and responsible for engaging and paying all those who will run and manage the Inquiry.
*A small percentage of the original 555 victims received convictions having been prosecuted by POL, the majority of which have had their prosecutions overturned. These victims are now in a position to separately pursue civil action against POL to seek financial redress and compensation for wrongfully being prosecuted.
28 May 2021
Following the conversion of the original inquiry to put it on a Statutory footing from 1 June 2021, a brief initial meeting was held between Sir Wyn Williams and the JFSA and its legal team. At the meeting the JFSA conveyed its thoughts on how it hoped the Inquiry will now proceed.
Sir Wyn Wiliams has stated that he will be preparing a Statement of Approach No 4 which will probably be available in 14 days once key participants have had an opportunity to make submissions to him as to what path the inquiry should follow.
Whilst the JFSA awaits sight of Statement of Approach No 4 to see if it will fully engage with the Statutory Inquiry it is important that preparations are made ready to move ahead quickly should the terms encompass the concerns of the group.
Following the conversion of the original inquiry to put it on a Statutory footing from 1 June 2021, a brief initial meeting was held between Sir Wyn Williams and the JFSA and its legal team. At the meeting the JFSA conveyed its thoughts on how it hoped the Inquiry will now proceed.
Sir Wyn Wiliams has stated that he will be preparing a Statement of Approach No 4 which will probably be available in 14 days once key participants have had an opportunity to make submissions to him as to what path the inquiry should follow.
Whilst the JFSA awaits sight of Statement of Approach No 4 to see if it will fully engage with the Statutory Inquiry it is important that preparations are made ready to move ahead quickly should the terms encompass the concerns of the group.
The provisional list of issues
Those with an in-depth knowledge of what has occurred over the years would have recognised that these provisional issues have either been put together by those who have yet to understand the full breadth of what is involved, or has been produced from legal advice designed to swerve around the really tricky points but still present a veneer of thoroughness to the outside world. Didn’t BEIS appoint the Inquiry lawyers?
Whilst some of the issues are just simply wrong in their assumptions, there are gaping gaps in many of the others, resulting in a lack of cohesiveness when trying to address a theme and thereby avoiding some of the more demanding questions that need to be asked.
Obviously the main interest to the 500* victims group is whether or not the Inquiry will look at the financial redress it is owed but has failed to receive. However in the preliminary list of issues, despite ‘redress’ appearing on six separate occasions, is never once accompanied by the word ‘financial’, and it is important to bear in mind that this document was drawn up by the BEIS appointed lawyers.
In light of this point we have asked our legal team ‘to write to Sir Wyn for clarification of just one point i.e. where he uses 'redress', does he mean 'financial redress' - a yes or no answer from him would be appreciated.’
So having seen the preliminary list of issues, will the JFSA be engaging willingly with the Inquiry?
It all depends on the answer Sir Wyn gives to our question. A yes, and only a yes, will ensure we actively engage in a constructive manner going forward. Otherwise we could not willingly support the Inquiry, as there would be no reason to, because the main issue for the victims group is the financial redress they have failed to receive, and if that is not part of the Inquiry then there is absolutely no point in taking part. Not only that, but we would actively encourage all others who are considering taking any part in the Inquiry, should they actually care about the way the victims have been treated, to support the group by not engaging with the Inquiry until such time as financial redress is included.
Those with an in-depth knowledge of what has occurred over the years would have recognised that these provisional issues have either been put together by those who have yet to understand the full breadth of what is involved, or has been produced from legal advice designed to swerve around the really tricky points but still present a veneer of thoroughness to the outside world. Didn’t BEIS appoint the Inquiry lawyers?
Whilst some of the issues are just simply wrong in their assumptions, there are gaping gaps in many of the others, resulting in a lack of cohesiveness when trying to address a theme and thereby avoiding some of the more demanding questions that need to be asked.
Obviously the main interest to the 500* victims group is whether or not the Inquiry will look at the financial redress it is owed but has failed to receive. However in the preliminary list of issues, despite ‘redress’ appearing on six separate occasions, is never once accompanied by the word ‘financial’, and it is important to bear in mind that this document was drawn up by the BEIS appointed lawyers.
In light of this point we have asked our legal team ‘to write to Sir Wyn for clarification of just one point i.e. where he uses 'redress', does he mean 'financial redress' - a yes or no answer from him would be appreciated.’
So having seen the preliminary list of issues, will the JFSA be engaging willingly with the Inquiry?
It all depends on the answer Sir Wyn gives to our question. A yes, and only a yes, will ensure we actively engage in a constructive manner going forward. Otherwise we could not willingly support the Inquiry, as there would be no reason to, because the main issue for the victims group is the financial redress they have failed to receive, and if that is not part of the Inquiry then there is absolutely no point in taking part. Not only that, but we would actively encourage all others who are considering taking any part in the Inquiry, should they actually care about the way the victims have been treated, to support the group by not engaging with the Inquiry until such time as financial redress is included.
So regardless of the final list of issues, Sir Wyn Wiliams may decide to ignore any or all of them despite overwhelming evidence being available or in his possession. A further point to bear in mind is that there is considerable evidence of the failures of BEIS in this scandal, yet it is BEIS which is the sponsoring department and responsible for engaging and paying all those who will run and manage the Inquiry.