Well deserved
Bates learned of knighthood at Post Office inquiry Alan Bates learnt of birthday honours knighthood as Post Office boss was grilled
1 Like
Very well deserved. A lot more so than the honours given to those two dancers from Strictly 
It’s a weird case.Surely there’s now a case to answer of did the prosecution side and ‘any’ of its witnesses committ perjury and falsification of evidence to mislead the CPS ?.
There are reports of ongoing perjury investigations.
And the CPS had very little or no involvement in the cases.
I thought they were all private prosecutions brought by the Post Office independently of the CPS?
Most were prosecutions by the PO themselves, but some others were by other bodies, including the CPS.
It isn’t clear from this exactly how many were by the CPS, and how many of those were solely reliant on Horizon/Fujitsu evidence.
If I’ve got it right the prosecutors knew that their own evidence and therefore accusations were unreliable but knowingly hid that fact from the CPS ?.People were sent down and wrongly convicted based on that.
That’s serious stuff.
I think private prosecution just means brought before the CPS by the aggrieved Party not the Police.The CPS make the decision just the same ?.
No. Anyone with a few grand can employ Council and make a private prosecution.
The PO has Council “in house”.
Yes it is very serious if perjury was committed, and that is why as I replied to you above, the police are currently investigating,
The whole sorry episode is a complete and utter travesty.
Innocent people losing their freedom by being victims of both incompetence and essentially a cover up by a large and wealthy organisation, the big men explouting and doing wtf with the small man, tenuouslly bullying…which I personally hate.
The same wealth used to hire the best legal team to keep the small man (and woman) down, some of whom have died with false guilt hung over them… an absolute disgrace and gross misjustice
Heads should (and will) roll, both from the PO.and the company who manufactured and operated this not fit for purpose cluster ■■■■ of technology.
Lock the basts up and throw away the key if proven that they all knew, and were in with what was going on,.and sue them to the hilt.
Good on the man who stood up to these a holes,.and the tv co.s and producers for making this high profile in the form of a drama, which was the main catalyst for all this.
That’s nuts.Its a licence for anyone with a malicious grievance or intent to circumvent the normally expected channels.
In this case covering up a known accounts process problem by fitting up and making scapegoats of post office staff.
Either way it obviously means submitting statements and evidence to the court.
If those statements and evidence aren’t truthful and/or falsified that seems like at least contempt of court.Or perjury if given under oath ?.
That’s the way it works.
If someone did make a malicious prosecution, they would likely be liable for the cost of the defnce as well as of the prosecution.
Any proven false evidence would be perjury and might punishable by jail time.
Any lawyer worth their salt would not let a client be so foolhardy if the lawyer were in full knowledge of the facts. (In the PO case there are questions being asked about exactly what was know by whom and when)
The system isn’t full of nutters accusing each other of serious crimes because getting it wrong could bounce back seriously.
No, the clues are in the names: Private prosecutions, versus The Director of Public Prosecutions being the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, so “Crown”, ie the state being the opposite of private.
Which leaves the question if the Post Office thought they had real evidence of theft and fraud against it why didn’t they choose to hand it over to the Police ?.
The ‘system’ of ‘private’ prosecutions as it stands seems like a licence for scapegoating and false accusations to divert attention and blame onto innocent parties.
My ( erroneous ) interpretation of ‘private’ was just brought to court without ‘police’ involvement.I was sure that the CPS are a required stage in either case.Unless something changed in that regard ?.
Bearing in mind by definition courts are appointed agents of ’ the Crown ’ no different to the CPS and independent of the police.
The CPS and the Courts are mutually inclusive in that regard ?.
In this case there seems to be an admission by the PO and/or it’s witnesses ? that it knew that its evidence was unreliable when it brought the case ?.
So, once upon a time the Police used to prosecute cases themselves. Because the same officers might investigate and be responsible for prosecuting a case they were not always…umm…objective. They might be too close to the sharp end.
The Police then had to go to the new CPS so they could see the evidence and carry out any prosecution.
The Crown has the Police, CPS and DPP, and Courts as separate entities.
That is what thew ongoing Enquiry is looking at.
And apparently what the Police are investigating.
EXACTLY who knew what and when is the whole knub of the Enquiry.
The Enquiry will not make any charges.
The Police can take evidence from the Enquiry, and make further enquires based on that.
The Police will then take that to the CPS who can decide whether or not to make charge before the Courts.
I am open to correction on any of that of course.
It still leaves the obvious question why were the PO so keen on a DIY prosecution.As opposed to handing it all over to the Police bearing in mind the size of the case and amount of those accused.
Because they had always had in house Briefs and ha d always done their own prosecutions.
Just as they had their own security or investigators.
Now if someone, not me, were to put two and two together…and remember that the dual role of Police being investigators and prosecutors didn’t work well…and looking at the PO system where they still did investigate and prosecute…
There are conflicting targets.
One is to get a culprit and a good clear up rate. Another is to find the truth.
The Enquiry seems to be doing a good job.
There appears to be a lot being exposed, but it is a remarkably complex web.
Before the (excellent) TV show the BBC did a brilliant and deeper expose.
Highly recommended, but it is deep and more than a five minute listen.
Adding a short video
