Surely if you have a large enough sample of people some of them would have committed crimesOriginally Posted by Mouse
Surely if you have a large enough sample of people some of them would have committed crimes
Indeed. I don't disagree. It just seemed a bit odd that counsel would refer to them during defensive 'arguments'.
Probably an attempt to reinforce a defence that these people are not trustworthy and lacking integrity, what a way to try and justify the post office position
Sorry, I've confused matters!
It was the inquiry counsel that was referring to documents which contained these criminal cases. He was trying to further shed light on the failures of the Horizon system, but I just found it strange that these documents were brought up. Of course the inquiry counsel is not a judge or there to 'try' the interviewee and is just trying to get to the bottom of things. I guess I just found it a little shocking that, given everything so far has been all about the innocence of the SPMs, that there actually were some that were not innocent after all.
They can’t all be innocent. But I am certain the guilty percentage did not increase because they installed a new computer system. The frustration I feel is the contempt that maybe led some to believe they were uncovering a mass of hitherto undiscovered miscreants and were on a righteous path to justice. I could be wildly off the mark but I fail to see how else they justified it to themselves? Have any of the PO/Fujitsu mob ever articulated anything of that nature?
There were some who were sort-of innocent, in that losses were caused by Horizon, which were then covered up (criminally) by the postmaster. In these cases there were guilty pleas - strictly speaking, correctly, as the postmasters really had committed a crime - but only as a result of the Horizon fuck-up. In such cases, it's easy for the prosecuting barrister to be sucked into believing they were guilty of all charges.
A good barrister, obviously, would not make this assumption, but a mediocre one (such as one that I know of personally who has appeared at the enquiry in recent days) certainly might, and in this case did.
Many pleaded to a charge of false accounting, in preference to being prosecuted for theft. Many or all did so because of the helplessness of their situation - basically a confession was beaten out of them (without physlcal injury).
Many had covered up the losses, assuming that there had been 'actual' losses and that they would hopefully ride it out without being prosecuted.
I don't see anything morally or legally wrong in either scenario.
In terms of their actions or their being prosecuted?
They were unfairly, unjustly, even maliciously treated at every turn seems to me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote