Content Provider

Here is the email I promised you on Friday. Apologies.

Trial by media

It has very kindly been brought to my attention that the Private Eye piece on the opening days of this trial is up online. Private Eye often remove their news pieces without warning, so you may want to read it sooner rather than later.

I am also told that the Daily Mail piece which many claimants have made a contribution to will be published tomorrow. I’ll believe this when I see it as it was originally scheduled for Saturday.

Type/edit/copy/paste/upload/format/publish

This is the latest blog post on www.postofficetrial.com, summing up ten memorable moments of the trial’s first 10 days.

I have also collated all the Lead Claimant witness statement links here. I am working on getting all the Post Office Witness statements in one place.

I have given greater prominence to the possible admission in court on Wednesday that some Subpostmasters may have been prosecuted in order to get Proceeds of Crime Act order against them.

I have also given greater prominence to the internal Post Office email chain in which various people discuss Pam Stubbs (a lead claimant) Horizon issues in the light of her suspension. In February Mrs Stubbs had been assured (well before her suspension in June) that her losses were being investigated. One email in this chain, dated 14 September in the same year admits there has been no investigation into her situation.

Seagull poo

Also, you may remember I wrote a comment piece about the NFSP and (post-publication) asked the NFSP for comment which I would then incorporate into my blog. They refused to say anything meaningful, but asked me to take down the image of the NFSP logo I had used to illustrate the piece as I was utilising their intellectual property without their permission.

I felt I was allowed to use it under fair dealing rights, but they insisted I wasn’t and made vague threats about taking this further. I agreed to take it down out of goodwill as they had asked so nicely, but asserted my right to put it back up at any time and use it again in any future work I might produce.

Then I asked my friend in Shoreham-by-Sea to go down to the NFSP headquarters and take some photos of the sign outside their building, which is why the piece is now illustrated by an NFSP sign covered in seagull poo.

Written parliamentary question

I haven’t had time to put it up on the blog yet, but I will, here is the answer to a written question placed in the House of Lords by Lord Arbuthnot, formerly James Arbuthnot, the MP for North East Hampshire who led the all-party parliamentary group on Subpostmasters’ problems when he was in the commons. The text reads as follows:

Lord Henley, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL11350):

Question: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria they use when considering whether to give permission under Article 11.1(O) of the Articles of Association of Post Office Limited to incur a commitment or liability of more than £50 million. (HL11350)

Tabled on: 12 November 2018

Answer: Lord Henley:

As the sole Shareholder, the Government expects the Post Office Limited to ensure value for money principles in its use of resources at all times. Requests for consent are considered in the light of these principles.

Date and time of answer: 19 Nov 2018 at 15:43.

The reason the question is oblique is because referring directly to this legal action directly is not allowed under the sub judice rule:

This states that “Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question” (Companion to the Standing Orders 4.63).

Nonetheless I am sure there are MPs who can do something with this answer. We know around £5m of taxpayers money has been thrown at this action before the first trial even started. How many more millions will be spent during this next twelve months when THREE trials will be taking place. It may not quite hit £50m, but does Mrs Vennells have to go to the government soon and start seeking permission to continue the action? Or has she sought it already? What conversations are being had about this and where…?

Prosecutions since 2014

One hugely significant stat which has come out in the course of the trial, and actually would have made my top 10 moments had I remembered it was the mention in court given to an FOI request which Patrick Green QC asked a Post Office witness about.

He said the FOI revealed that:

in 2011 the Post Office carried out 31 prosecutions,

in 2012 it carried out 38 prosecutions,

in 2013 it carried out 42 prosecutions

and since 2014, it has carried out 3 prosections.

In 2014, a retired High Court judge, as part of the complaint and mediation scheme, was carrying out a review of various prosecutions undertaken by the Post Office. The Post Office has now changed its policy on suspending its Subpostmasters.

Now – I suspect the amount and level of criminality among Subpostmasters has not suddenly dropped since 2014. It might have, but it’s hard to see how. So you could argue either:

pre-2014 the Post Office was engaged in prosecuting people it shouldn’t have been prosecuting, or

it now isn’t prosecuting the same number of people it should be prosecuting, or

it is either finding a more effective resolution process, or

it knows its investigation and prosecution process is coming under far more scrutiny than it used to, or

as Helen Dickinson suggested on Day 9 (21 Nov), it was because fewer Subpostmasters were being suspended.

Worth thinking about, that.

Here endeth the email

I have to go the kids are yelling at me for their tea.

Live tweets start 10.30am tomorrow. Last day of Post Office witness cross-examination.

Have a good evening!