4 ms·

To clarify how this happened: in the UK anyone can bring a private prosecution where they effectively act as the prosecutor. This is usually used by charities w

To clarify how this happened: in the UK anyone can bring a private prosecution where they effectively act as the prosecutor. This is usually used by charities who take on laws to prosecute (eg., crimes against animals). Here the post office used the law to prosecute its own staff in alleged crimes against the post office. So they were both the prosecutor and the victim. This gave them overwhelming incentives not to reveal all evidence to the defence, and indeed they hit many reports on these computer systems. That is a crime; and I imagine senior staff at the post office should be themselves prosectued. But the underlying issue is the gap in the law where private prosecution by companies is permitted even when they're the victims and when they hold all the evidence. This is the mechanism which created the insanity.

switch007 3y ago
Private prosecutions are also common in the railways in England There are also some parallels with one of the Government's train companies, Northern, who use similar scare tactics as the Post Office with threats of court action and some rail enthusiasts/experts have called their tactics "extortion" [0] (Northern is directly owned and operated by the Government. So they may flap and act indignant about the Post Office, but that makes them hypocrites.) [0] A thread on railway private prosecutions in light of the Post Office Scandal: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-the-railways-powers-of-prosecution-be-limited.251904/ https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-the-railways-pow...
lawtalkinghuman 3y ago
In addition to the RSPCA example, banks/financial institutions bring a fair number of complex fraud prosecutions because it is in their financial interest to prosecute people who've defrauded them. But private prosecutions are indeed an anomaly and can lead to some weird outcomes. A few years ago, someone brought a crowdfunded private prosecution of Boris Johnson for "misconduct in public office". The whole thing was incredibly silly and a massive waste of time. (MIPO isn't there for politicians lying/misleading people, though that does indeed suck.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_v_Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_v_Johnson Also, following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the CPS decided to not prosecute for lack of evidence. The Lawrence family brought a private prosecution which failed. Jeopardy attached at that point. Later evidence emerged which made the case a lot stronger, but had the Criminal Justice Act 2003 not been passed allowing limited exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, it would not have been possible to bring much stronger cases against the perpetrators. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence The CPS have the power to take over and stop an ongoing private prosecution, but the ability to bring private prosecutions sits really uncomfortably with the principle of double jeopardy. Like, someone could do a bad job of bringing a prosecution in a case where the CJA2003 double jeopardy exception doesn't apply and then the person can't be retried by the CPS.
red_admiral 3y ago
I'm mostly with you on that one, but private prosecutors still have to get the case past a judge (and often a jury too), and convince them beyond reasonable doubt. In this particular case that clearly wasn't a sufficient safeguard, but in general, private prosecutions have their place.
- 123pie123 3y ago
  this is what i don't understand how did they get convicted with flimsy evidence? why is no one in the post office or fujitsu (including the directors) being prosecuted
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    It's easily possible when the defense is given fabricated evidence, or evidence of innocence is withheld so that the trier of fact only has biased evidence on which to make their decision.
maratc 3y ago
> So they were both the prosecutor and the victim. Not UK, but this is (usually, I think) the case with private prosecution. When the public prosecution decides not to prosecute, the options for the victim are either do nothing, or go the private prosecution way. In the latter case, the victim will be the prosecutor too.
zzbn00 3y ago
Private prosecutions like this are specific to England & Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system where I believe they are extremely rare; Northern Ireland is also a separate legal system). While the incentives are not to reveal evidence the law is absolutely clear that all evidence identified must be revealed. The difficulty is that forcing and unlimited discovery to identify the evidence would break the whole legal system, and this is what parties can hide behind (for a while at least). We'll have to see when and how anybody will face the consequences of any failures to reveal the evidence. I very much recommend reading the Judgements in Bates vs Post Office. As litigation progressed you can notice how it becomes apparent to the judge how Post Office legal tactics and behaviour undermined the prosecutions.
- NolF 3y ago
  The Courts already have mechanisms to limit "unlimited" subpoenas or requests for discovery. Requests for the software source code or similar, bug reports, and other reports of issues are or would largely not be unreasonable where the key issue is reported thievery, fraud, and mismatched data based on software as the basis for the allegations and prosecution.
  - zzbn00 3y ago
    They do, but applications on these matters can easily overwhelm the financially weaker opponent. Interesting comment in one of the Post Office judgements: "10. Finally, disclosure is very expensive. The court will be astute to guard against it becoming either satellite litigation or a weapon in the interlocutory arsenal." https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html

switch007 3y ago

Private prosecutions are also common in the railways in England There are also some parallels with one of the Government's train companies, Northern, who use similar scare tactics as the Post Office with threats of court action and some rail enthusiasts/experts have called their tactics "extortion" [0] (Northern is directly owned and operated by the Government. So they may flap and act indignant about the Post Office, but that makes them hypocrites.) [0] A thread on railway private prosecutions in light of the Post Office Scandal: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-the-railways-powers-of-prosecution-be-limited.251904/ https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-the-railways-pow...

lawtalkinghuman 3y ago

In addition to the RSPCA example, banks/financial institutions bring a fair number of complex fraud prosecutions because it is in their financial interest to prosecute people who've defrauded them. But private prosecutions are indeed an anomaly and can lead to some weird outcomes. A few years ago, someone brought a crowdfunded private prosecution of Boris Johnson for "misconduct in public office". The whole thing was incredibly silly and a massive waste of time. (MIPO isn't there for politicians lying/misleading people, though that does indeed suck.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_v_Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_v_Johnson Also, following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the CPS decided to not prosecute for lack of evidence. The Lawrence family brought a private prosecution which failed. Jeopardy attached at that point. Later evidence emerged which made the case a lot stronger, but had the Criminal Justice Act 2003 not been passed allowing limited exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, it would not have been possible to bring much stronger cases against the perpetrators. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence The CPS have the power to take over and stop an ongoing private prosecution, but the ability to bring private prosecutions sits really uncomfortably with the principle of double jeopardy. Like, someone could do a bad job of bringing a prosecution in a case where the CJA2003 double jeopardy exception doesn't apply and then the person can't be retried by the CPS.

red_admiral 3y ago

I'm mostly with you on that one, but private prosecutors still have to get the case past a judge (and often a jury too), and convince them beyond reasonable doubt. In this particular case that clearly wasn't a sufficient safeguard, but in general, private prosecutions have their place.

123pie123 3y ago
this is what i don't understand how did they get convicted with flimsy evidence? why is no one in the post office or fujitsu (including the directors) being prosecuted
- qingcharles 3y ago
  It's easily possible when the defense is given fabricated evidence, or evidence of innocence is withheld so that the trier of fact only has biased evidence on which to make their decision.

maratc 3y ago

> So they were both the prosecutor and the victim. Not UK, but this is (usually, I think) the case with private prosecution. When the public prosecution decides not to prosecute, the options for the victim are either do nothing, or go the private prosecution way. In the latter case, the victim will be the prosecutor too.

zzbn00 3y ago

Private prosecutions like this are specific to England & Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system where I believe they are extremely rare; Northern Ireland is also a separate legal system). While the incentives are not to reveal evidence the law is absolutely clear that all evidence identified must be revealed. The difficulty is that forcing and unlimited discovery to identify the evidence would break the whole legal system, and this is what parties can hide behind (for a while at least). We'll have to see when and how anybody will face the consequences of any failures to reveal the evidence. I very much recommend reading the Judgements in Bates vs Post Office. As litigation progressed you can notice how it becomes apparent to the judge how Post Office legal tactics and behaviour undermined the prosecutions.

NolF 3y ago
The Courts already have mechanisms to limit "unlimited" subpoenas or requests for discovery. Requests for the software source code or similar, bug reports, and other reports of issues are or would largely not be unreasonable where the key issue is reported thievery, fraud, and mismatched data based on software as the basis for the allegations and prosecution.
- zzbn00 3y ago
  They do, but applications on these matters can easily overwhelm the financially weaker opponent. Interesting comment in one of the Post Office judgements: "10. Finally, disclosure is very expensive. The court will be astute to guard against it becoming either satellite litigation or a weapon in the interlocutory arsenal." https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html