3 ms·

From the FT article: __The state-owned Post Office acted as investigator and prosecutor in the cases, using the general right in English law for any individual

From the FT article: __The state-owned Post Office acted as investigator and prosecutor in the cases, using the general right in English law for any individuals and organisations to pursue private prosecutions without involving the CPS. A public inquiry into the scandal has heard that the Post Office, among other aggressive legal tactics, accused sub-postmasters of theft to pressure them into pleading guilty to lesser charges. The CPS has identified 11 cases it brought against sub-postmasters that involved “notable evidence” from the Horizon system. Legal experts said the government had been warned several years ago that private prosecutions carried a higher risk because those pursuing them were more likely to have motivations other than securing justice. Lord Ken Macdonald KC, a former director of public prosecutions, said: “If you’ve got a body with skin in the game [such as the Post Office] acting as a prosecutor, that creates obvious risks and dangers.”__

lmm 3y ago
IMO the private prosecution is a necessary safeguard. In other countries you get the opposite problem: a gross injustice has been done, but the public prosecutor won't prosecute (often because the perpetrator was connected with the government in one way or another), so nothing gets done.
- penguin_booze 3y ago
  From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. In this day and age, such a provision doesn't make sense, and must be done away with. As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. You were misinformed. > As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Yes we do; as the article says, in the UK any private organisation or individual has the right to bring a prosecution.
    - penguin_booze 3y ago
      > You were misinformed. As I could be now. My sources were the BBC and PrivateEye podcasts. What are yours?
      - lmm 3y ago
        Here's the UK government's page on bringing a private prosecution: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecutions/private-prosecutions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecuti...
owisd 3y ago
It wasn’t actually a private prosecution, the Post Office has the right to prosecute on behalf of The Crown. The CPS can intervene on private prosecutions so it might not have flown under the radar for so long if it had actually been a private prosecution.

lmm 3y ago

IMO the private prosecution is a necessary safeguard. In other countries you get the opposite problem: a gross injustice has been done, but the public prosecutor won't prosecute (often because the perpetrator was connected with the government in one way or another), so nothing gets done.

penguin_booze 3y ago
From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. In this day and age, such a provision doesn't make sense, and must be done away with. As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- lmm 3y ago
  > From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. You were misinformed. > As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Yes we do; as the article says, in the UK any private organisation or individual has the right to bring a prosecution.
  - penguin_booze 3y ago
    > You were misinformed. As I could be now. My sources were the BBC and PrivateEye podcasts. What are yours?
    - lmm 3y ago
      Here's the UK government's page on bringing a private prosecution: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecutions/private-prosecutions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecuti...

owisd 3y ago

It wasn’t actually a private prosecution, the Post Office has the right to prosecute on behalf of The Crown. The CPS can intervene on private prosecutions so it might not have flown under the radar for so long if it had actually been a private prosecution.