advertisement


Mr Bates vs the Post Office

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I'm thinking something like Conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice, perhaps; Conspiracy to commit perjury, stuff like that. Also, not sure of my ground, but I think knowingly misleading Parliament might also carry criminal sanctions.
Click to expand...
Conspiracy needs at least 2 conspirators. I have heard nothing so far that suggests perjury in any context or deliberately misleading a Select Committee. There is an investigation by the Met who have said that, if I remember correctly, that it would take at least 4 years to go through the 10m + pages of evidence to even begin to consider if any criminal activity has taken place.

Personally, I cannot see anything coming from this. Nor do I think it would be worth the time and expense when the result would probably be acquittals anyway.
 
Cav said:
Conspiracy needs at least 2 conspirators. I have heard nothing so far that suggests perjury in any context or deliberately misleading a Select Committee. There is an investigation by the Met who have said that, if I remember correctly, that it would take at least 4 years to go through the 10m + pages of evidence to even begin to consider if any criminal activity has taken place.

Personally, I cannot see anything coming from this. Nor do I think it would be worth the time and expense when the result would probably be acquittals anyway.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of evidence accumulating that, corporately, parties within the Post Office and Fujitsu knew that Horizon was producing spurious results. I infer, from what has reached the public domain, that some people tasked with prosecuting these postmasters knew, or at the very least suspected, that the prosecutions were based on false data. Nevertheless they proceeded, and must therefore have knowingly misled the court in pursuit of a conviction they knew to be, at best, unsafe. That is, AFAICS perjury and perverting the course of justice, and already highly likely to be a conspiracy given that prosecutions of this kind are not the preserve of just one individual. If Vennells knew more than she admits about this scenario, and signed off (metaphorically, unless there's a smoking gun in documents somewhere) on the prosecutions regardless, then she is part of any such conspiracy to do the above.
 
^ Hasn't a Fujitsu employee already confessed he lied about the ability to remotely change the figures in postmasters accounts ? Several people at Fujitsu must have known.
 
She seems to be spinning it like it was the system that kept her out of the loop.
So how can she be culpable.
It's a conspiracy against her is how she sees it.

She won't be the first to be bamboozled by IT systems.

And there was a lot of that bamboozlement about in the 90's when it was new.

I might have some sympathy if she were on a real world salary.

So no sympathy from me.
 
Jubal said:
Does YouTube qualify against your demands? All on there.
Click to expand...

The snag there is me. I've not yet got the current version of the YT downloader working. Must do that// But I was hoping there was a simpler and more 'open' site that just lists the video files and lets you fetch or view them.
 

All Public Hearings | Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk

Papers here I think.

Incompetence and ignorance may mean she keeps all her monies.

@wacko at 65, with all that she's acquired financially, she won't need to work again. That said, I'd be very comfortable, if I saw out in the public, not to share my personal thoughts with her.

Corruption has become such a byword now that I can't decide who are the mugs here.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
She’s got little choice. Either plead ignorance and let everybody think she was useless, or admit she knew but condoned the prosecutions, and put herself at risk of very serious criminal charges.

And ignorance of the law is no defence, but ignorance of facts or events might be.
Click to expand...

Is "I decline to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me." a viable option when facing the Inquiry?
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Is "I decline to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me." a viable option when facing the Inquiry?
Click to expand...

wacko said:
It should not be allowed in a court case or a government inquiry IMO. And if it is I'll take it to mean 'you are guilty'.
Click to expand...
I think it is allowed, yes - witnesses are apparently given a warning about self-incrimination.

It would be hard to make any other inference to a response like "I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" than that the person had guilty knowledge of something.

Given her evidence, that she knew nothing, that would probably be tantamount to an admission of misleading the Inquiry. That, AFAIK, is perjury too. I wonder if Mr Beer is hoping to catch her in some sort of contradiction or inconsistency that starts to unravel her claim to ignorance.
 
^ Nuts. What is the point of a prosecution asking a defendant questions if not for 'self-incrimination' ?
Good thing I am not a lawyer :)
 
She won't do a second behind bars, her ilk never do, protected, teflon coated, too well connected. just like Hillsborough, Hartlepool and in all likelihood the Factor 8 scandal, these cnuts are untouchable.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Yebbut this is an Inquiry, not a criminal court. We don’t have prosecution and defendant here.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know but I feel the same about an inquiry. If it is to get to the truth everyone should answer the questions. Even more so in fact as it is a 'public inquiry' not a private crime. Let's get to those at the top of the food chain.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think it is allowed, yes - witnesses are apparently given a warning about self-incrimination.

It would be hard to make any other inference to a response like "I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" than that the person had guilty knowledge of something.

Given her evidence, that she knew nothing, that would probably be tantamount to an admission of misleading the Inquiry. That, AFAIK, is perjury too. I wonder if Mr Beer is hoping to catch her in some sort of contradiction or inconsistency that starts to unravel her claim to ignorance.
Click to expand...
Firstly, declining to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination is perfectly legitimate and would not be an admission of anything; secondly, refusing to answer (by definition) cannot be perjury; thirdly, she has completed her evidence so Beer has had his chance; fourthly, the Counsels for the co-participants tried to identify inconsistencies and, imho, failed to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top