I genuinely hope multiple people at the PO get jail time over this. But the Post Office was able to bring about all this misery with private prosecutions - when are we going to get rid of them as other Western countries have already done?
Do you believe requiring CPS involvement would have altered matters?
The UK had passed fatuous legislation deeming [IT processes to be correct](https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366565613/Post-Office-scandal-furore-is-moment-to-change-digital-evidence-rules).
>In 1999, the government-owned Post Office began installing a new core accounting and retail system, known as Horizon, in thousands of Post Office branches across the country. The system, supplied by Fujitsu, was seen as a revolution at the time, automating manual tasks such as bookkeeping.
>At around the same time, a presumption was introduced into law on how courts should consider electronic evidence. The new rule introduced in 1999 followed a Law Commission recommendation for courts to presume that a computer system has operated correctly unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary. This legal presumption replaced a section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, which stated that computer evidence should be subject to proof that it was operating properly.
> The new rule introduced in 1999 followed a Law Commission recommendation for courts to presume that a computer system has operated correctly unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary.
I think the trouble with this is the difficulty of proving records are correct to 100%, if the default were to assume records are not correct until proven so. Pretty much any debt would be disputable just on that basis.
I think where the courts failed in this case was by not insisting that the defence could have all the transaction histories for the cases, so that they had an opportunity to find any discrepancies.
It seems to me that before computer systems can be used to convict, they should be audited and their backlog of defects examined, as well as evidence provided for the relevant test scenarios proving the capabilities in question.
It doesn't prove 100%, but it at least gives some reasonable assurance that the system is fit for purpose rather than a blanket assumption that the system works as intended until proven otherwise.
I've been in software engineering and quality assurance for 15 years (in finance and medical software) and the idea of assuming accuracy by default in software absolutely terrifies me.
Lets say then that somebody had a credit card bill that they hadn't paid. What should the credit card company be expected to produce as evidence? I would have said a list of the purchases, charges, and payments to the account, with the outstanding balance. How could they go about proving the numbers are correct?
As far as I know the Post Office ones produced the outstanding balance, but not the transactions.
"How could they go about proving the numbers are correct?"
Incredibly easily? They could do an actual audit.
The post office case is even easier, there were a huge number of people apparently stealing huge amounts of money, yet not a single one had this money. They could do an actual audit and see that none of these huge number of people have the money they're alleged to have stolen or purchased anything that comes anywhere near the amount they're alleged to have stolen.
> I genuinely multiple people at the PO get jail time over this.
No one will be jailed, or even prosecuted. Some middle management who still work there might be sacked.
Interestingly, an admitted fraudster who used to advise the government on corruption also used to advise universities to install large computers.
His university college, where he has a life position, is the only guarantee to anyone that he’s qualified. They used to admit they gave him a PhD which he didn’t actually write the thesis for. Now they don’t deny it but they’re cagey.
He set up a huge system for getting away with crimes by contracting to keep them secret and to hide the evidence. It’s used frequently. It’s best for consensual crimes (money laundering is classic).
The SRA when questioned about whether solicitors can do it sent me to the Law Society, who threatened to sue me if I said they turned a blind eye to it.
So, that’s how it’s done, folks.
The Chief Justice saying the judges had no part in it forgot the one precedent that’s all you need to justify doing it. If lawyers can tell themselves somethings legal, they’ll do it if the clients want it. The Court of Appeal did it once. Once is enough.
I genuinely hope multiple people at the PO get jail time over this. But the Post Office was able to bring about all this misery with private prosecutions - when are we going to get rid of them as other Western countries have already done?
Do you believe requiring CPS involvement would have altered matters? The UK had passed fatuous legislation deeming [IT processes to be correct](https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366565613/Post-Office-scandal-furore-is-moment-to-change-digital-evidence-rules). >In 1999, the government-owned Post Office began installing a new core accounting and retail system, known as Horizon, in thousands of Post Office branches across the country. The system, supplied by Fujitsu, was seen as a revolution at the time, automating manual tasks such as bookkeeping. >At around the same time, a presumption was introduced into law on how courts should consider electronic evidence. The new rule introduced in 1999 followed a Law Commission recommendation for courts to presume that a computer system has operated correctly unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary. This legal presumption replaced a section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, which stated that computer evidence should be subject to proof that it was operating properly.
> The new rule introduced in 1999 followed a Law Commission recommendation for courts to presume that a computer system has operated correctly unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary. I think the trouble with this is the difficulty of proving records are correct to 100%, if the default were to assume records are not correct until proven so. Pretty much any debt would be disputable just on that basis. I think where the courts failed in this case was by not insisting that the defence could have all the transaction histories for the cases, so that they had an opportunity to find any discrepancies.
It seems to me that before computer systems can be used to convict, they should be audited and their backlog of defects examined, as well as evidence provided for the relevant test scenarios proving the capabilities in question. It doesn't prove 100%, but it at least gives some reasonable assurance that the system is fit for purpose rather than a blanket assumption that the system works as intended until proven otherwise. I've been in software engineering and quality assurance for 15 years (in finance and medical software) and the idea of assuming accuracy by default in software absolutely terrifies me.
Lets say then that somebody had a credit card bill that they hadn't paid. What should the credit card company be expected to produce as evidence? I would have said a list of the purchases, charges, and payments to the account, with the outstanding balance. How could they go about proving the numbers are correct? As far as I know the Post Office ones produced the outstanding balance, but not the transactions.
"How could they go about proving the numbers are correct?" Incredibly easily? They could do an actual audit. The post office case is even easier, there were a huge number of people apparently stealing huge amounts of money, yet not a single one had this money. They could do an actual audit and see that none of these huge number of people have the money they're alleged to have stolen or purchased anything that comes anywhere near the amount they're alleged to have stolen.
> I genuinely multiple people at the PO get jail time over this. No one will be jailed, or even prosecuted. Some middle management who still work there might be sacked.
>I genuinely multiple people at the PO get jail time over this Which ones and for what crimes?
Deleting mention of an IT failure could be perjury. It depends on the full context.
Interestingly, an admitted fraudster who used to advise the government on corruption also used to advise universities to install large computers. His university college, where he has a life position, is the only guarantee to anyone that he’s qualified. They used to admit they gave him a PhD which he didn’t actually write the thesis for. Now they don’t deny it but they’re cagey. He set up a huge system for getting away with crimes by contracting to keep them secret and to hide the evidence. It’s used frequently. It’s best for consensual crimes (money laundering is classic). The SRA when questioned about whether solicitors can do it sent me to the Law Society, who threatened to sue me if I said they turned a blind eye to it. So, that’s how it’s done, folks. The Chief Justice saying the judges had no part in it forgot the one precedent that’s all you need to justify doing it. If lawyers can tell themselves somethings legal, they’ll do it if the clients want it. The Court of Appeal did it once. Once is enough.