I’m now reading the submissions from @edwardhenry1 he makes the really important and under appreciated point that, even on the evidence as it was, false accounting should arguably not have been run. #postofficeinquiry
And the equally important point about equivocal pleas. A point almost ignored so far, including by me. The customary anguish when I read about @CastletonLee or @Janetsk20073533 is accentuated with gut wrenching economy
Here’s an example. About Janet Skinner, “She enters a plea, an unequivocal, I suppose, but false plea, because she had been crushed.”
And this. Like SS the weight and seriousness of the situation is not ignored…Serious criminal charges emerged from this scandal,we submit. Perjury is one; perverting the course of justice, the vital administration of justice is another…
…contempt of Parliament, quite possibly even another. So far as legal professional privilege being vitiated, …. [there was] evidence of the iniquity in abundance.
And then this… There is no need now to name the great and the good who Mr Beer mentioned, the "Don't you know who I ams", who then
populated the Central Criminal Court in the east and formerly the Supreme Court in the west with One Essex Court almost plum in the middle?…
…But it seems that the establishment writ large with all its weight was brought to bear on the little people.” #PostOfficeScandal#PostOfficeInquiry
“Those who constituted the directing mind and will of the corporates may rest the blame on middle management or seek to pass responsibility to their internal legal department…
…and, ultimately, given what Mr Beer, King's Counsel, has already alluded to, point the finger at each other and government, in a sort of three-way "The good, the bad and the ugly" Mexican stand-off.” 😂😂😂
“POL might now choose to blame those who were
prepared professionally to stand on their heads and
perform cartwheels for them, ranging from panel firms
who prosecuted, to those august persons Mr Beer, King's
Counsel, mentioned.”
“Now, none of Mr Altman's documents, advices or
reviews were disclosed in the criminal appeals. The
existence of his 2013 review was known, but not
disclosed. It is jaw dropping, when one considers
[it]… Mr Altman's consultation…on 9 September 2013. Jaw dropping.”
Of another Altman advice… “Again, hair raising…. Utterly inimical to the very grave and onerous responsibility on the Post Office as prosecutor that, by that time it knew, or at the very, very least suspected, that innocent people had …been criminalised for nothing.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It has a strong ‘let the finger pointing’ begin vibe. The claim is the Board we’re kept in the dark. The admission is the non execs did not do their job until 2018 at any rate. And while they do appear to have learnt several lessons, I predict they’ll learn more 2/
Key point one is the claim there is no evidence the Board were ever shown the Clarke Advices. Instead they focused on how Second Sights investigations might open them up to attack. 3/
Sam Stein KC saying individuals in Post Office may have perverted course of justice in Bates litigation strikes he as a very important point. Day3 #PostOfficeInquiry
Also his points on what helped PO cover up. And then this…
In reality, this Inquiry is not about the Horizon
System, with all of its faults and problems, but about
a sickness which lay at the core of the Post Office. 2/
The Post Office was employer, victim, investigator and
civil and criminal prosecutor and it is now the arbiter
of which of its victims should receive compensation and
Lord Pannick’s opinion on behalf of Boris Johnson continues to make the news (theguardian.com/politics/2022/…). There is a suggestion this is was a misuse of public funds by the Johnson Government.
Interestingly too, the Commons Committee savaged by his opinion has raised a stern retort. I am not going to analyse the opinion in depth. David Allen Green has it right, I think, when he says (davidallengreen.com/2022/09/the-cu…):
So, the idea it’s a Gov diversion tactic to blame lawyers: from the Russia Report…51. It is not just the oligarchs either: the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers – individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for the Russian elite in the UK.
…Lawyers, accountants, estate agents and PR professionals have played a role, wittingly or unwittingly, in the extension of Russian influence which is often linked to promoting the nefarious interests of the Russian state. 2/
A large private security industry has developed in the UK to service the needs of the Russian elite, in which British companies protect the oligarchs and their families, seek kompromat56 on competitors, and on occasion help launder money… 3/