THE HORIZON POST OFFICE SCANDAL

  HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT SUB-POSTMASTER PROSECUTED AT THE RATE OF ONE A WEEK, BY THE POST OFFICE AND CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS) - MAS MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE - WITHOUT PROPER COMPENSATION FOR LOSING HOMES & FAMILIES

Another Great British scandal, mass prosecutions of around 900 sub-postmasters, rather than investigate their claims to being set up. It is part of the British disease. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Planning crime, bribery and corruption is rife in every council in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The banking system is also riddled with fraudsters, selling on mortgages at ludicrous profits, riding on the backs of the honest working people. And just like the Horizon scandal, it is all covered up. Indeed, the BBC will not investigate. Being part of the problem, the British Brainwashing Corporation shies away from controversy. Always believing the Crown, doing their best to cover up, by simply not doing anything, until it might make them look bad, in terms of unbalanced reporting. Until it is thrust upon them by independent investigators. And then they bleat about the injustice they would not investigate. In effect saying "Look at us coming clean." Covering up their tracks as so-called unbiased reporters.

It was a Computer Weekly article in July 2013 that listed over 300 articles on the scandal published by the magazine, since it first broke the story in May 2009 with seven case studies. On 8 September 2009, the jailing of Anglesea subpostmaster Noel Thomas was covered on the S4C current-affairs programme Taro Naw, making the claims of problems with Horizon, and interviewing Alan Bates, Lee Castleton and Jo Hamilton, who had featured in the Computer Weekly article. The programme also uncovered a further nine subpostmasters who had been affected. Where was the BBC in 2009. Ducking for cover, and failing to investigate? The story was investigated by and reported on extensively in Private Eye from 2011, but it was not picked up by the national press.

In March 2015, Private Eye magazine reported that the Post Office had ordered Second Sight to end its investigation just one day before the report was due to be published, and to destroy all the paperwork that it had not handed over. The Post Office then thwarted the independent committee set up to oversee the investigation, as well as the mediation scheme for subpostmasters, and published a report which cleared itself of any wrongdoing. Of the 136 cases, 56 had been closed, and the Post Office would put the rest forward for mediation, unless a court ruling prevented them from doing so. After ending the inquiry, the Post Office said that there were no wide-scale problems, and that:

"This has been an exhaustive and informative process that has confirmed that there are no system-wide problems with our computer system and associated processes. We will now look to resolve the final outstanding cases as quickly as possible."

There are similarities between the Post Office handling as to claims of wrongdoing, effectively, fraudulent accounting, and a Petition in 1997, when Wealden District Council (WC) are alleged to have colluded with Sussex police to, not investigate the Petitioners claims.

SUSSEX POLICE: FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE CRIME

It was reported in 1997 that crimes were committed when Sussex police failed to investigate allegations of serious planning fraud, as reported by eleven unrelated complainants, following a Petition to WC, when Lord Richard Newton, referred the matter to Sussex police on the advice of WC’s officers. This turned out to be a feint, where a deal had been done to give the case to Keith Lyndsay, a police officer related to a Wealden councillor. An allegation to be investigated.

The cruncher being that, and it is alleged, that the corrupt WC officer, Ian Kay, drafted the official response, ostensibly from Sussex police to WC. Thus, the response was from WC to WC, utilizing Sussex police headed paper. No investigation having taken place. The police officer, presumably, in cahoots with Inspector Peter Coll, did not contact or interview any of the eleven complainants, to take their evidence. A fact. It is alleged that the Inspector admitted as much in conversation with another potential complainant, at Deer Paddock police station in Hailsham, Sussex some weeks thereafter. This would bring the uninvestigated complaints up to 12 in number.

The "crime" was re-reported at regular intervals by a human rights activist, who had also won a number of planning appeals against WC as a freelance advocate, and was set to be a thorn in the sides of both Sussex police (SXP) and WC, in taking on further cases. Which he later did, and won again, and again. He had to be stopped!

At first Wealden conspired to bankrupt the 'Activist' between 2003 and 2005, but he counterclaimed in the County and High Courts, forcing WC to broker a deal, with Nigel Coltman (as Leader) and Brian West (Cabinet), Trevor Scott (Head Legal Services) and Daniel Goodwin (Chief Executive), and Andrew Long (Local Member), all involved as players. The deal was firmed up as a County Court Order, by Consent in 2005. Following protracted negotiations.

This was achieved with help from the 'Activist's' new fiancée's father, a councillor would you believe, becoming rather vocal at Area Plans South planning meetings, and threatening to be a hostile witness against WC in the County Court proceedings. This is how the deal (Consent Order) was brokered.

Wealden believed they had defused the 'Activist' is agreeing to correct a fraudulently obtained Enforcement Notice, and to sweep an illegally obtained Costs Order, under the table. They thought, and had assurances from the vocal councillor, that the 'Activist' was bought and paid for. By way of taming, in the planned domestication and marriage.

Subsequently, the human rights activist (HRA), who we will refer to a Victor von Woolfe (not his real name) was framed for rape, a crime that was not committed by anyone, the claimant being intact, had been groomed by Social Services working with Sussex police to lie about the relationship with her mother, after the HRA called off an engagement to the APS councillor's daughter, and left that dysfunctional family unit (Single Parent).

That came about as a result of been physically attacked by the mother on two occasions, in an escalating pattern of domestic violence (and mental abuse) unusually female hitting male. About which he had been threatened with reprisals, should he decide to leave. In other words, he was being forced to endure the threat of physical abuse and mental browbeating, while also being expected to contribute to the running costs of their home, at that time in Hailsham.

There may be some Masonic influence involved, concerning SXP and Tyrian Lodge in South Street, Eastbourne. Where the grandfather had coaxed HRA to meet his daughter at several events, and promised to help him with his ongoing planning dispute with WC, as an enticement to cement a get together with his daughter. The grandfather being a former Grand Master at the Tyrian Lodge, that is some 200 yards away from the police station in Grove Road. This may just be an incredible coincidence. Or, an incredible series of coincidences.

Victor von Woolfe was duly convicted, his local barrister and duty solicitor failing to challenge flawed medical evidence, which actually proved Victor was innocent. The barrister, Julian Dale, said there was no need to have a forensic specialist, and the trial Judge, failed to correctly rally the evidence in his summing up, in such a way, as calculated to guarantee a conviction.

Though the summing up was incorrect and misleading in itself. Including wrongly attributing ownership of crucial diary evidence to Victor, when it was the mother's work diary. And that evidence was also exonerating, proving no opportunity. But then, the Judge (possibly deliberately) misdirected the Jury.

In fact, Legal Aid cuts, would have meant the Barrister and Solicitor, Timothy Stirmey, working for free, if they spent money on instructing a medical specialist - as required to level the playing field. And that goes part way to explaining the cut-price defence. Being a duty solicitor does not help either. Where they frequently broker deals with local forces. As in, we'll win this one, and you win that one.

On release from prison, the crime he had reported in 1997, that led to him being framed, was reported to police officer Kara Tombling by one of the Petitioners, and by Victor to the Crime Commissioner; Katy Bourne. Victor was kept on a short leash, with threats of further SLAPP actions. Indeed, there were at least two further abortive attempts. Designed to terrorize their victim. To keep his mouth shut.

Then in January 2024, due to WC making waves, the crime was re-reported to Ross Banks, a serving police officer. Who said on tape, having been cautioned, that he would not be investigating the alleged crimes. Much the same as Keith Lyndsey in 1997. Constituting further Misconduct in Public Office. Because, a police officer has a duty to investigate reported crime.

Misconduct in Public Officer (Malfeasance) is covered by, R v Dytham [1979] QB 722, a landmark case in English criminal law that dealt with the duty of a police officer to intervene in a criminal act. The case established the principle that police officers have a duty of care to all of society. It also clarified that the offence of misconduct in public office can be committed by an omission. This is important common law concerning Malfeasance, or Misconduct in Public Office. As in SXP refusing to investigate their own cover up. Clearly, a matter that should be investigated by an outside force, as in the case of the unlawful shooting of James Ashley in January of 1998. A case that firmly established SXP as being a corrupt force. Evidencing the propensity to cover up, rather than admit to wrongdoing.

This evidence, along with other (fresh) evidence of ongoing character assassination, is to be used to try and gain justice, in relation to:

1. The fraudulent Enforcement Notice being invalid, and 

2. Investigating the conduct of the planning officers employed by WC.

3. Clearing his name of the crime of rape, and

4. Investigating the conduct of the investigating officers employed by SXP.

There is no statute of limitations on the crimes committed by WC and/or SXP, in relation to these matters. They are ongoing violations of Victor's human rights.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) refused to investigate the 'virginity' and 'conflict of interests' issues. Where the Common Law relating to conflicts of interest: R v Sussex Justices ex-parte McCarty 1924 KBD, should have prevented SXP from investigating rape. SXP should properly have recused themselves, as in the James Ashley shooting case. Which was investigated by Hampshire and Kent police. In failing to recuse themselves, they rendered the proceedings unsafe. As well the CCRC would know. But, as it appears, that organization may well be tainted. Though it is unclear if this is Masonic influence, or the Honours system, or some other agenda to whitewash the system. A system that rewards people for towing the party line. The "party" being making the British judicial system appear squeaky clean. We wonder if the ECTA below may have any long term repercussions, as to the players not doing their respective duties?

Contact Victor in confidence for details, proofs of evidence, etc. It will make one hell of a true story: victor@humanrightsuk.org

THE ECONOMIC CRIME & CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT 2023 & WHISTLEBLOWING

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECTA) 2023 has some direct application to individual Council and Post Office officials, or indeed, ministers or police officers engaged in a cover up fraud against members of the public. It can play a supporting role in uncovering and prosecuting such cases in several ways:

Supporting Tools:

- Enhanced Financial Investigations: ECTA expands powers for authorities to obtain financial information and trace suspicious transactions. This can help connect corrupt officials' activities to illicit financial gains.

- Whistleblower Protection: The Act strengthens whistleblower protections, encouraging council staff to report internal fraud without fear of reprisal. This can provide valuable information for investigations.

- Unexplained Wealth Orders: If a council official possesses wealth disproportionate to their known income, UWOs can be used to investigate the source of that wealth and potentially uncover fraudulent activities.

Indirect Impact:

- Corporate Liability: While ECTA targets companies, it can put pressure on local authorities to implement better anti-fraud controls and oversight mechanisms. This can make it harder for individual officials to commit fraud undetected.

- Increased Scrutiny: The Act's focus on transparency and beneficial ownership can expose hidden conflicts of interest or shell companies used by corrupt officials. This can raise public awareness and encourage investigations.

- Deterrence: The harsher penalties and increased risk of detection under ECTA may serve as a deterrent to potential fraudsters within local authorities.

Additional Measures:

While ECTA isn't the primary tool for directly prosecuting corrupt council officials, other legal frameworks have specific provisions for such cases:

- Bribery Act 2010: Criminalizes offering, accepting, or bribing an official.

- Fraud Act 2006: Covers various forms of fraud, including deception, false accounting, and abuse of position.

- R v Dytham 1979: Makes it an offense for public officials to knowingly act in a way that constitutes a breach of trust, such as abusing their position for personal gain.

To effectively prosecute corrupt council officials, a combination of these legal frameworks, along with investigative resources and political will, is crucial.

Several sections of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECTA) strengthen whistleblower protections and encourage individuals to report wrongdoing within companies:

Enhanced Protection:

- Section 83: Extends existing whistleblower protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) to cover disclosures made to certain regulated activities outside the UK, aligning with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention.

- Section 84: Introduces a reverse burden of proof in certain PIDA cases, meaning employers must prove they did not take retaliatory action against whistleblowers who disclosed qualifying information. This makes it easier for whistleblowers to win unfair dismissal claims.

- Section 85: Expands the definition of "work-related information" in PIDA to encompass information about potential environmental damage, health and safety risks, and tax evasion, broadening the scope of protected disclosures.

Confidentiality and Support:

- Section 86: Strengthens anonymity protections for whistleblowers, allowing them to make disclosures anonymously through internal or external reporting channels without fear of being identified.

- Section 88: Mandates companies with 50 or more employees to establish internal reporting channels for whistleblowers to report concerns confidentially.

- Section 89: Requires companies to provide appropriate support to whistleblowers, including access to legal advice and counseling.

Reporting Mechanisms:

- Section 90: Introduces a new reporting mechanism for whistleblowers to disclose concerns directly to the Office of the Whistleblower Commissioner, an independent body empowered to investigate complaints and recommend remedies.

- Section 91: Expands the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the National Crime Agency (NCA) to receive and investigate whistleblower disclosures concerning money laundering and economic crime.

These provisions aim to create a more supportive and secure environment for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing, potentially leading to earlier detection and prevention of corporate misconduct.

Contact Victor confidentially for details, proofs of evidence, etc: victor@humanrightsuk.org

BBC NEWS 24 JANUARY 2024 - POST OFFICE SCANDAL EXPLAINED: WHAT THE HORIZON SAGA IS ALL ABOUT

Senior figures from the Post Office and the technology firm Fujitsu are facing questions over what has been called the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history.

Hundreds of sub-postmasters and postmistresses were wrongly prosecuted after faulty computer software calculated money was missing from post office branches.

The government has promised to quash their convictions and pay compensation.

WHAT IS THE POST OFFICER SCANDAL?

More than 900 sub-postmasters and postmistresses were prosecuted for stealing money because of incorrect information provided by a computer system called Horizon.

The Post Office itself brought many of the cases to court, and between 1999 and 2015, it prosecuted 700 people - an average of one person a week.

Another 283 cases were brought by other bodies, including the Crown Prosecution Service.

Many of those convicted went to prison for false accounting and theft. Many were financially ruined.

In 2017, a group of 555 sub-postmasters took legal action against the Post Office. In 2019, it agreed to pay them £58m in compensation, but much of the money was swallowed up by legal fees.

Although campaigners won the right to have their cases reconsidered, as at 15 January 2024, only 95 convictions had been overturned.

The Metropolitan Police is also investigating the Post Office over potential fraud offences arising from the prosecutions.

A public inquiry began in February 2021, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) said the scandal was "the most widespread miscarriage of justice the CCRC has ever seen, and represents the biggest single series of wrongful convictions in British legal history".

The issue was highlighted by the recent ITV drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office.

WHAT IS FUJITSU'S HORIZON SYSTEM?

Horizon was developed by the Japanese company Fujitsu, for tasks such as accounting and stocktaking. It was introduced by the Post Office in 1999. [Begs the question, who should foot the legal bills?]

Sub-postmasters quickly complained about bugs in the system after it falsely reported shortfalls - often for many thousands of pounds.

The Horizon system is still used by the Post Office, which describes the latest version as "robust".

WHAT WAS THE EFFECT ON THE POST OFFICE STAFF?

Many former sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses say the scandal ruined their lives.

Some used their own money to cover non-existent shortfalls because their contracts with the Post Office stated they were responsible for any unexplained loss. Many faced bankruptcy or lost their livelihoods.

Marriages broke down, and some families believe the stress led to debilitating health conditions, addiction and even premature death.

WHAT HAS THE GOVERNMENT SAID IT WILL DO TO SUPPORT THE VICTIMS?

The government said it would "swiftly exonerate and compensate" those affected.

Victims will be able to sign a form to say they are innocent, in order to have their convictions overturned and claim compensation.

Downing Street said it would work with Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure the people who were wrongly accused in those nations can also be cleared.

Can scheme to quash Post Office convictions work?

WHAT COMPENSATION IS AVAILABLE TOO HORIZON VICTIMS?

Post Office Minister Kevin Hollinrake said the government has budgeted £1bn for compensation.

More than 4,000 people have been told they are eligible, under three separate schemes:

- The Group Litigation Order (GLO) Scheme is for the 555 former postmasters (excluding those who had criminal convictions) who won their group lawsuit, but received relatively small payouts after legal costs. They will now be offered £75,000, but many are expected to push for more

- The Overturned Convictions Scheme offers those eligible a fast-tracked £600,000 settlement, or the chance to negotiate a higher payment. All are entitled to an "interim" payment of £163,000 while final settlements are processed. Of the 95 convictions that have been overturned, only 31 of those people have agreed "full and final settlements"

- The Horizon Shortfall Scheme is for those sub-postmasters who were not convicted or part of the GLO court action but who believe they experienced shortfalls because of Horizon. They can apply to have their cases independently assessed, and could ultimately be compensated

Prof Chris Hodges, chair of the the independent Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, told the BBC that some individual compensation claims are "well over £1m".

How do the Post Office compensation schemes work?

WHO HAS BEEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HORIZON SCANDAL?

The Post Office is owned by the government. However, the Post Office Ltd board is responsible for day-to-day operations.

Former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennell resigned in 2019 over the scandal. In January 2024, she said she would hand back her CBE after a petition calling for its removal gathered more than a million signatures.

In August 2023, the current chief executive Nick Read said he would return all of the bonus money he received for his work on the Horizon inquiry. He apologised for "the procedural and governance mistakes made".

Fujitsu Europe director Paul Patterson told the Post Office inquiry that his firm had "clearly let society down". He previously told MPs that Fujitsu had a "moral obligation" to help fund compensation payments.

Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey is among several politicians facing questions over the scandal.

Mr Davey was postal affairs minister during the coalition government. In May 2010 he refused to meet Alan Bates, the sub-postmaster who led the campaign to expose the scandal, saying he did not believe it "would serve any purpose".

He now says he was "deeply misled by Post Office executives".

BBC iPlayer - Panorama - The Post Office Scandal

This Panorama special tells the story of those whose lives were utterly devastated, reveals the damning evidence that was kept from them and investigates how and why the Post Office, a multinational tech company and the government covered up the truth for so long. (UK only)

GET IN TOUCH

Have you been personally affected by the Post Office scandal? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.

Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:

WhatsApp: +44 7756 165803
Tweet: @BBC_HaveYourSay

If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.

 Please see our A-Z INDEX or return HOME