Post Office Inquiry: Four Key Moments and What’s Next | Business News

The Post Office Horizon IT scandal could turn out to be “the worst miscarriage of justice in recent British justice history”.

Jason Beer KC, legal counsel to the commission investigating the scandal, did not mean it in a dismissive manner.

After four years of hard fighting, senior managers were reduced to tears, and there were countless heartbreaking stories of damage done to the personal lives of sub-managers of post offices, Mail inquiry completed collecting primary evidence.

It was set up to investigate why more than 700 post office managers were wrongly accused and criminalised for theft and false accounting – when in fact the fault was the fault of Fujitsu’s flawed Horizon IT system.

That’s why Mr. Beer expressed it so emphatically.

The investigation aimed to establish when the Post Office knew that sub-heads of post offices were not liable, why it never dropped the accusation and whether there was a cover-up.

Throughout this process we have heard concerns raised by outside lawyers, Post Office staff, the media and, above all, campaigners.

Some of the testimony during the inquest was shocking, revealing and emotional.

Sky News discusses some key moments from the investigation.

“Subcontractors with their hands in the cash register”

No exchange of views can compare with the e-mail from the former managing director of the Polish Post Alan Cookwho insisted that post office managers, not technology, were to blame.

This happened despite the victims consistently denying they had anything to do with the incident.

During testimony, an email was read out that said the account shortages were due to “entities with their hands in the till who prefer to blame technology when they find themselves short on cash.”

Mr. Cook said he would regret those words “for the rest of my life.”

He also highlighted systemic negligence at the Post Office.

He claimed he had “no knowledge” that the Post Office had initiated criminal proceedings – and that he did not feel the Post Office “had a crisis on its hands”.

“I think you knew”

Appearance Paula Vennells was probably the most important point of the investigation.

ITV hit drama Mr. Bates vs. Post Office placed Ms Vennells – the former Director General of the Post Office – at the heart of the scandal.

During the audition she was repeatedly moved and apologized for her role.

A recent text message exchange with Dame Moya Greene, the former chief executive of Royal Mail, proved to be one of the most damning moments for Ms Vennells, weakening her defence that she did not know what was happening with the allegations.

Dame Moya texted Ms Vennells after the broadcast of Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, which revived interest in the scandal earlier this year, saying: “When it became clear that the system was at fault, the Post Office should have raised the red flag. Stopped all prosecutions. Refunded people and then tried to compensate them for the devastation this has caused to their lives.”

When Ms Vennells replied that she agreed, Dame Moya said: “I don’t know what to say. I think you knew.

“I want to believe you. I asked you twice. I suggested that you commission an independent review that would report it to you. I was afraid you were being lied to. You said the system had been reviewed many times. How could you not have known?”

Dame Moya continued: “I cannot support you now.”

“I supported you. All these years… to my own detriment. I can’t support you now after what I’ve learned,” she added.

Dame Moya also supported this view when giving evidence to the commission of inquiry, saying: “I think she knew from the evidence that came before this commission that there were flaws in the system.”

Unsurprisingly, Ms Vennells denied any knowledge of the problems or miscarriages of justice and called the situation “complex”, adding that there were “some things I didn’t know… I wish I had”.

The post office received a cease and desist order but continued

Several years before the convictions were stayed, the Post Office learned that a key witness whose testimony had been used in the trial of the prosecutors’ sub-post office managers was unreliable.

Lawyer Simon Clarke said in an interview that he was told about it after he found serious flaws and “almost religious panic” about Horizon’s IT system.

In 2013, he published a key piece of legal advice that made the problem of past allegations clear to management.

Mr Clarke Names Fujitsu Horizon IT Architect Gareth Jenkins as a “tainted” and “unreliable witness.”

In a filing commissioned by the Post Office, Mr Clarke found that Gareth Jenkins had breached his judicial duties by failing to disclose known issues and bugs in Horizon.

Known issues could have allowed sub-postmasters to challenge convictions and have their criminal records overturned.

Mr Clarke also stressed that the Post Office should not have called Gareth Jenkins as a witness and recommended that all criminal cases be retried.

However, as was often the case in this scandal, the Post Office ignored this advice, did not initiate a review of the criminal proceedings and continued to prosecute the sub-postmasters until 2015.

Mr Jenkins is currently under investigation by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of perjury.

Pregnant woman sent to prison in ‘test case’

Each story told by post office managers affected by the postal scandal highlighted the enormous scale of the devastation that had been inflicted on their lives.

The inquest heard that the conviction of Sub-Postmaster Seema Misra was hailed as “great news” in an email exchanged between postal managers – even though the sentence included 15 months in prison and four months to be served while pregnant.

The investigation also found that Post Office executives and lawyers were treating her as a “test case” – if her prosecution was successful then senior officials would say Horizon was “solid”.

In answer, Ms Misra told Sky News:: “How can they test on a human?”

“I am a living being,” she added.

When Mr Jenkins – an expert who had given evidence in court in Horizon’s defence – was called to give evidence at the inquiry, he apologised to Ms Misra.

Mr Jenkins said he did not understand his duty to disclose information as an expert witness at the time and tried hard to downplay allegations that he had misled the court or concealed information.

Mrs. Misra rejected his apology.

What will be the next course of the investigation?

The final phase of the investigation will begin in the autumn, examining the Post Office’s current practices and developing recommendations for the future.

The report will also be published, although it is not known exactly when this will happen.

The chairman of the inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, previously said it would happen “as soon as practically possible” after reviewing current practices in September.

The chairman may also refer directors and employees of the Post Office and Fujitsu to the police if he considers it necessary to open a criminal investigation.