Post Office lawyers held secret meeting with judge to stop disclosure
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-lawyers-held-secret-meeting-with-judge-to-stop-disclosure/5119593.article
Posted by wooptoo
Post Office lawyers held secret meeting with judge to stop disclosure
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/post-office-lawyers-held-secret-meeting-with-judge-to-stop-disclosure/5119593.article
Posted by wooptoo
12 Comments
Everytime I think I couldn’t get more disgusted with the way this case has been handled, it gets worse.
We need the judge to explain why he allowed relevant exculpatory evidence to be withheld
Our country is cooked…. The institutions are cooked, politicians are cooked, judiciary system is cooked, police service is cooked, cost of living is cooked… Remind me again, why we haven’t full on revolted against the blatant corruption that plagues everything WE PAY for in OUR country????
Why in the fuck are we not hosting a nation wide strike.. YOU are the one who helps supply their wealth and corruption, why not stop supplying it via your labour… Is it because we live in a perpetual state of debt and fear, they wouldn’t have you any other way… Stand up for what’s right, cause none of what we are experiencing (at the our own expense) is right… Its literally costing people their lives and livlihoods… The game is rigged in their favour not ours, it’s about time that changed, especially where accountability is concerned…
‘I was simply not aware of the duties on a prosecutor to make sure an expert witness was fully aware of their duties.’
You’re the fucking solicitor and working with a Barrister. IANAL, but surely that’s law school day 1. Making sure everyone is fully aware of their duties. Probably part of some Ethics course you took, but then decided to find inconvenient.
The inquiry report will be excoriating of the Post Office and Fujitsu.
It will make almost no mention of how the many convictions on the basis of totally inadequate evidence and exploration of the issues around the accounting system involved were allowed to occur by the legal system itself.
It will not give adequate weighting to the way the civil service, very in-curiously supervised by Ministers, plainly took a “hands off means clean hands” approach and hoped the PO could win through or at least kick it into the long grass, as is ever the case (see the blood scandal)- hence doing nothing at all as the full owner even when the board was taking the ludicrous position of trying to remove the judge.
What we will get will probably give a reasonably good overview of the within PO failures, and very little on the elements of the scandal that reflect on wider systemic issues with the UKs systems of governance. It is ever thus in the UK; the truth comes out late and is often still just the low hanging fruit.
Civil case against PO.. Fujitsu and the judge involved?
Not enough scrutiny for the legal authorities involved in these cases.
I find it amazing that no one on the Post Office side had a ‘are we the baddies?’ moment.
How can legal professionals aid subvert the course of justice? The software was flawed there is no way to argue that it wasn’t and suppress the truth. They are culpable and should be sanctioned
Ther has to be a reckoning for this from all involved on the Post Office and Fujitsu side. And any judge that allowed evidence to be suppressed
I didn’t know is not an excuse. Did they try to educate themselves?
I was told to….. only following orders huh ?
And hiding evidence in the public interest is NEVER in the public interest
A harm should be done to them all such that none need ever fear a repeat of this from any group or organisation
What was the basis of the public interest immunity that allowed the Post Office to hide exculpatory evidence? Was the Post Office and it’s scummy lawyers like Simon Clarke and Martin Smith claiming it is in the public interest that they be allowed to jail anyone or their say so?
Is this really how the law is seen to be done in the UK? A barrister meets the judge for the case and just asks him ‘look old boy, be really great if you could secretly exclude this evidence against our case’?
Surely the judge knows that ex parte agreements like this are improper and withholding of discovery evidence is unlawful… I wonder what ~£££~ convinced the judge to do this thing?