At the risk of asking you to do my homework for me, do you have a cite for the 1984 legislation which placed the computer burden of proof on the prosecutor, and the 1999 legislation which repealed that?
FWIW, as a computer professional, I entirely agree that the onus of demonstrating the system's reliability should rest with the prosecution. I would think there are very few people in my position who would disagree.
That doesn't mean computer evidence isn't reliable, or shouldn't be used. As a matter of observable fact, most of the time it is reliable. But the fact that it is reliable, most of the time, is precisely why it's not an unreasonable burden to require disclosure of all relevant material, on pain of criminal sanction for failing to do so. Because in most cases, very little will need to be disclosed and therefore equally little effort will be needed in order to comply. It's the outliers, the Horizons of this world, where considerable disclosure will be required. And that itself might be enough to prevent prosecutions on the basis of unreliable evidence.
I have always had a strong personal aversion and objection to organisations such as the Post office the BBC, the train operators, the utilities, etc having the right to initiate criminal prosecutions. Their rights should be limited to issuing fixed penalties. If you break the law, you should be prosecuted via the normal legal channels.
The Lucy Letby case is - imvho - another example of someone scapegoated for institutional failures, where there is no direct evidence of wrongdoing, and it's not even clearly obvious if a crime was committed - but the imbalance of resources between prosecution and defence, and the nodding dog nature of British justice you referred to above, with no real scrutiny of evidence - secured a conviction. It's uncannily similar to the Dutch Lucia de Berk case.
Pediatric nurse Lucia de Berk was exonerated - after several years in prison. And yes, the cases are similar: someone got a "gut"feeling, she was dedicated to her job, she kept diaries and wrote stories, an incorrect toxicological interpretation, the deaths were seen as natural when they happened, no one saw her commit the acts she was accused of, the wish for a killer, the idea she was too often present when a death occurred, incorrect statistics used, etc.
A statistician working on her behalf saw similar errors made in the statistics used by the Chester PD. He wrote an email to the judge presiding over the Letby case, pointing out these issues. The answer was not what he expected, soon after two Dutch police cars stopped in front of his house and he was handed an accusatory letter from Chester PD. He now cannot go to England anymore because he will be arrested as soon as he lands - for writing the judge that email. Apparently under UK law this action was forbidden.
Re. another ITV drama. ITV stated they lost £ 1 M on their Mr. Bates series.
Cassandra was cursed by the gods: she could foresee things but nobody would believe her. In the end, it drove her mad. Dr. Gill is no Cassandra, he has no second sight. But he was for many years the chair for mathematical statistics at Leiden University (est. 1575). As such those involved in the Lucy Letby case should have taken serious he had to say. Dr. Gill suspects his email was immediately transferred to Chester PD and as a consequence the judge did not read it.
With regards to private prosecutions in general, I have seen accounts of potential abuses by the railway companies where instead of using the statutory penalty fare schemes they have they are threatening people with prosecution unless they agree to pay a substantial sum of money. This means that the penalty jumps from effectively £50 to £150, which goes to the person prosecuting which does seem perverse.
Of course it is a lot harder to have sympathy given that most of these people have actually dodged their fares, but it just seems wrong that they can use a private prosecution to effectively bypass the statutory scheme and the protections built into it.
I find it shocking that in none of the prosecutions of subpostmasters was there any evidence of what the defendants had done with the supposedly stolen money. It’s one thing to trust computer output, but it’s a completely different thing to rely solely on the computer output. A legal system which allows such trust of a clearly less-than-perfect source of evidence is obviously dangerously flawed.
A magnificent exposition of the critical points! Thank you for explaining this so patiently to one who has followed these caught up by that monstrous machinery contained in the laws applied/misapplied and the Government owned Post Office.
Disclosure of the 'Clarke Advice' in late 2020 strikes me as an important exception to the point that no new facts have emerged since the (magnificent) Fraser judgements, definitively showing that the legal implications of Horizon's flaws were known to Post Office leadership by 2013 and promptly swept under the carpet on specious grounds of legal privilege. The alacrity with which the court reacted to unfounded allegations of contempt against two barristers who handled the document in untidy, but harmless ways as it entered the public domain was another example of how the legal system can sometimes tend towards actions antithetical to its purpose of delivering justice. That the allegations were instigated by a QC who'd previously advised the Post Office during its long period of denial and stonewalling was more evidence of the depths its legal representatives were willing to plumb.
It is such a shame that the Clarke Advice remained hidden from Mr Justice Fraser and his withering judgement.
Thank you for this amazing piece which so accurately paints the picture of the lengths the Post Office went to to deflect all blame onto vulnerable postmasters double bluffing and using the law to intimidate and undermine innocent people. The High Court judge who so honourably stood up to the fray shows the best and the worst possible behaviours. The public disgrace heaped locally upon the postmasters goes beyond comprehension
A puzzling element is where the "stolen" money went ? These wayward sub-Postmasters must surely be living the life of Riley with their on-going fraud? Or was it presumed the convicted were all financially astute enough to successfully launder there ill gotten gains?
That amazed me too. The "missing money" should have been the start of an investigation, not the conclusion. And did no one at the Post Office realize the same happened over and over at different locations ? That should have alerted there was possibly a common denominator.
Thank you. DAG doesn’t - perhaps because he wearily thinks it goes without saying - include a summary of government failure over so many years, including Cameron as PM in 2015 saying forcefully in Parliament that the problem must and will be sorted out. A string of ministers, civil servants and advisors are at fault.
Also - the judiciary. DAG praises Justice Fraser. But there had been 700 (?) convictions, over 15 years or more - all now to be quashed by a stroke of a pen. Is that 700 judges failing too? How come not one noticed something odd - the sudden appearance, say, of a previously unnoticed large criminal class of subpostmasters? Once the problem really emerged around 2010 shouldn’t a competent judge have started worrying? (Perhaps they did and I have missed it.)
Phase 4 of the Inquiry has exposed the extent of technological ignorance in legal teams and how that helped perpetuate bad thinking. It was seemingly matched by an unshakeable belief that they knew quite enough about IT to make key decisions, thank you. They were not the only ones, but as trained thinkers, one would imagine they would have recognised when they were bumping up against the limits of their expertise and would have brought in specialist knowledge.
I have, like many others I guess, listened to and read much on the Post Office scandal this week - and DAG's previous piece on the High Court judgment - but this virtuoso piece stands way above the rest. Supremely easy to read, cogent, and understandable for a layman like me, it puts the whole despicable affair into legal perspective. Thank you.
Excellent and clear explanation in layman's language..
What is dispiriting is how this type of behaviour undermines society as a whole and what is worse , fuels conspiracy theories.
I'm a Boomer and naively believed in the mainly good intentions of the state, business and fellow citizens; the last few years have been a rude awakening.
At the risk of asking you to do my homework for me, do you have a cite for the 1984 legislation which placed the computer burden of proof on the prosecutor, and the 1999 legislation which repealed that?
FWIW, as a computer professional, I entirely agree that the onus of demonstrating the system's reliability should rest with the prosecution. I would think there are very few people in my position who would disagree.
That doesn't mean computer evidence isn't reliable, or shouldn't be used. As a matter of observable fact, most of the time it is reliable. But the fact that it is reliable, most of the time, is precisely why it's not an unreasonable burden to require disclosure of all relevant material, on pain of criminal sanction for failing to do so. Because in most cases, very little will need to be disclosed and therefore equally little effort will be needed in order to comply. It's the outliers, the Horizons of this world, where considerable disclosure will be required. And that itself might be enough to prevent prosecutions on the basis of unreliable evidence.
Belay that request in the first paragraph, someone on Usenet has just supplied the details:
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 section 60: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/60
which repealed PACE section 69:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/69/1991-02-01
I have always had a strong personal aversion and objection to organisations such as the Post office the BBC, the train operators, the utilities, etc having the right to initiate criminal prosecutions. Their rights should be limited to issuing fixed penalties. If you break the law, you should be prosecuted via the normal legal channels.
The Lucy Letby case is - imvho - another example of someone scapegoated for institutional failures, where there is no direct evidence of wrongdoing, and it's not even clearly obvious if a crime was committed - but the imbalance of resources between prosecution and defence, and the nodding dog nature of British justice you referred to above, with no real scrutiny of evidence - secured a conviction. It's uncannily similar to the Dutch Lucia de Berk case.
Cue an ITV drama in the 2040s.
Pediatric nurse Lucia de Berk was exonerated - after several years in prison. And yes, the cases are similar: someone got a "gut"feeling, she was dedicated to her job, she kept diaries and wrote stories, an incorrect toxicological interpretation, the deaths were seen as natural when they happened, no one saw her commit the acts she was accused of, the wish for a killer, the idea she was too often present when a death occurred, incorrect statistics used, etc.
A statistician working on her behalf saw similar errors made in the statistics used by the Chester PD. He wrote an email to the judge presiding over the Letby case, pointing out these issues. The answer was not what he expected, soon after two Dutch police cars stopped in front of his house and he was handed an accusatory letter from Chester PD. He now cannot go to England anymore because he will be arrested as soon as he lands - for writing the judge that email. Apparently under UK law this action was forbidden.
Re. another ITV drama. ITV stated they lost £ 1 M on their Mr. Bates series.
That's Richard Gill, right? One of the authors of https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/section-group-reports/rss-publishes-report-on-dealing-with-uncertainty-i/
I guess they don't like Cassandra warnings?
Cassandra was cursed by the gods: she could foresee things but nobody would believe her. In the end, it drove her mad. Dr. Gill is no Cassandra, he has no second sight. But he was for many years the chair for mathematical statistics at Leiden University (est. 1575). As such those involved in the Lucy Letby case should have taken serious he had to say. Dr. Gill suspects his email was immediately transferred to Chester PD and as a consequence the judge did not read it.
With regards to private prosecutions in general, I have seen accounts of potential abuses by the railway companies where instead of using the statutory penalty fare schemes they have they are threatening people with prosecution unless they agree to pay a substantial sum of money. This means that the penalty jumps from effectively £50 to £150, which goes to the person prosecuting which does seem perverse.
Of course it is a lot harder to have sympathy given that most of these people have actually dodged their fares, but it just seems wrong that they can use a private prosecution to effectively bypass the statutory scheme and the protections built into it.
"Most of these people have actually dodged their fares." Isn't that a bit unfair? Maybe they lost their tickets.
I find it shocking that in none of the prosecutions of subpostmasters was there any evidence of what the defendants had done with the supposedly stolen money. It’s one thing to trust computer output, but it’s a completely different thing to rely solely on the computer output. A legal system which allows such trust of a clearly less-than-perfect source of evidence is obviously dangerously flawed.
A magnificent exposition of the critical points! Thank you for explaining this so patiently to one who has followed these caught up by that monstrous machinery contained in the laws applied/misapplied and the Government owned Post Office.
Disclosure of the 'Clarke Advice' in late 2020 strikes me as an important exception to the point that no new facts have emerged since the (magnificent) Fraser judgements, definitively showing that the legal implications of Horizon's flaws were known to Post Office leadership by 2013 and promptly swept under the carpet on specious grounds of legal privilege. The alacrity with which the court reacted to unfounded allegations of contempt against two barristers who handled the document in untidy, but harmless ways as it entered the public domain was another example of how the legal system can sometimes tend towards actions antithetical to its purpose of delivering justice. That the allegations were instigated by a QC who'd previously advised the Post Office during its long period of denial and stonewalling was more evidence of the depths its legal representatives were willing to plumb.
It is such a shame that the Clarke Advice remained hidden from Mr Justice Fraser and his withering judgement.
Thank you for this amazing piece which so accurately paints the picture of the lengths the Post Office went to to deflect all blame onto vulnerable postmasters double bluffing and using the law to intimidate and undermine innocent people. The High Court judge who so honourably stood up to the fray shows the best and the worst possible behaviours. The public disgrace heaped locally upon the postmasters goes beyond comprehension
A puzzling element is where the "stolen" money went ? These wayward sub-Postmasters must surely be living the life of Riley with their on-going fraud? Or was it presumed the convicted were all financially astute enough to successfully launder there ill gotten gains?
That is one reason why the Post Office went for the False Accounting charge where possible.
That amazed me too. The "missing money" should have been the start of an investigation, not the conclusion. And did no one at the Post Office realize the same happened over and over at different locations ? That should have alerted there was possibly a common denominator.
Thank you. DAG doesn’t - perhaps because he wearily thinks it goes without saying - include a summary of government failure over so many years, including Cameron as PM in 2015 saying forcefully in Parliament that the problem must and will be sorted out. A string of ministers, civil servants and advisors are at fault.
Also - the judiciary. DAG praises Justice Fraser. But there had been 700 (?) convictions, over 15 years or more - all now to be quashed by a stroke of a pen. Is that 700 judges failing too? How come not one noticed something odd - the sudden appearance, say, of a previously unnoticed large criminal class of subpostmasters? Once the problem really emerged around 2010 shouldn’t a competent judge have started worrying? (Perhaps they did and I have missed it.)
Phase 4 of the Inquiry has exposed the extent of technological ignorance in legal teams and how that helped perpetuate bad thinking. It was seemingly matched by an unshakeable belief that they knew quite enough about IT to make key decisions, thank you. They were not the only ones, but as trained thinkers, one would imagine they would have recognised when they were bumping up against the limits of their expertise and would have brought in specialist knowledge.
Thank you. Such a clear explanation of each step into (and out of) the nightmare.
I have, like many others I guess, listened to and read much on the Post Office scandal this week - and DAG's previous piece on the High Court judgment - but this virtuoso piece stands way above the rest. Supremely easy to read, cogent, and understandable for a layman like me, it puts the whole despicable affair into legal perspective. Thank you.
(Includes Oxford comma, excludes use of "clear".)
Thank you for this magnificent exposé. Bravo.
Excellent and clear explanation in layman's language..
What is dispiriting is how this type of behaviour undermines society as a whole and what is worse , fuels conspiracy theories.
I'm a Boomer and naively believed in the mainly good intentions of the state, business and fellow citizens; the last few years have been a rude awakening.
Happy New Year to you and thanks for your blogs.
Excellent insight and commentary!