BACKGROUND: (From a previous post): "Following one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British legal history, Mr Bates vs The Post Office was created with direct input from the innocent – and indomitable – people caught up in it. When money started to seemingly disappear from its local branches, the government-owned Post Office wrongly blamed their own managers for its apparent loss. For more than 20-years hundreds were accused of theft and fraud, and many were even sent to prison – leaving lives, marriages, and reputations in ruins. But the issue was caused by errors in the Post Office’s own computer system – something it denied for years."
https://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-british-post-office-tragedy.html
---------------------------------------
TESTIMONY OF THE DAY: "Mr Beer: “Did you consider making a report to attorney general?”
Mr Altman: “No.”
“Or the [Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions?]”
“No.”
“And I think you’ve said it didn’t cross your mind to advise to call in the police?”
“No.”
—————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The inquiry saw evidence that Post Office lawyers were interested in hiring Mr Altman because of his political connections and because he "had the ear" of the Attorney General’s office. Post Office lawyers Rod Williams and Gavin Matthews discussed on 25 July 2013 how Altman was a good candidate to review subpostmasters’ convictions because he was "clearly [very] alive to the political dimension".
-------------------------------------------------------
NETWORKED KNOWLEDGE MEDIA REPORT: 'Top lawyer denies turning blind eye on Post Office, published by The BBC, on May 9, 2024.
A top barrister who was paid by the Post Office to review subpostmasters’ convictions knew about a "tainted witness" but failed to investigate, report it to the police or disclose it to
defendants.
Brian Altman KC told the Post Office Horizon inquiry on Wednesday that he "didn’t turn a blind eye to anything".
But he admitted with hindsight, the Post Office should have disclosed the information to subpostmasters.
Mr Altman knew after his appointment in August 2013 that Gareth Jenkins, an expert witness, had failed to disclose information about bugs in the Horizon IT system to
defendants.
That information might have helped subpostmasters who had been found guilty to challenge their convictions.
Soon after his appointment, Mr Altman, formerly the top barrister representing the government, read formal legal advice from Simon Clarke, a barrister with law firm Cartright
King.
This made it clear Gareth Jenkins had been in breach of his duties as an expert, and that that might be disclosable to subpostmasters convicted of theft and false accounting.
However, he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021.
The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him.
He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to
criticism".
'Remain silent'
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to
remain silent about him."
"Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet
resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said.
“Not meeting him would be turning a blind eye to a potentially useful source of information?
That’s why you wouldn’t want to do it,” said Mr Beer. Mr Altman responded: “If you’re
suggesting that I’m turning a blind eye, I was not turning a blind eye to anything.”
Mr Beer also asked why Mr Altman didn’t advise the Post Office that it should investigate why Mr Jenkins had given evidence that was, according to Mr Clark, misleading and in
breach of his duties to the court. “Because I come back to what I had thought… that the advice I was giving was about the impact of that failure on the prosecutions and the convictions - and not the reasons why he had failed to do it,” said Mr Altman.
Mr Altman also admitted he did not ask whether Mr Jenkins had been properly instructed by the Post Office on his duties as an expert witness.
Mr Beer: “Did you consider making a report to attorney general?”
Mr Altman: “No.”
“Or the [Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions?]”
“No.”
“And I think you’ve said it didn’t cross your mind to advise to call in the police?”
“No.”
The inquiry saw evidence that Post Office lawyers were interested in hiring Mr Altman because of his political connections and because he "had the ear" of the Attorney General’s
office.
Post Office lawyers Rod Williams and Gavin Matthews discussed on 25 July 2013 how Altman was a good candidate to review subpostmasters’ convictions because he was "clearly [very] alive to the political dimension".
The inquiry continues.
The entire Media Report can be read at:
http://netk.net.au/UK/PostOffice38.pdf
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
————————————————————————————
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801
———————————————————————————
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
————————————————————————————
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801
———————————————————————————
