U.K. Post Office Debacle: Anatomy of a cover up? Networked Knowledge Media Report: Guardian story reveals the Post Office's fear that scandal (often referred to as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history) which had harmed so many innocent lives, 'would be front-page news.'…"The former Post Office boss Paula Vennells killed a review that would have exposed the Horizon IT scandal more than 10 years ago after being told it would make “front-page news” but insisted she was not part of a cover-up. During a second day of giving evidence at the public inquiry into the scandal, Vennells, who led the Post Office for nine years, said a different decision could have avoided a “lost decade” for persecuted branch operators. Vennells already knew at the time of her decision in July 2013 that Gareth Jenkins, an engineer at Fujitsu who designed the Horizon accounting system, had withheld information from the courts about bugs in the software and was regarded as an “unsafe witness”. Branch owner-operators continued until 2015 to be prosecuted and hounded, leading to some taking their own lives, over apparent shortfalls in funds at their branches caused by faults in Horizon. The Post Office did not stop fighting attempts to appeal against the convictions until 2019."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "After an emotional first day of evidence on Wednesday, Vennells largely maintained her composure as Beer questioned her over the decision not to launch a full forensic investigation into claims of unsafe convictions that had emerged in some media, including Computer Weekly. Vennells repeatedly told the inquiry that she could not recollect events, and denied any knowledge of a conversation recounted by the Post Office’s then general legal counsel, Susan Crichton, on the eve of a board meeting in July 2013. Crichton had told the inquiry she informed Vennells that she believed there would be “many

successful claims arising from past wrongful prosecutions”. To audible groans from the

audience at the inquiry, Vennells responded: “I don’t recall that.” She added: “I would not

cover anything up.”

————————————————————————————

NETWORKED KNOWLEDGE MEDIA POST:: '24 May 2024 Daniel Boffey The Guardian - 'Paula Vennells ruled out Post Office review that ‘would be front-page news.'-

SUB-HEADING: "Former boss, appearing at inquiry, denies decision not to review miscarriages of justice over 10 years ago was led by PR adviser

GIST: "The former Post Office boss Paula Vennells killed a review that would have exposed the Horizon IT scandal more than 10 years ago after being told it would make “front-page news” but insisted she was not part of a cover-up.

During a second day of giving evidence at the public inquiry into the scandal, Vennells, who

led the Post Office for nine years, said a different decision could have avoided a “lost

decade” for persecuted branch operators.

Vennells already knew at the time of her decision in July 2013 that Gareth Jenkins, an

engineer at Fujitsu who designed the Horizon accounting system, had withheld information

from the courts about bugs in the software and was regarded as an “unsafe witness”.

Branch owner-operators continued until 2015 to be prosecuted and hounded, leading to some taking their own lives, over apparent shortfalls in funds at their branches caused by faults in Horizon.

 The Post Office did not stop fighting attempts to appeal against the convictions until

2019.

The latest revelations from the inquiry emerged from emails that followed Vennells’ receipt

of a limited but critical independent report by Second Sight, a fraud investigation firm, into

the claims of branch owner-operators. She had asked a number of executives in an email why there might not be a full historical review of about 500 cases of post office operators accused of false accounting.

The Post Office’s then director of communications, Mark Davies, messaged Vennells about

his concerns that such a move would “fuel the story” beyond the “usual suspects” who were

reporting on potentially unsafe convictions. “If we say publicly that we will look at past cases

… whether from recent history or going further back, we will open this up very significantly

into front-page news,” Davies wrote. “In media terms it becomes mainstream, very high-

profile.”

Vennells responded: “You are right to call this out. And I will take your steer, no issue.” She

went on to write that the most urgent objective was to “manage the media”. Jason Beer KC,

the lead counsel at the inquiry, asked Vennells: “It is a grossly improper perspective, isn’t

it?” “It is, yes,” she answered.

Beer asked Vennells whether she had stayed in contact with Davies after she left the Post

Office in 2019. “I did,” she answered. “Did you exchange messages with Mr Davies about

media statements you might make and the media lines you might take in the announcement of this inquiry?” Beer asked.

“I believe that the inquiry has texts that showed that,” she responded. “He [Davies] was still

advising you in 2020 about the lines to take in your media statement?” asked Beer. “I had

kept in touch with Mr Davies for reasons which were very personal to him,” Vennells replied.

“I think he offered advice at one point in time.”

Vennells denied that her decision not to review the many miscarriages of justice had been led

by her public relations adviser but apologised about a further email in which she had

suggested that Davies use “exception” in press releases as a “non-emotive word for computer bugs, glitches, defects”.

After the Second Sight report, the Post Office dumped plans to review convictions and

instead opened a “mediation scheme” through which complaints could be addressed.

According to papers seen by the inquiry, the organisation judged that this would “take the

sting out of the issue as a media story”.

Vennells sent an email to senior executives in August 2013 concerned that this would lead to

payouts to victims. “When we discussed this, the hope of mediation was to avoid or minimise

compensation,” she wrote. “You explained that there were steps in place to advise [post

office operators] entering the process that this was a chance to be heard and not to expect

compensation. How are we planning to manage these expectations. And where compensation may be offered, you mentioned small figures in the £3-5k band; can we give a range of costs?”

After an emotional first day of evidence on Wednesday, Vennells largely maintained her

composure as Beer questioned her over the decision not to launch a full forensic investigation into claims of unsafe convictions that had emerged in some media, including Computer Weekly.

 Vennells repeatedly told the inquiry that she could not recollect events, and denied

any knowledge of a conversation recounted by the Post Office’s then general legal counsel,

Susan Crichton, on the eve of a board meeting in July 2013.

Crichton had told the inquiry she informed Vennells that she believed there would be “many

successful claims arising from past wrongful prosecutions”. To audible groans from the

audience at the inquiry, Vennells responded: “I don’t recall that.” She added: “I would not

cover anything up.”

Crichton was criticised internally for commissioning Second Sight. Vennells wrote in a

memo, seen by the inquiry, that she had “put her integrity as a lawyer above the interests of

the business”.

Five days after the email exchange between Vennells and Davies, the Criminal Cases Review

Commission (CCRC) wrote to the Post Office’s chief executive to request information about

any knowledge the organisation had about faults in the Horizon system. Vennells said she

passed on the correspondence to Crichton and would not have requested for there to be any

lack of disclosure.

Beer asked Vennells whether “the right and honest thing for the Post Office to have done”

would have been to let the CCRC know immediately about the doubts over the evidence of

Jenkins. Vennells said: “Yes it would.”

Beer went on: “That didn’t happen for years and years, did it?” “I understand that to be the

case now,” Vennells replied."

The entire story can be read at:

http://netk.net.au/UK/PostOffice47.pd

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

———————----------------------------------------------------------------