A thread through the Scandal...?
Our working paper on the Altman General Review is published
Our working paper on the Altman General Review has been published today and submitted to the Inquiry. It’s a more thoughtful reflection based on, but going beyond, the blog posts written on this substack.
The Altman review provides something of a link between several of the seminal events of the Scandal. In particular, it is likely that the Altman General Review contributed to the following phenomena:
Paula Vennels telling a Parliamentary Select Committee and a Government Minister that there was no evidence of miscarriages of justice in 2015.
Why disclosure to convicted defendants appears rather limited in contrast to Clarke’s initial view that prosecutions past, present, and future were profoundly impacted by the discovery of the problem with Gareth Jenkins’ evidence in 2013.
Why prosecutions ended in or around 2013 (the Post Office did not, perhaps could not, find an expert to assist them in defending Horizon).
Why the Swift review had a sometimes quite acute view on the problems with the prosecutions and yet adopted a broadly positive tone on the generality.
And it raises other questions:
Why, given that they appear to have read Altman’s review, did the Swift review not deal explicitly with the Jenkins problem, particularly given they were advising an incoming Chairman on problems in the prosecution process?
What did the Swift Review talk to Jenkins about?
How Bond Dickinson, now Womble Bond Dickinson, given their ringside seat as the Jenkins problem was raised in 2013, could conduct litigation on the flat earth basis excoriated by Mr Justice Fraser in the Bates case?
That ringside seat suggests Bates being run with a degree of foresight about unreliable, and sometimes in Fraser J’s view, misleading evidence, given significant parts were based on information from Mr Jenkins (who’s non- appearance in Bates was explained on questionable grounds). What are the explanations of the conducting solicitors and the PO itself for this?
In relation to the handling of the appeals in Hamilton, and putting aside whether the Court of Appeal may have been misled about the nature of Mr Altman’s involvement prior to Hamilton, when Mr Altman told the Court of Appeal that he did not know why disclosure had not been made in Seema Misra’s trial, we can now see that one reason they did not know why was that no one had asked Mr Jenkins that question. The Altman review suggested Mr Altman contemplated whether he should be asked but did not advise that it should be done. The explanation was not lost in the mists of time as Altman's submissions suggested but the product of a deliberate ignorance in which he had participated. This leads to the last and in some ways fundamental question:
Why was the extent to which a profoundly important known unknown, that the Jenkins problem was unexplained and could be worse than already understood, left hanging? Was this the proper approach for a fair prosecutor?
Our analysis of the General Review suggests the desire to tell the client what they want to hear may be part of the problem. The ways in which the review document presents positive findings (clearly) and more negative findings (as future risks ratehr than current problems ) to conclude that a rather shakey-looking process is fundamentally sound is very interesting. We also note the ways in which the document displays the cynicism of a process that devoted no attention whatsoever to the very real human costs of the lives they were juggling with.
You can read it here.
I am still ingesting all the implications here and have yet to read the summary at the end. There is so much elision in legal-speak in the document that trying to articulate any conclusions about Altman over a range of issues , feels like jumping off a cliff multiple times. Do I get this? Is that what he meant? The Altman Clarke Advice debacle feels like watching fight in the Roman Coliseum - a panther play with a vulnerable unarmed human. It was made a divertionary show by Altman, all of which which seemed to fool the three judges, all apparently in awe of Altman's mesmerising powers, including Justice Holdroyd. To have the Clarke Advice which had been held back, finally disclosed following a 'culture' of shredding documents, and to see proceedings on the cusp of illuminating wrongdoing that could throw doubt on convictions, yet used by Altman as a barrier - to claim it as a contempt of court so grave as to threaten the careers of Paul Marshall who was ill at the time, and Flora Page his junior. Altman working for POL wanted to close down the voices representing long- suffering bankrupted Subpostmasters, and the whole episode was cruel , ironic and surreal. I am interested as to the networks that operate among Barrister elites. The praise heaped upon Altman by so many. Lord Grabiner's profile on his Chambers' website, drips in praise loaded with superlatives in testimonials. His 2012 Golden Legal Eagles biog explaining the work he and a protege did for Russian oligarchs. I wonder if SLAPPS have ever been issued from his Chambers? Just asking. Was not Lord Grabiner involved in asking Justice Fraser to recuse himself? His profile sits side by side with Altman's in the Standard's Golden Legal Eagles feature of 2012. They must know each other even if one is a commercial lawyer and the other a criminal lawyer. In the closed world of elites people know each other. More interesting is Altman's role at one time as Treasury Counsel. Is it not the Treasury who had an interest in shutting down the Post Office Scandal? People talk to each other. Of course they do. Nothing illegal in that. But it is how the murky system of elites operates. But there is a marked, unpleasant whiff about it. Is Sir Wyn Williams going to ask the PO what documents were shredded and by whom and on whose orders? Is he going to call Altman as a witness to give evidence as to what he understood about POL's CEO Vennells knowledge of the Clarke advice? Or is that another thing that is just not allowed in the crazy institution we call our legal system? Truth is known from client briefing but is held to be privileged. Can Williams investigate Altman's various roles in relation to the Post Office prosecutions at different times. There were conflicts. Surely he should have recused himself instead of taking on the brief for the new PO Chairman? I don't fully grasp why Richard Moorhead says towards the end that Gareth Jenkins is perhaps 'less tainted' than it might appear. Is this the beginning of the stain spreading upwards - as can often happen when the edifice begins to crumble . It starts with middle ranking staff who have mislead juries, enough to destroy lives, but ends up years later that are now in the frame to carry the can for bosses. It can sometimes be a case of second guessing the Fuhrer so Jenkins gave evidence on the basis of what he thought the PO wanted him to say. In the normal way these things pan out, the upper echelons get drawn in at this point. So, the bosses at Fujitsu, the bosses at POL may be spotlighted after Gareth Jenkins opens up later this year (July I believe but definitely before the summer recess). Or, perhaps as usual we will hear nothing that will incriminate. and then wait to see if the Met will pursue the case. Will Williams ask Vennells about the date she knew of the 'tainted' evidence from Jenkins and see how that tied with the date of her claim to the Parliamentary Committee (BEIS) that miscarriages of justice is something she would have 'wanted to surface'. (For surface read 'bury). How could they not see what casual observers can see in prosecutions that were palpably unsafe. Procedures on Horizon in post offices were clearly not signs of theft but of bugs. Behaviours of subpostmasters were palpably not the behaviours of guilty thieves. No actual money was ever lost. Help Desks did not understand the IT system they were supposed to help with. Horizon was a mess. Japanese losing face and trade issues were at stake. Victims in post offices were bankrupted, forced to sell up their houses and borrow from relatives and credit cards to pay this mythical 'shortfall' debt to the post office. They were bullies and lied to and driven to their death is some cases. If there is anything like a clearing in the wood in this dark forest of a legal system that seems to me, wholly unfit for purpose, it is those determined Subpostmasters like Seema, Lee Castleton and Jo Hamilton and Alan Bates who have reduced the tangled knots. They have held fast despite pain and odds stacked against , aided most brilliantly and cogently by Nick Wallis, Rebecca Thompson, Paul Marshall and Richard Moorhead, and people like Arbuthnot, Dan Neidl, Tom Witherow and the Panorama producers.