That CK had a conflict of interest seems blindingly obvious to me.
But the PO legal department also had one. They were ultimately responsible for ensuring that prosecutions were done in compliance with the law. They weren't - and this went way beyond the Horizon data issues. They did not recognise that conflict let alone take any steps to mitigate it. Rather, it led to the disastrous decisions and advice the lawyers took and gave their clients, in part motivated by the need to avoid any scrutiny of the failures of the legal function in relation to the investigations and prosecutions functions.
I'm pretty shocked at the ethical standards of the legal profession. There may be value in carrying out a benchmarking activity with the engineering profession, regulated by the UK Engineering Council. This has a Statement of Ethical Principle, jointly developed with the Royal Academy of Engineering, to which all engineering institutions and their members sign up to. I'm proud to have worked as a professional engineer for almost 50 years and, in my experience, the organisations and colleagues I've worked with have operated to a pretty decent ethical standard.
You're doing great work. For over forty years I practised in a very small firm, and the one luxury was being able to tell clients whose behaviour I didn't approve of to go to another firm, on two occasions arrogant millionaires, who weren't used to being dismissed. You'll be mentioning the current craze for SLAPPs, readers may enjoy what I've written for the late Iain Lawson on them, such as https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2022/12/08/slapps/
Investigators, General Counsel (several), Lawyers (many, Internal and External) and Judges (all the way to the top) failed the sub postmasters. The PO inquiry will draw conclusions and reveal where fault lies. It seems likely that other than a couple of people being prosecuted. They all get away with it. British Justice?
A few anoraks like myself have followed the PO scandal closely. Even attended the Inquiry. The likes of Mr Barr probably watched the ITV drama, thought it was all fiction. Failed to see there were real victims. I’ve met Lee Castleton, a really decent bloke. He would be justified in telling Barr to “Do One”.
The article on SLAPPS raises a point. Could more justice be done if Law students and young barristers did some pro bono work. Perhaps part of their training at institutions like your own Exeter University. Unlikely to end up in No. 10, but valuable experience in a non-pecuniary sense
The superlatives that should be applied to Lee, as is common with so many of the sub-postmasters, include but go well beyond decency! There is a fair bit of pro bono work done but, valuable as it is, it almost only ever scratches the surface. A law school clinic, as it happens, was what interested me in the kind of work I do!
Just an observation. There is another case involving a member of the legal profession involved in blatant manipulation of the law. Phil Shiner, the impact of that costs another few million pounds. I am not sure how long it has taken but I read somewhere that he os shortly to be sentenced for his activities. The time taken to bring his case to court being indicative of a system that those involved in it know how to exploit and have no shame in doing so.
Horizon is the biggest micarriage of justive in the UK for many, many years, dwarfing even Shiners antics. If, once the Inquiry ends, several members of the legal profession not struck of and then prosecuted, for professional negligence at least, then that will be seen by many as another story of the legal world being above the law when it suits them.
Your legal professional bodies in particular, will be seen to have failed at the very least. The concept of "professional ethics" being little more than a joke. The difference? In the Horizon evidence we can see, hear and read that abose of ethics for ourselves. I wonder if those who failed ethically realise just how great the damage they have caused is. The closing statements of many indicating to me that they do not.
Do read The Coffee Man by J S Summerfield, a novel written by a lawyer with many similarities to the Post Office saga. Non disclosure of liabilities at a crucial time of selling the business, with reprisal in the end.
It could be WBM and CK back office,
I would like Ed Henry to read it, over to you Richard and many thanks for your work.
On NDAs, I can understand the point in civil cases to ensure ‘closure’ and no further pressure via press etc. However, I have never known if they can be used to obstruct criminal investigations. Can they be enforced over the duty to respond to police questions or in court. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Thanks.
No they cannot be so enforced. And agreements which contain clauses designed to inhibit such disclosures are likely to be professional misconduct (and are arguably criminal). There are ways of achieving the same effect and in any event whether a clause is enforceable or not is academic if the person who is subject to it is too frightened to come forward because they think the agreement prevents them from doing so.
That CK had a conflict of interest seems blindingly obvious to me.
But the PO legal department also had one. They were ultimately responsible for ensuring that prosecutions were done in compliance with the law. They weren't - and this went way beyond the Horizon data issues. They did not recognise that conflict let alone take any steps to mitigate it. Rather, it led to the disastrous decisions and advice the lawyers took and gave their clients, in part motivated by the need to avoid any scrutiny of the failures of the legal function in relation to the investigations and prosecutions functions.
I'm pretty shocked at the ethical standards of the legal profession. There may be value in carrying out a benchmarking activity with the engineering profession, regulated by the UK Engineering Council. This has a Statement of Ethical Principle, jointly developed with the Royal Academy of Engineering, to which all engineering institutions and their members sign up to. I'm proud to have worked as a professional engineer for almost 50 years and, in my experience, the organisations and colleagues I've worked with have operated to a pretty decent ethical standard.
You're doing great work. For over forty years I practised in a very small firm, and the one luxury was being able to tell clients whose behaviour I didn't approve of to go to another firm, on two occasions arrogant millionaires, who weren't used to being dismissed. You'll be mentioning the current craze for SLAPPs, readers may enjoy what I've written for the late Iain Lawson on them, such as https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2022/12/08/slapps/
A thought provoking piece. Thanks Richard.
Investigators, General Counsel (several), Lawyers (many, Internal and External) and Judges (all the way to the top) failed the sub postmasters. The PO inquiry will draw conclusions and reveal where fault lies. It seems likely that other than a couple of people being prosecuted. They all get away with it. British Justice?
A few anoraks like myself have followed the PO scandal closely. Even attended the Inquiry. The likes of Mr Barr probably watched the ITV drama, thought it was all fiction. Failed to see there were real victims. I’ve met Lee Castleton, a really decent bloke. He would be justified in telling Barr to “Do One”.
The article on SLAPPS raises a point. Could more justice be done if Law students and young barristers did some pro bono work. Perhaps part of their training at institutions like your own Exeter University. Unlikely to end up in No. 10, but valuable experience in a non-pecuniary sense
The superlatives that should be applied to Lee, as is common with so many of the sub-postmasters, include but go well beyond decency! There is a fair bit of pro bono work done but, valuable as it is, it almost only ever scratches the surface. A law school clinic, as it happens, was what interested me in the kind of work I do!
Just an observation. There is another case involving a member of the legal profession involved in blatant manipulation of the law. Phil Shiner, the impact of that costs another few million pounds. I am not sure how long it has taken but I read somewhere that he os shortly to be sentenced for his activities. The time taken to bring his case to court being indicative of a system that those involved in it know how to exploit and have no shame in doing so.
Horizon is the biggest micarriage of justive in the UK for many, many years, dwarfing even Shiners antics. If, once the Inquiry ends, several members of the legal profession not struck of and then prosecuted, for professional negligence at least, then that will be seen by many as another story of the legal world being above the law when it suits them.
Your legal professional bodies in particular, will be seen to have failed at the very least. The concept of "professional ethics" being little more than a joke. The difference? In the Horizon evidence we can see, hear and read that abose of ethics for ourselves. I wonder if those who failed ethically realise just how great the damage they have caused is. The closing statements of many indicating to me that they do not.
I would suggest it is difficult to be ethical when you do not understand your operating environment.
Great work indeed.
Do read The Coffee Man by J S Summerfield, a novel written by a lawyer with many similarities to the Post Office saga. Non disclosure of liabilities at a crucial time of selling the business, with reprisal in the end.
It could be WBM and CK back office,
I would like Ed Henry to read it, over to you Richard and many thanks for your work.
On NDAs, I can understand the point in civil cases to ensure ‘closure’ and no further pressure via press etc. However, I have never known if they can be used to obstruct criminal investigations. Can they be enforced over the duty to respond to police questions or in court. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Thanks.
No they cannot be so enforced. And agreements which contain clauses designed to inhibit such disclosures are likely to be professional misconduct (and are arguably criminal). There are ways of achieving the same effect and in any event whether a clause is enforceable or not is academic if the person who is subject to it is too frightened to come forward because they think the agreement prevents them from doing so.