Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the more important variable is how many subpostmasters there are. If there are millions then 700 is impressive.
As of 2023, there were 6727 subpostmasters. So about 10% committed fraud. Seems a little high - but I could believe it if the subpostmasters are the local "boss", handling cash, and are supposed to pay 'the blokes in London' who they never meet. Also, most subpostmasters had many employees - and I believe if any one of their employees was commiting fraud/stealing money, then it was the sub postmaster responsible - so…
First, the time period we’re talking about here is 16 years. You’re telling me that the post office in 16 years couldn’t figure out how 10% of their branches were having persistent problems with their counts for 16 years! What business operates this way when dealing with such large amounts of money. At a minimum even if it was legit fraud by the subpostmasters this would be an indictment of the competence of the Post Office in managing the offices.
Then there’s gems like this:
> Some subpostmasters noticed the new system reporting false shortfalls, sometimes for thousands of pounds, but the Post Office insisted that the system was robust and, when shortfalls occurred, prosecuted the subpostmasters or forced them to make good the amounts, as required by their contract.
Then an audit that was disputed and ignored:
> In 2012, as a result of pressure from campaigners and Members of Parliament, the Post Office appointed forensic accountants Second Sight to conduct an investigation into Horizon. Second Sight concluded that Horizon contained faults that could result in accounting discrepancies, but the Post Office insisted that there were no systemic problems with the software.
Finally, the most egregious thing is that even if you go back in time and are an honest player, as the convictions start happening more and more often, maybe at some point you go and ask the question “what changed in 1999 when we started prosecuting and why weren’t we catching this fraud before? Did we become better at it somehow?”
Actually it corresponds to the rollout of the system. It’s possible of course that this system added new auditing capabilities that didn’t exist before but honestly 10% is still ridiculously high.
Ultimately, the facts of the case are pretty clear this is bad faith from the Post Office (and maybe Fujitsu) top to bottom. There’s no point playing hypotheticals with good faith actors when the Post Office even had audits showing the software was buggy and the response was to dispute the audits they themselves contracted. It’s beyond the pale.