Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 276 posts

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#231

Post by asplake »

switch007 wrote: post #222
justinclift wrote: post #189

Seems like the senior Post Office staff purposely "perverted the course of justice" here. Doesn't that mean they should be facing criminal charges?

Yes but it gets very awkward very quickly when you realise it’s the government who own and have responsibility for the Post Office. Why stop at the Post Office directors? And who runs the Crown Prosecution Service? Ah yes, the government.

The prosecutions were mostly conducted privately by the PO itself, not the CPS. That’s a power the PO should surely be stripped of.

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#232

Post by shapefrog »

bedobi wrote: post #18
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #7

Bugs are inevitable. The real issue is with the post office management that prosecuted people they knew there was a good chance were innocent, withheld evidence, falsified evidence, and harassed journalists investigating. What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Vennells > witness statements from Fujitsu staff due to…

> What really bothers me is that the CEO of the Organisation at the time was also a Christian priest/deacon lol, in my experience... well, let me not finish that sentence

as a former choir boy ... well, let me not finish that sentence

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#233

Post by shapefrog »

SoftTalker wrote: post #9
msie wrote: post #3

All the PO lawyers rewriting witness statements must go to jail. All the prosecutors must go to jail for negligence and malpractice.

Odd that so often here on HN we talk about how prisons don't work, don't deter crime, don't rehabilitate... yet whenever some CEO or high level official is caught in malfeasance, we insist that "sending them to jail" is the only proper response.

prisons don't work, don't deter crime, don't rehabilitate... for poor people

rich people on the other hand

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#234

Post by pityJuke »

spondyl wrote: post #226
puzzledobserver wrote: post #77

The Wikipedia article on Paula Vennells tells me that the Post Office prosecuted 700 subpostmasters between 1999 and 2015 [0]. That works out to about one prosecution every 8 days. I do not know the baseline rate at which postmasters commit fraud or are prosecuted, but isn't one prosecution every 8 days an awfully high number? Shouldn't the Post Office have conducted some sort of internal investigation as soon as the…

While Paula is getting all the attention, mostly due to appearing in the dramatisation, I'd point out that we haven't heard from Adam Crozier who was CEO of the Royal Mail from 2003 - 2010 which was a fairly key period when this was all going down. I pick on him particularly because after he handed the role over to Vennells, he went over to ITV for a number of years. The same ITV who provides the very dramatisation t…

Worth noting that the executive producer of the show, Patrick Spence, was asked about why Adam Crozier was not present in the show in an interview with The Times. Here is a timestamp of the question and answer: https://youtu.be/3KfMptK294M?t=251

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#235

Post by pi-e-sigma »

hackerlight wrote: post #230
switch007 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it gets very awkward very quickly when you realise it’s the government who own and have responsibility for the Post Office. Why stop at the Post Office directors? And who runs the Crown Prosecution Service? Ah yes, the government.

> Why stop at the Post Office directors? Because the principal and agent aren't the same thing. If an agent commits a crime without the knowledge of the principal, then only the agent should have criminal liability.

You forgot about the oversight responsibilities, though. Just because you delegate work to an agent doesn't automatically mean that you are not responsible for the consequences of any action of the agent. If what you say was true not a single company ever would be successfully prosecuted because companies don't do anything on their own, all their actions are through their agents.

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#236

Post by switch007 »

asplake wrote: post #231
switch007 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it gets very awkward very quickly when you realise it’s the government who own and have responsibility for the Post Office. Why stop at the Post Office directors? And who runs the Crown Prosecution Service? Ah yes, the government.

The prosecutions were mostly conducted privately by the PO itself, not the CPS. That’s a power the PO should surely be stripped of.

I’m aware. I was alluding that the CPS would be involved in any criminal cases against the PO.

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#237

Post by foldr »

Eisenstein wrote: post #153
conductr wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes totally but shouldn’t it have been the prosecution that hired forensic accountants in order to, well, prosecute

In the UK, private parties can prosecute people. The Post office was doing this. As a citizen of the USA, this is a completely alien concept to me. How can a corporation put a person in prison?

Private prosecutions are still possible in some US states and were more common historically: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_S...

Also: https://law.umn.edu/events/what-process-due-history-and-use-....

I’m not saying that private prosecutions are a good idea, but they’re not completely alien to the US.

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#238

Post by switch007 »

hackerlight wrote: post #230
switch007 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it gets very awkward very quickly when you realise it’s the government who own and have responsibility for the Post Office. Why stop at the Post Office directors? And who runs the Crown Prosecution Service? Ah yes, the government.

> Why stop at the Post Office directors? Because the principal and agent aren't the same thing. If an agent commits a crime without the knowledge of the principal, then only the agent should have criminal liability.

Is that how English law works, or is that your moral opinion?

IANAL so genuinely curious

Re: Fujitsu bugs that sent innocent people to prison were known "from the start"

#240

Post by foldr »

kelnos wrote: post #123
nabla9 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? It was not justice department (aka Crown Prosecutor) prosecuting those people. In UK private prosecution for crimes is possible. Probably a major reason for this kind of bullshit goes on.

Wait, "private" meaning a non-government entity such as a corporation can prosecute someone, without any involvement of the public justice system, and send people to jail? I assume not just any private entity is empowered to do this, but still... Wow, it's bad enough here in the US that we have a private prison system, but that really takes the cake.

> can prosecute someone, without any involvement of the public justice system

No, it goes through the same public justice system, it’s just that the prosecution case is made by a private person or entity rather than the Crown Prosecution Service. It’s “private” in the sense that most civil suites are private. More info here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecuti...

Post reply on HN