Mr Bates vs The Post Office
Discussion
simon_harris said:
What that locations shows is that the document was opened from the email and automatically stored in a temp location. He didn't actively save it to that location. but he certainly opened the document and read it.
fk me he has just hung himself out to dry there...
To add, it was opened via internet explorer judging by the path.fk me he has just hung himself out to dry there...
LimmerickLad said:
I have not noticed any of the resident PH legal bods posting in this thread.....would be nice to know their stance on all of this.
I'm not one of the legal bods who tends to share advice on PH (at least not that identifies me as a lawyer), but I am the general counsel of a large UK business.If I'm honest, I look on with a degree of "there but for the grace of god". Which sounds like all lawyers - especially in-house lawyers - are up to no good. Let me explain:
As an in-house lawyer, you live in a permanently imperfect world: you have one client who is also your employer. You are an officer of the court (to whom you owe your primary responsibility) but you work in an organisation who employs you to get deliver its interests. You therefore have to oscillate rapidly between making good decisions for the business, remaining objective and meeting your professional obligations. It's even more complicated if you are also the company secretary (in-house counsel advise the business, co sec advises the board). I can think of few other roles that require so much intellectual separation to take place at once.
And that assumes you live in a perfect world where everyone you work with and for is only acting in the best interests of everyone at all times. Anyone who has had a job at whatever level in a business knows that all organisations are highly imperfect.
I have previously said that this is the largest corporate governance failure I have seen in my working life. It is a salutary tale for all in-house lawyers to think carefully about how they position their roles within the businesses they work for. Unlike finance and HR functions which are prevalent across organisations of all sizes, it remains unusual for all but decent sized organisations to have in-house legal functions. This creates a difficult environment as the legal team is expected to solve how it manages the "air gap" between taking an objective view and executing management decisions. Legal departments are regularly described as "blockers" to getting things done and are always require to demonstrate how we are proactive business partners - rather oddly I have always felt compelled to sell myself as someone who gets things done, as if that makes me special as a lawyer....
Couple that with a poorly managed organisation as the Post Office clearly was, together with an evidently toxic culture of blame and lack of accountability, and you can see that the lawyers - while clearly not innocent lambs (as much as Jarnail Singh wanted to paint himself as that) - are also playing a complex role while walking a near impossible tightrope.
The law is a tool - it isn't objectively pure when put into practice - and it is utilised to deliver a series of aims. Only as we have all looked in can we see that, step by step the legal functions within POL have increasingly lost objectivity. Rather like sensible people slowly getting drawn into a cult and failing to see the reality of what's going on around them.
I don't feel sorry for any of the lawyers at POL (even those who are still there and I know are desperately trying to leave), but I can see how they have all participated in their own falls from grace.
Edited by OMITN on Friday 3rd May 15:33
OMITN said:
Excellent post
Many thanks for taking time to respond so fullyEdited by OMITN on Friday 3rd May 15:33
Clearly you are in a "cleft stick" but surely if your advice / actions etc resulted in 3rd parties being unfairly prosecuted and you became aware of this, your own moral compass, let alone your professional requirements, would mean you would have to stick your head over the parapet even if they disposed of your services.......other wise how could you sleep at night?
LimmerickLad said:
Many thanks for taking time to respond so fully
Clearly you are in a "cleft stick" but surely if your advice / actions etc resulted in 3rd parties being unfairly prosecuted and you became aware of this, your own moral compass, let alone your professional requirements, would mean you would have to stick your head over the parapet even if they disposed of your services.......other wise how could you sleep at night?
So this is where the interplay of moral compass (personal, inward facing) and professional obligations (external, outward facing) collide. Clearly you are in a "cleft stick" but surely if your advice / actions etc resulted in 3rd parties being unfairly prosecuted and you became aware of this, your own moral compass, let alone your professional requirements, would mean you would have to stick your head over the parapet even if they disposed of your services.......other wise how could you sleep at night?
Susan Crichton (the GC on the stand last week/week before) saw an issue and she resigned over it. Chris Aujard - who was GC at the significant times that this issues were coming to light within POL - appeared to be too far in the bunker. I know of at least two GCs who, having uncovered wrongdoing that the remaining leaders did not want to change (or, in one case, were actively pursuing), resigned with no job to go to. I resigned from a role (also with nothing to go to), not because of wrongdoing, but because of a toxic culture that started with my boss (CEO) and permeated throughout.
The real issue for me in POL is the kryptonite combination (1) attitude that postmasters will steal from you if given the chance - culture eats strategy etc. (2) in-house ability to prosecute - losing the necessary objectivity (3) leadership failure from the chair through the board into the exec and senior management and (4) a public sector mindset of driving the organisational agenda first and considering people and wider impact second.
You can see also that the likes of Singh who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down from there didn't see the full picture. He might have had suspicions at Horizon, but probably lost no sleep as he figured out the exec and the board had the full picture and knew what they were doing. I often think the "only following orders" mindset is one of self-preservation. Which means people then sleepwalk us into disasters like this.
The lawyers are both contributors and collateral damage at the same time.
A related thought (as I can't follow the hearings every day) - has there been any reference to whistleblowing? Would love to know what the whistleblowing policy said about how to raise a concern and who would deal with it....
OMITN said:
LimmerickLad said:
Many thanks for taking time to respond so fully
Clearly you are in a "cleft stick" but surely if your advice / actions etc resulted in 3rd parties being unfairly prosecuted and you became aware of this, your own moral compass, let alone your professional requirements, would mean you would have to stick your head over the parapet even if they disposed of your services.......other wise how could you sleep at night?
So this is where the interplay of moral compass (personal, inward facing) and professional obligations (external, outward facing) collide. Clearly you are in a "cleft stick" but surely if your advice / actions etc resulted in 3rd parties being unfairly prosecuted and you became aware of this, your own moral compass, let alone your professional requirements, would mean you would have to stick your head over the parapet even if they disposed of your services.......other wise how could you sleep at night?
Susan Crichton (the GC on the stand last week/week before) saw an issue and she resigned over it. Chris Aujard - who was GC at the significant times that this issues were coming to light within POL - appeared to be too far in the bunker. I know of at least two GCs who, having uncovered wrongdoing that the remaining leaders did not want to change (or, in one case, were actively pursuing), resigned with no job to go to. I resigned from a role (also with nothing to go to), not because of wrongdoing, but because of a toxic culture that started with my boss (CEO) and permeated throughout.
The real issue for me in POL is the kryptonite combination (1) attitude that postmasters will steal from you if given the chance - culture eats strategy etc. (2) in-house ability to prosecute - losing the necessary objectivity (3) leadership failure from the chair through the board into the exec and senior management and (4) a public sector mindset of driving the organisational agenda first and considering people and wider impact second.
You can see also that the likes of Singh who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down from there didn't see the full picture. He might have had suspicions at Horizon, but probably lost no sleep as he figured out the exec and the board had the full picture and knew what they were doing. I often think the "only following orders" mindset is one of self-preservation. Which means people then sleepwalk us into disasters like this.
The lawyers are both contributors and collateral damage at the same time.
A related thought (as I can't follow the hearings every day) - has there been any reference to whistleblowing? Would love to know what the whistleblowing policy said about how to raise a concern and who would deal with it....
1st I should add than when I said "you" I didn't mean you personally and the fact you have resigned on principle previously without anything to go to shows you are a decent chap.
IMO - "(2) in-house ability to prosecute - losing the necessary objectivity" was a major factor above all, as they just felt they had all the power...and at that time in fact, they did!
I take onboard much of what you say about in-house lawyers, corporate culture atc and can see where you are coming from to some degree ....but these deliberate failures to disclose evidence etc is pretty basic legal stuff and serious misconduct, misleading the Courts and potentailly PCOJ , that even permeated the non in-house Bariisters / legal teams etc and I just can't believe they all just went along with it for fear of upsetting the apple cart. (£££££££££'s I assume)
As for whistleblowing, I know from personal experience albeit a few years ago, whilst Orgs / bodies might say they welcome whistleblowing and have policies to do so, the reality is somewhat different and leads to a whole lot of pain (personal and family) for no reward excepting the personal knowledge you did the right thing which means you can sleep at night with a clear conscience..... so rather begrudgingly I accept why most would not want to do it.
Edited by LimmerickLad on Friday 3rd May 17:49
Edited by LimmerickLad on Friday 3rd May 17:50
OMITN said:
So this is where the interplay of moral compass (personal, inward facing) and professional obligations (external, outward facing) collide.
Susan Crichton (the GC on the stand last week/week before) saw an issue and she resigned over it. Chris Aujard - who was GC at the significant times that this issues were coming to light within POL - appeared to be too far in the bunker. I know of at least two GCs who, having uncovered wrongdoing that the remaining leaders did not want to change (or, in one case, were actively pursuing), resigned with no job to go to. I resigned from a role (also with nothing to go to), not because of wrongdoing, but because of a toxic culture that started with my boss (CEO) and permeated throughout.
The real issue for me in POL is the kryptonite combination (1) attitude that postmasters will steal from you if given the chance - culture eats strategy etc. (2) in-house ability to prosecute - losing the necessary objectivity (3) leadership failure from the chair through the board into the exec and senior management and (4) a public sector mindset of driving the organisational agenda first and considering people and wider impact second.
You can see also that the likes of Singh who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down from there didn't see the full picture. He might have had suspicions at Horizon, but probably lost no sleep as he figured out the exec and the board had the full picture and knew what they were doing. I often think the "only following orders" mindset is one of self-preservation. Which means people then sleepwalk us into disasters like this.
The lawyers are both contributors and collateral damage at the same time.
A related thought (as I can't follow the hearings every day) - has there been any reference to whistleblowing? Would love to know what the whistleblowing policy said about how to raise a concern and who would deal with it....
A good post.Susan Crichton (the GC on the stand last week/week before) saw an issue and she resigned over it. Chris Aujard - who was GC at the significant times that this issues were coming to light within POL - appeared to be too far in the bunker. I know of at least two GCs who, having uncovered wrongdoing that the remaining leaders did not want to change (or, in one case, were actively pursuing), resigned with no job to go to. I resigned from a role (also with nothing to go to), not because of wrongdoing, but because of a toxic culture that started with my boss (CEO) and permeated throughout.
The real issue for me in POL is the kryptonite combination (1) attitude that postmasters will steal from you if given the chance - culture eats strategy etc. (2) in-house ability to prosecute - losing the necessary objectivity (3) leadership failure from the chair through the board into the exec and senior management and (4) a public sector mindset of driving the organisational agenda first and considering people and wider impact second.
You can see also that the likes of Singh who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down from there didn't see the full picture. He might have had suspicions at Horizon, but probably lost no sleep as he figured out the exec and the board had the full picture and knew what they were doing. I often think the "only following orders" mindset is one of self-preservation. Which means people then sleepwalk us into disasters like this.
The lawyers are both contributors and collateral damage at the same time.
A related thought (as I can't follow the hearings every day) - has there been any reference to whistleblowing? Would love to know what the whistleblowing policy said about how to raise a concern and who would deal with it....
"who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down" - a dinosaur who didn't know how to save or print documents in 2010 when teh rest of the world had mastered it - at a guess his PA was allowed to either guide him, or he just passed his keyboard and mouse to her. It was clearly from his Outlook cache.
fk Me Sideways!!
JS has shown himself to be so completely inept as a 'lawyer', how the hell can he ever try to practice again?
"Not my remit, it was - insert a name here - and here - and maybe here, responsibility!
Jarnail Singh - ex Criminal Lawyer! CV being updated this evening!
I've followed this intermittently since it started appearing in Private Eye and the news.
Mr Bates v The PO had me shouting at the tv. The people currently on show have raised my blood pressure and my anger so much I really want to slap them silly! They are proving themselves to be lying, scheming tts, in public! Day after Day!
JS has shown himself to be so completely inept as a 'lawyer', how the hell can he ever try to practice again?
"Not my remit, it was - insert a name here - and here - and maybe here, responsibility!
Jarnail Singh - ex Criminal Lawyer! CV being updated this evening!
I've followed this intermittently since it started appearing in Private Eye and the news.
Mr Bates v The PO had me shouting at the tv. The people currently on show have raised my blood pressure and my anger so much I really want to slap them silly! They are proving themselves to be lying, scheming tts, in public! Day after Day!
I chose to avoid the TV expose, and don't watch the court proceedings - would likely leave me feeling angry and impotent. But the discussion on here is riveting. So many insights, and in particular the GC in a big org; OMITN - exploring the almost impossible divided loyalty of ket roles.
As an outsider what worries me is that the law does not merit the term 'profession'.
The concept of disclosure is that the Court has access to a body of verifiable common information, provided by whatever legal party, in order to let the legal system work.
A common theme in the Inquiry is that the adversaries on the POL side saw no such obligation, or if they did recognise their professional obligations, it was of no relevance to their job. (as hired guns).
Am I being childlike or naive when I say that this is not a career that can be called a 'profession'?
As an outsider what worries me is that the law does not merit the term 'profession'.
The concept of disclosure is that the Court has access to a body of verifiable common information, provided by whatever legal party, in order to let the legal system work.
A common theme in the Inquiry is that the adversaries on the POL side saw no such obligation, or if they did recognise their professional obligations, it was of no relevance to their job. (as hired guns).
Am I being childlike or naive when I say that this is not a career that can be called a 'profession'?
vaud said:
A good post.
"who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down" - a dinosaur who didn't know how to save or print documents in 2010 when teh rest of the world had mastered it - at a guess his PA was allowed to either guide him, or he just passed his keyboard and mouse to her. It was clearly from his Outlook cache.
Don't fall for the bullst. JS knew precisely what he was doing when covering up this scandal."who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down" - a dinosaur who didn't know how to save or print documents in 2010 when teh rest of the world had mastered it - at a guess his PA was allowed to either guide him, or he just passed his keyboard and mouse to her. It was clearly from his Outlook cache.
732NM said:
vaud said:
A good post.
"who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down" - a dinosaur who didn't know how to save or print documents in 2010 when teh rest of the world had mastered it - at a guess his PA was allowed to either guide him, or he just passed his keyboard and mouse to her. It was clearly from his Outlook cache.
Don't fall for the bullst. JS knew precisely what he was doing when covering up this scandal."who clearly started out as incompetent and doubled down" - a dinosaur who didn't know how to save or print documents in 2010 when teh rest of the world had mastered it - at a guess his PA was allowed to either guide him, or he just passed his keyboard and mouse to her. It was clearly from his Outlook cache.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff