Sir Ed Davey and the Post Office scandal
Discussion
Condi said:
Mrr T said:
If by the judicial system you mean the court and those who represented both sides in court. They seem to have acted properly.
Well, the prosecution lawyers presented (or were presented with) false evidence and failed to disclose everything to the defence teams about known issues with Horizon. But yes, the courts came to the "correct" conclusion with the evidence presented, albeit that evidence was incorrect.
Mrr T said:
The PO lawyers might have known of the issues but there is no evidence the barristers acting for the PO knew. Indeed, they did not need to present any evidence about the system because the law said systems should be assumed to be reliable.
Surely defence lawyers would have been told by their clients that the computer was faulty and would have questioned the reliability of it?Legal assumptions are often made but can be questioned if appropriate.
irc said:
Mrr T said:
The PO lawyers might have known of the issues but there is no evidence the barristers acting for the PO knew. Indeed, they did not need to present any evidence about the system because the law said systems should be assumed to be reliable.
Surely defence lawyers would have been told by their clients that the computer was faulty and would have questioned the reliability of it?Legal assumptions are often made but can be questioned if appropriate.
irc said:
Mrr T said:
The PO lawyers might have known of the issues but there is no evidence the barristers acting for the PO knew. Indeed, they did not need to present any evidence about the system because the law said systems should be assumed to be reliable.
Surely defence lawyers would have been told by their clients that the computer was faulty and would have questioned the reliability of it?Legal assumptions are often made but can be questioned if appropriate.
For magic circle defence teams to rely on well no one told us won't wash.
Edited by Wills2 on Monday 5th February 10:07
Mrr T said:
irc said:
Mrr T said:
The PO lawyers might have known of the issues but there is no evidence the barristers acting for the PO knew. Indeed, they did not need to present any evidence about the system because the law said systems should be assumed to be reliable.
Surely defence lawyers would have been told by their clients that the computer was faulty and would have questioned the reliability of it?Legal assumptions are often made but can be questioned if appropriate.
Mrr T said:
If by the judicial system you mean the court and those who represented both sides in court. They seem to have acted properly.
They don't, and some of them have admitted they didn't and have apologised whilst giving evidence. Edited by Mrr T on Monday 5th February 06:54
Warwick Tatford, the barrister in the Misra case apologised multiple times. He stated he was ashamed by his actions.
https://richardmoorhead.substack.com/p/the-sorry-t...
520TORQUES said:
They don't, and some of them have admitted they didn't and have apologised whilst giving evidence.
Warwick Tatford, the barrister in the Misra case apologised multiple times. He stated he was ashamed by his actions.
Warwick Tatford, the barrister in the Misra case apologised multiple times. He stated he was ashamed by his actions.
Wills2 said:
irc said:
Mrr T said:
The PO lawyers might have known of the issues but there is no evidence the barristers acting for the PO knew. Indeed, they did not need to present any evidence about the system because the law said systems should be assumed to be reliable.
Surely defence lawyers would have been told by their clients that the computer was faulty and would have questioned the reliability of it?Legal assumptions are often made but can be questioned if appropriate.
For magic circle defence teams to rely on well no one told us won't wash.
Edited by Wills2 on Monday 5th February 10:07
I can only assume that Mrr T hasn't really been following the inquiry or reading the law society gazette with regards to the part played by the prosecution in the criminal cases and the PO defence lawyers in the high court cases.
If the defence is that the gaggle of incompetent dullards that are the PO board and their "investigation teams" (I use the word investigation in the widest sense) managed to pull the wool over some of the most highest paid and eminent lawyers in the country then I have a bridge to sell him and some magic beans.
I don't think the outcome will be prison for those who are proven to have acted improperly and the old tie network will be working in overdrive, however it will become clear that greedy law firms acted unethically and broke the rules, putting the billing of hours above justice, their part in this will I feel be shown to have been motivated by greed.
pork911 said:
Magic circle defence teams?
The top law firms in the country are named as belonging to the "magic circle" the best that money can buy. https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/law-firms/types-...
Wills2 said:
I can only assume that Mrr T hasn't really been following the inquiry or reading the law society gazette with regards to the part played by the prosecution in the criminal cases and the PO defence lawyers in the high court cases.
If the defence is that the gaggle of incompetent dullards that are the PO board and their "investigation teams" (I use the word investigation in the widest sense) managed to pull the wool over some of the most highest paid and eminent lawyers in the country then I have a bridge to sell him and some magic beans.
I don't think the outcome will be prison for those who are proven to have acted improperly and the old tie network will be working in overdrive, however it will become clear that greedy law firms acted unethically and broke the rules, putting the billing of hours above justice, their part in this will I feel be shown to have been motivated by greed.
I have followed the inquiry and even read some of the judgements and many blogs.If the defence is that the gaggle of incompetent dullards that are the PO board and their "investigation teams" (I use the word investigation in the widest sense) managed to pull the wool over some of the most highest paid and eminent lawyers in the country then I have a bridge to sell him and some magic beans.
I don't think the outcome will be prison for those who are proven to have acted improperly and the old tie network will be working in overdrive, however it will become clear that greedy law firms acted unethically and broke the rules, putting the billing of hours above justice, their part in this will I feel be shown to have been motivated by greed.
As a result I can know the difference between the various trials, some criminal some civil, and the enquiry.
My comment was in response to one about the failures of the judiciary. Which I view as incorrect.
There is a link above reviewing the testimony of one barrister from a criminal trial. The writer does suggest the barrister may have fallen short of professional standards. But there's a lot of maybe, and seems to, so let's see if there I want referral to the BSB. There is a!so no mention of the assumption of reliability.
As for firms who advised the PO during the enquiry. They do have ethical standards to maintain but there job is to represent their client.
Mrr T said:
I have followed the inquiry and even read some of the judgements and many blogs.
As a result I can know the difference between the various trials, some criminal some civil, and the enquiry.
My comment was in response to one about the failures of the judiciary. Which I view as incorrect.
There is a link above reviewing the testimony of one barrister from a criminal trial. The writer does suggest the barrister may have fallen short of professional standards. But there's a lot of maybe, and seems to, so let's see if there I want referral to the BSB.
As for firms who advised the PO during the enquiry. They do have ethical standards to maintain but there job is to represent their client.
You are a lost cause. Consistent, but consistently blind to the evidence. As a result I can know the difference between the various trials, some criminal some civil, and the enquiry.
My comment was in response to one about the failures of the judiciary. Which I view as incorrect.
There is a link above reviewing the testimony of one barrister from a criminal trial. The writer does suggest the barrister may have fallen short of professional standards. But there's a lot of maybe, and seems to, so let's see if there I want referral to the BSB.
As for firms who advised the PO during the enquiry. They do have ethical standards to maintain but there job is to represent their client.
Wills2 said:
pork911 said:
Magic circle defence teams?
The top law firms in the country are named as belonging to the "magic circle" the best that money can buy. https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/law-firms/types-...
520TORQUES said:
Mrr T said:
I have followed the inquiry and even read some of the judgements and many blogs.
As a result I can know the difference between the various trials, some criminal some civil, and the enquiry.
My comment was in response to one about the failures of the judiciary. Which I view as incorrect.
There is a link above reviewing the testimony of one barrister from a criminal trial. The writer does suggest the barrister may have fallen short of professional standards. But there's a lot of maybe, and seems to, so let's see if there I want referral to the BSB.
As for firms who advised the PO during the enquiry. They do have ethical standards to maintain but there job is to represent their client.
You are a lost cause. Consistent, but consistently blind to the evidence. As a result I can know the difference between the various trials, some criminal some civil, and the enquiry.
My comment was in response to one about the failures of the judiciary. Which I view as incorrect.
There is a link above reviewing the testimony of one barrister from a criminal trial. The writer does suggest the barrister may have fallen short of professional standards. But there's a lot of maybe, and seems to, so let's see if there I want referral to the BSB.
As for firms who advised the PO during the enquiry. They do have ethical standards to maintain but there job is to represent their client.
Mrr T said:
I am consistently prepare to read the evidence and understand hindsight is not necessarily evidence of wrong doing.
Evidence of wrongdoing is evidence of wrongdoing, and there are thousands of documents and many witness statements and testimonies which provide this evidence. 520TORQUES said:
Mrr T said:
I have followed the inquiry and even read some of the judgements and many blogs.
As a result I can know the difference between the various trials, some criminal some civil, and the enquiry.
My comment was in response to one about the failures of the judiciary. Which I view as incorrect.
There is a link above reviewing the testimony of one barrister from a criminal trial. The writer does suggest the barrister may have fallen short of professional standards. But there's a lot of maybe, and seems to, so let's see if there I want referral to the BSB.
As for firms who advised the PO during the enquiry. They do have ethical standards to maintain but there job is to represent their client.
You are a lost cause. Consistent, but consistently blind to the evidence. As a result I can know the difference between the various trials, some criminal some civil, and the enquiry.
My comment was in response to one about the failures of the judiciary. Which I view as incorrect.
There is a link above reviewing the testimony of one barrister from a criminal trial. The writer does suggest the barrister may have fallen short of professional standards. But there's a lot of maybe, and seems to, so let's see if there I want referral to the BSB.
As for firms who advised the PO during the enquiry. They do have ethical standards to maintain but there job is to represent their client.
Hypothetically if they conducted a case where a significant part of the evidence centred around the claim that nobody else was suffering these problems, then were instructed on another case(s) with the same approach at some point anyone reasonable would raise questions on the validity of the claim.
Imo there's definitely evidence for PO lawyers to be referred to professional standards. As for criminal not sure, devil in detail there.
This discussion is better for the main thread as it has bugger all to do with Davey, plenty more politicians with more to explain.
FiF said:
There's a difference between the barristers and the PO lawyers from what I can see. Barristers simply work with the information their client provides, and where they have not been provided with all the information that should have been disclosed. If the barristers stands up and argues a case on the basis of evidence which turns out to be a complete fabrication they are not personally committing any offence or misconduct unless they actually knew for sure it was a load of old untrue flannel.
Hypothetically if they conducted a case where a significant part of the evidence centred around the claim that nobody else was suffering these problems, then were instructed on another case(s) with the same approach at some point anyone reasonable would raise questions on the validity of the claim.
Imo there's definitely evidence for PO lawyers to be referred to professional standards. As for criminal not sure, devil in detail there.
This discussion is better for the main thread as it has bugger all to do with Davey, plenty more politicians with more to explain.
Did you read the piece examining mr tatfords testimony?Hypothetically if they conducted a case where a significant part of the evidence centred around the claim that nobody else was suffering these problems, then were instructed on another case(s) with the same approach at some point anyone reasonable would raise questions on the validity of the claim.
Imo there's definitely evidence for PO lawyers to be referred to professional standards. As for criminal not sure, devil in detail there.
This discussion is better for the main thread as it has bugger all to do with Davey, plenty more politicians with more to explain.
520TORQUES said:
Did you read the piece examining mr tatfords testimony?
Was talking generalities rather than one specific case.Whilst Tatford clearly made some mistakes around disclosure of his own which in hindsight he now recognises, suspect that at the time his contacts at the PO were shady as.
FiF said:
Was talking generalities rather than one specific case.
Whilst Tatford clearly made some mistakes around disclosure of his own which in hindsight he now recognises, suspect that at the time his contacts at the PO were shady as.
It's not one specific case, it's everywhere. Whilst Tatford clearly made some mistakes around disclosure of his own which in hindsight he now recognises, suspect that at the time his contacts at the PO were shady as.
Have you read the piece on tatford? His actions are clear. His hindsight is an exercise in saving his reputation in the light of the evidence.
Mrr T said:
The legal assumption set out in Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 means it up to the defence to prove the system is not reliable. I am sure the PM told their lawyers of their concerns but with no evidence there would be nothing they could do.
So, who is responsible for this act becoming law?And what other cases might have miscarried because of it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff