Post Office bosses must be held to account for the Horizon scandal
These people must not go unpunished. Corporate guilt should not be used as a shelter. Custodial sentences might go some way towards discouraging any repetition of such behaviour in both the public and private sectors.
Dr Robert J Leeming
Coventry, Warwickshire
SIR – Unless those responsible for this appalling scandal are brought to justice, confidence in law and order in our country will be destroyed.
Jonathan Fogg
Loulé, Algarve, Portugal
SIR – What kind of legal system finds hundreds of innocent people guilty?
Douglas Jenkinson
Nottingham
SIR – The public inquiry report published on Tuesday contains damning evidence that the Government and the Post Office are stalling instead of paying compensation to sub-postmasters.
Haven't these people been through enough? Or will it take another television drama to deliver what's right?
Brett Trafford
Bramley, Hampshire
SIR – If compensation is not paid soon, some claimants will die before justice is done. Shame on Great Britain.
Adrian Lloyd-Edwards
Dartmouth, Devon
SIR – Fujitsu was responsible for the Horizon software, and the defects that led to erroneous accusations of false accounting. The company should be required to pay a share of the compensation due to the victims.
Richard Watts
Cholsey, Oxfordshire
SIR – After nearly five years, Sir Wyn Williams, chairman of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, has found that the scandal has had a 'disastrous' impact on those wrongly accused and prosecuted for criminal offences.
Our statutory inquiry system is a gravy train for the legal community, and a convenient way for politicians to bat difficult issues into the long grass. How much money has been spent on this inquiry? How much have all the solicitors and barristers pocketed? What have any of our politicians achieved?
Meanwhile, many people whose lives were ruined are yet to receive proper compensation.
Tim Spurry
Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
SIR – I wonder when Sir Ed Davey will be held to account for his failure to act on the Horizon scandal when he was postal affairs minister.
Michael Wilkinson
East Sheen, Surrey
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Chairman of Sheku Bayoh Inquiry decides against recusing himself
The chairman of the Sheku Bayoh Inquiry has decided not to recuse himself after ruling there was no possibility that he was biased. A procedural hearing ordered by Lord Bracadale was held in June after he revealed he has met with Mr Bayoh's family on five occasions since the inquiry began. Mr Bayoh, 31, a father-of-two, died after he was restrained by around six police officers who were called to Hayfield Road in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on May 3 2015. After considering the matter, Lord Bracadale has refused the application for his recusal. In a decision published on Wednesday, he said: 'Having reviewed the facts, the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was no real possibility that I was biased.' The application for recusal of the chairman and assessors was lodged on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation, Pc Craig Walker and Nicole Short. A spokeswoman for the inquiry said: 'The inquiry held a procedure and conduct hearing on June 12. 'After careful consideration of written and oral submissions from core participants, Lord Bracadale has decided not to recuse himself or terminate the appointments of the assessors. 'Having regard to the relevant legal test, he has determined there is no apparent bias. 'Taking into account various considerations in respect of the handling of the inquiry, he has determined having meetings with the families was not unfair. 'There is much important work for the inquiry still to do, not least proceeding with closing submissions and moving towards the writing of the final report. The team is working at pace and will announce next steps in due course.' The inquiry has been examining the circumstances of Mr Bayoh's death, and whether race was a factor. Scotland's Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes said: 'I note the detailed and extensive consideration that has informed Lord Bracadale's decision and hope all parties involved can progress the important work of the inquiry as soon as possible. 'The Scottish Government remains committed to establishing the facts surrounding the circumstances leading to Mr Bayoh's death. 'However, as it is vital all public inquiries operate independently of government, it would be inappropriate of me to comment any further.'
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Routinely disclosing the asylum status of suspects is a very dangerous step to take
The National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing have backed plans to offer greater 'transparency' on the ethnicity, and potentially the immigration status, of police suspects. But in a world where rumours travel faster than facts, this new approach will have profound consequences for justice – and for the people who will live with the consequences. The new national guidance says that 'police forces should consider disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects when they are charged in high profile and sensitive investigations and operations'. It comes after Reform UK accused police of a 'cover-up' over two men who have been charged in connection with the alleged rape of a child in Nuneaton. Prior to this, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, had expressed her view that guidance should change to allow 'more transparency'. She was joined in this opinion by the chief inspector of constabulary, who warned that withholding such details could feed 'two-tier policing' claims (the allegation that the state polices majorities more harshly than minorities, contrary to the overwhelming body of evidence that shows otherwise). The idea that identity characteristics should feature, after arrest, in what information is publicly released during police investigations has been circling for years. Until very recently, officials and criminal justice practitioners had mostly resisted. Their concern was simple: routine publication of these details would invite the public to see suspects as examples of a group rather than as individuals in a case. The current approach is embedded in force policies that explicitly root decisions over what to share with the media in 'policing purpose' – releasing only what is necessary to protect life, prevent and detect crime, bring offenders to justice and maintain public confidence, rather than what satisfies curiosity or advances a political argument. It is reinforced by national professional guidance designed to prevent pre-trial publicity from straying into prejudice, including the longstanding norm that suspects should not be identified before they have been charged, except in clearly justified circumstances. This sits alongside the press regulator's rule, established after histories of press stereotyping playing a role in public incitement, that race or ethnicity should not be mentioned in reporting unless it is 'genuinely relevant to the story' (there is not even a public interest override to that clause). Together, these norms made early disclosure of ethnicity and immigration status the exception rather than the default. Now the explicit decision has been made to alter this in standard police disclosures and reporting. So, what has changed? The answer, simply put, is that there is a perception that the politics and the information environment is now different. The impact of the online falsehoods about the Southport killings in late July and early August 2024 – that the attacker was an asylum seeker who had recently arrived by boat – ricocheted through social media and spilled into street violence. In this instance, the police could not initially name the suspect because he was under 18. Subsequently, parliamentary committees, researchers and reporters have traced how rumour and identity claims fuelled disorder, while newsrooms and police forces were left firefighting conspiracy theories at speed. That crisis has bolstered the argument that withholding details such as nationality or asylum status can create a vacuum in which malign actors thrive, and that more routine disclosure will puncture misinformation. The problems with this argument are profound. First, conspiracies thrive on distortion, not on the careful absorption of official communications. A parliamentary committee concluded that social media's business models incentivise the spread of misinformation, which helped trigger last summer's violent disorder. In this climate, baking identity into the first telling of crime stories – before a suspect has been charged – is not transparency, it is kindling. Second, once an identity is put at the front of an update, the search for evidence gives way to the hunt for a 'type' ahead of the facts. It steers attention from what happened and what can be proved to who the person is said to be and what that is taken to mean. In that climate, each new detail is read through the label, and the space for careful judgment shrinks. The history of policing and ethnic minorities in this country has illustrated this in numerous moral panics. Third, the new disclosure regime lands in a political and media environment that routinely associates migrants and Black and ethnic minorities with illegality. The Runnymede Trust's recent analyses of millions of words in news articles and parliamentary debates documents how such groups are persistently paired with words about illegality. That pattern helps normalise hostility. These are not abstract academic points – they are the context in which the criminal justice system is brought into perpetual, manufactured culture wars that harm minorities and leave everyone less safe. Fourth, there's a very basic problem of data quality. Police forces are famously bad at this. Ethnicity can be recorded as self-defined by the person involved or as 'officer observed' using broad visual codes. Completion rates for self-defined data vary sharply between forces, and missing or mismatched records are common. National standards on ethnicity are also under review because the categories are contested and context-dependent. Now add the fact that 'ethnicity', 'nationality' and 'immigration status' are different things. Nationality may be known at the point of charging a suspect if documents are checked. Immigration status often is not – indeed, the police guidance confirms that, 'It is not the role or responsibility of the police to verify a suspect's immigration status' and that, 'It is for the Home Office to decide if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to confirm immigration status.' Turning any such labels into front-of-house communications is an open invitation to error, before a correction that is too late to catch up with the narrative. The truth is that the demand for default disclosure of ethnicity or immigration status is not about transparency but advancing a political narrative. This is why the script scarcely needs facts to run. If police hold back, it is proof of concealment; if they disclose the information and those details fit the stereotype, this is used to indict the wider group. If the details do not fit, attention moves elsewhere. The new guidance might reconcile pressure for 'transparency' with established privacy and contempt protections, and the ability to explain reasons for restraint (for instance, to safeguard a fair trial; to protect victims and witnesses; to avoid inflaming tensions). These too are a service to transparency as they tell the public that the police understand the rights of suspects and the realities of community safety. The real question, however, is not whether the public should be trusted with information. It is whether the state should normalise ethnicity and immigration status as the organising facts of crime reporting – and burden already marginalised communities with more suspicion. Nasar Meer is a professor of social and political sciences at the University of Glasgow
The Independent
7 hours ago
- The Independent
Bhim Kohli's teenage killer to have sentence reviewed at Court of Appeal
A teenage boy who killed elderly dog walker Bhim Kohli is set to have his sentence reviewed at the Court of Appeal on Wednesday. Mr Kohli, 80, was punched and kicked, slapped in the face with a shoe and racially abused in an attack in Franklin Park, Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on September 1 last year, and died the next day. The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years' custody in June, when he was aged 15. The Attorney General's Office (AGO) announced in July that the Solicitor General, Lucy Rigby, had referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Lawyers for the teenager will also make a bid to have the sentence reduced at the same hearing. Following a six-week trial at Leicester Crown Court, the boy was convicted of manslaughter but cleared of murder. A 13-year-old girl, who also cannot be named, was convicted alongside him. She encouraged the attack by filming parts of it while laughing, with video clips showing the balaclava-clad boy hitting Mr Kohli with a shoe. The girl was sentenced to a three-year youth rehabilitation order by Mr Justice Turner, but her sentence has not been referred to the Court of Appeal. Mr Kohli's children found him lying on the ground in agony, when he told his daughter that he had been called a 'Paki' during the attack, the court heard in the trial. Jurors also heard the boy say in his evidence that he had a 'tussle' with Mr Kohli over his slider shoe before he slapped the elderly man with it out of 'instinct', which caused the pensioner to fall to his knees, but that he denied kicking or punching him. In a letter written by the boy to a woman who had worked with him at the residential unit where he was being looked after, he wrote: 'I f****** hate what I did. I regret it so much. 'I have flashbacks of that day and it just upsets me. I kinda just needed anger etc releasing.' Mid Leicestershire MP Peter Bedford and the MP for South Leicestershire, Alberto Costa, wrote to the AGO in June asking for the sentences to be reviewed. A spokesperson for the AGO said last month that Ms Rigby was 'appalled by this violent, cowardly attack on an innocent man'.
