Very interesting comments. It's the non-disclosure issue that really gets me. How could any competent, professional prosecutor have let that happen? And the failure of the obligations on so called expert witnesses including the lawyers reviewing such evidence. All quite unbelievable.
Very well said, Alisdair: whilst the government may claim to be straining a ligament to “do justice”, the whole point to that elusive and treasured concept requires no arbitrary or broad brush element. Easy for me to say, of course, compared with the sub postmasters whose lives have been blighted but how VERY much better would have been the (still streamlined) due process route identified so lucidly by the Lady Chief Justice. And, indeed, what of Magistrates’ Court convictions. An excellent reminder also of the fact impossible to brush off that unsuccessful applications for leave or appeals proper would have been grounded in as yet unchallenged and, given shocking non disclosure, unchallengeable evidence of the supposed near infallibility of Horizon. Also I resile not one jot from my concern over “another bus(es) along in a minute.” An unprecedented, unwise and “over cosy” contracting out to mega-businesses? “Unique”? Really? I take leave to doubt it. And what of the vetting issue Alisdair mentions, together with the permanent shadow lingering over the good character of many of the subpostmaster casualties? Financial compensation? Well, that’s alright then!
"Not considered by the Court of Appeal". Typically, a defendant has 28 days to seek leave to appeal. Therefore, there will be a body of sub-postmasters who will have appealed their conviction at the time. As the same Horizon evidence will have been used to sustain the appeal, it follows that several will no doubt have had their conviction either upheld or leave dismissed and they were then advised not to renew. The Act says they can go to the Court of Appeal again, but that doesn't match the rhetoric. I am sure some tabloids will find such persons and we'll get headlines along the lines of, "Government promised to quash all convictions but I still have mine".
Several of these cases were dealt with by the Magistrates' Court. It is exceedingly rare for such cases to go before the Court of Appeal (it would have to go via case-stated and even then there are limitations). There could be several sub-postmasters whose convictions were upheld in the High Court who will now have their convictions quashed. That does not seem to bring parity to those who were tried in the Crown Court.
The notification provisions will be unwieldly for the reasons you have previously set out. Also, it does not address the DBA issue. An enhanced disclosure and barring certificate can include intelligence even in respect of acquitted persons. While it would be stupid to do so, it could follow that the fact that they were prosecuted could feature on a certificate. This may be problematic where the potential employee is seeking to work in positions of trust or finance etc. The only recourse there would be an expensive judicial review. Technically the same flaw exists where the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction, but there tends to be more caution where a court declares a conviction quashed. Will that same caution be shown here (hopefully).
Very interesting comments. It's the non-disclosure issue that really gets me. How could any competent, professional prosecutor have let that happen? And the failure of the obligations on so called expert witnesses including the lawyers reviewing such evidence. All quite unbelievable.
Very well said, Alisdair: whilst the government may claim to be straining a ligament to “do justice”, the whole point to that elusive and treasured concept requires no arbitrary or broad brush element. Easy for me to say, of course, compared with the sub postmasters whose lives have been blighted but how VERY much better would have been the (still streamlined) due process route identified so lucidly by the Lady Chief Justice. And, indeed, what of Magistrates’ Court convictions. An excellent reminder also of the fact impossible to brush off that unsuccessful applications for leave or appeals proper would have been grounded in as yet unchallenged and, given shocking non disclosure, unchallengeable evidence of the supposed near infallibility of Horizon. Also I resile not one jot from my concern over “another bus(es) along in a minute.” An unprecedented, unwise and “over cosy” contracting out to mega-businesses? “Unique”? Really? I take leave to doubt it. And what of the vetting issue Alisdair mentions, together with the permanent shadow lingering over the good character of many of the subpostmaster casualties? Financial compensation? Well, that’s alright then!
This Bill seems to be as bad as I feared.
"Not considered by the Court of Appeal". Typically, a defendant has 28 days to seek leave to appeal. Therefore, there will be a body of sub-postmasters who will have appealed their conviction at the time. As the same Horizon evidence will have been used to sustain the appeal, it follows that several will no doubt have had their conviction either upheld or leave dismissed and they were then advised not to renew. The Act says they can go to the Court of Appeal again, but that doesn't match the rhetoric. I am sure some tabloids will find such persons and we'll get headlines along the lines of, "Government promised to quash all convictions but I still have mine".
Several of these cases were dealt with by the Magistrates' Court. It is exceedingly rare for such cases to go before the Court of Appeal (it would have to go via case-stated and even then there are limitations). There could be several sub-postmasters whose convictions were upheld in the High Court who will now have their convictions quashed. That does not seem to bring parity to those who were tried in the Crown Court.
The notification provisions will be unwieldly for the reasons you have previously set out. Also, it does not address the DBA issue. An enhanced disclosure and barring certificate can include intelligence even in respect of acquitted persons. While it would be stupid to do so, it could follow that the fact that they were prosecuted could feature on a certificate. This may be problematic where the potential employee is seeking to work in positions of trust or finance etc. The only recourse there would be an expensive judicial review. Technically the same flaw exists where the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction, but there tends to be more caution where a court declares a conviction quashed. Will that same caution be shown here (hopefully).