Joshua, I'm sure that your well-informed readers will correct me, but is it not possible or even likely that some postmasters will have pleaded guilty to a relatively minor offence (with modest penalties) after being threatened with a major offence that may carry say a term of imprisonment? One can imagine that the Post Office would be keen to increase its "score" of guilty pleas pour encourager les autres.
I DO so agree with both Joshua and Alisdair and if I may say so-unsurprisingly- they articulate their alarm rather than mere reservations so very well. So very much of this is predicated on the (apparently confident) assumption that the Horizon/Post Office debacle and scandal was/is unique, that is to say, with not even the remotest prospect of another “bus” aka technologically wrought outrage “being along in a minute”. The criminal justice service, National Health Service and other entities have CHOSEN to entrust strikingly similar processes to companies after having been persuaded that their pain resulting from inadequate central government funding would be taken away from them.
I hope both J and A will forgive me should I have ( innocently) misrepresented their positions. But what a very handy “precedent” should my -and others’- fears be realised for a government of whichever complexion with this -bluntly- panicky draft legislation having come to fruition and then along might well come the next example. The more I have thought and read about this the greater the damage to the rule of law and due process might ensue.
Moreover, if all the convictions are to be set aside, the wrongly convicted will face the problem that no-one will know whether they are an innocent person now acquitted or a guilty person benefitting from the block acquittals.
I continue to believe that this is a very stupid way of dealing with the acquittals, and one that sets an unfortunate constitutional precedent. It is all very well ministers saying "no, it doesn't" but you don't get to decide whether something is a precedent or not. It's the people after you get to decide that.
Presumably, if the convictions are expunged then they will no longer show up on an ordinary CRB check. I can't remember whether acquittals show up on an enhanced CRB check (presumably they could under 'intelligence'), but the legislation will presumably need to include a provision that such expunged convictions are not to show on an enhanced CRB check. Otherwise, as you note, there would remain a whiff of something. Of course, that also means those who were guilty get a complete reset.
Hard cases make bad law and it's a shame that the government are determined to introduce a new paradigm of that rather than listen to Baroness Carr who was clear the judiciary can cope, particularly in cases where the appeal is uncontested.
The drafters of parliamentary legislation could get this right… let them have their heads 🤞🤷🙂
Joshua, I'm sure that your well-informed readers will correct me, but is it not possible or even likely that some postmasters will have pleaded guilty to a relatively minor offence (with modest penalties) after being threatened with a major offence that may carry say a term of imprisonment? One can imagine that the Post Office would be keen to increase its "score" of guilty pleas pour encourager les autres.
I DO so agree with both Joshua and Alisdair and if I may say so-unsurprisingly- they articulate their alarm rather than mere reservations so very well. So very much of this is predicated on the (apparently confident) assumption that the Horizon/Post Office debacle and scandal was/is unique, that is to say, with not even the remotest prospect of another “bus” aka technologically wrought outrage “being along in a minute”. The criminal justice service, National Health Service and other entities have CHOSEN to entrust strikingly similar processes to companies after having been persuaded that their pain resulting from inadequate central government funding would be taken away from them.
I hope both J and A will forgive me should I have ( innocently) misrepresented their positions. But what a very handy “precedent” should my -and others’- fears be realised for a government of whichever complexion with this -bluntly- panicky draft legislation having come to fruition and then along might well come the next example. The more I have thought and read about this the greater the damage to the rule of law and due process might ensue.
Moreover, if all the convictions are to be set aside, the wrongly convicted will face the problem that no-one will know whether they are an innocent person now acquitted or a guilty person benefitting from the block acquittals.
I continue to believe that this is a very stupid way of dealing with the acquittals, and one that sets an unfortunate constitutional precedent. It is all very well ministers saying "no, it doesn't" but you don't get to decide whether something is a precedent or not. It's the people after you get to decide that.
Presumably, if the convictions are expunged then they will no longer show up on an ordinary CRB check. I can't remember whether acquittals show up on an enhanced CRB check (presumably they could under 'intelligence'), but the legislation will presumably need to include a provision that such expunged convictions are not to show on an enhanced CRB check. Otherwise, as you note, there would remain a whiff of something. Of course, that also means those who were guilty get a complete reset.
Hard cases make bad law and it's a shame that the government are determined to introduce a new paradigm of that rather than listen to Baroness Carr who was clear the judiciary can cope, particularly in cases where the appeal is uncontested.