←back to thread

631 points xbryanx | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
cedws ◴[] No.44531505[source]
The failing is as much with the court as it is with Fujitsu. Why did they blindly accept Horizon’s data as evidence? What if the computer said the Queen stole all the money and ran off to Barbados, would they have thrown her in jail? Why was the output of a black box, which may as well have been a notebook Fujitsu could have written anything they wanted into, treated as gospel?
replies(2): >>44531696 #>>44534741 #
blipvert ◴[] No.44534741[source]
Part of the answer is that the Post Office had (has?) special legal status in that it can prosecute cases by itself - no need to present a convincing case to the CPS like the police do.

Many people were scared into pleading guilty just to avoid the upfront legal costs and the ruinous fines if contesting and found guilty (“the computer is always right”).

Often the PO knew that they didn’t have much of a case but just used their special status to bully them into submission.

replies(1): >>44535111 #
foldr ◴[] No.44535111[source]
This is a myth as far as I’ve been able to determine. The prosecutions were ordinary private prosecutions. The Post Office didn’t need any kind of special legal status in order to prosecute.
replies(1): >>44537989 #
1. blipvert ◴[] No.44537989[source]
Well, hey, far be it for me to tell you that you’re wrong, but the BBC says that you’re wrong as do numerous other sources.

> The Post Office itself took many cases to court, prosecuting 700 people between 1999 and 2015. Another 283 cases were brought by other bodies, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1wpp4w14pqo.amp

replies(1): >>44539949 #
2. comp_throw7 ◴[] No.44539949[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Kin...