Post Office lawyers held secret meeting with judge to stop disclosure
Revelations that UK Post Office lawyers held a secret meeting with a judge to delay disclosure of evidence in the Horizon IT scandal have intensified concerns about systemic miscarriages of justice. Commenters highlight how sub-postmasters were prosecuted on the basis of a faulty computer system while exculpatory material was withheld, raising questions about prosecutorial duties, judicial independence, and the absence of real accountability for senior executives and officials. The case is framed as emblematic of deeper problems in the UK legal system—class and racial bias, opaque “public interest” secrecy, and toothless public inquiries that rarely lead to consequences for those in power.
Overall reaction to the scandal
- Many see the Horizon/Post Office case as a deepening disaster and emblematic of systemic rot, not a one-off error.
- Strong anger that no one (so far) has gone to jail despite ruined lives and suicides.
- Some frame this primarily as a failure of the judiciary and its closeness to other establishment bodies, not just the Post Office.
Accountability and leadership responsibility
- Debate over whether ultimate responsibility should rest at the top:
- One side argues leaders should be held criminally accountable for crimes committed under their watch, not just “rogue employees.”
- Others call that impractical and support liability only when leaders knowingly aid, abet, or cover up wrongdoing.
- Examples from regulated industries and banking are cited where senior managers can face criminal liability for systemic failures.
Class, race, and discrimination
- Disagreement on whether this is mainly “peers vs poors,” or driven more by racism and suspicion of immigrant sub‑postmasters.
- Lords debate is referenced: a disproportionate share of prosecutions involved immigrants, especially Asian women, which commenters find hard to reconcile with general prison demographics.
Legal process: disclosure, ex parte, and public interest immunity
- Many view the secret meeting with the judge and delayed disclosure as perverting justice.
- Some note that in the US, undisclosed exculpatory evidence or ex parte meetings often trigger mistrials or appeals.
- Others clarify that the lawyer who sought the meeting is reported to have later stopped prosecutions and that initial nondisclosure was time‑limited due to parliamentary rules.
- “Public interest immunity” is widely seen as a recurring tool used to shield powerful actors and enable miscarriages of justice.
Public defenders, plea deals, and systemic bias
- Long sub‑thread on US criminal justice:
- Public defenders are underpaid and overloaded, often providing minimal or purely procedural defense.
- Many cases are described as “obviously guilty,” but several commenters insist even clearly guilty defendants deserve robust defense and due process.
- Heavy reliance on plea bargaining and resource asymmetry between prosecution and defense are seen as producing a “conviction system” rather than a justice system.
Inquiries, reform, and distrust in institutions
- Skepticism that public inquiries lead to real consequences; they are often seen as slow‑motion deflection until public attention fades.
- Others argue the “drip drip” can still build pressure and eventually produce accountability.
- Comparisons to other UK scandals (Grenfell, contaminated blood, undercover policing, Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday) reinforce a pattern of extreme delay.
- Broader sense that UK institutions (courts, politics, immigration system) are increasingly distrusted and perceived as corrupt or self‑protective.