Reply to post: Re: Good for them & the judge

Post Office faces potential criminal probe over Fujitsu IT system's accounting failures

eldakka

Re: Good for them & the judge

This is not a malicious prosecution.

The malicious prosecution is not about this case, it is about the other criminal cases the Post Office engaged in with individual SPMs. The Judge agreed to not bar the victims of those other cases from pursuing the Post Office for malicious prosecution in those other cases.

A malicious prosecution is simplistically when you take out a lot of spurious cases just to force the target to expend resources defending them.

As has happened with the in-excess of 20 criminal cases the Post Office has prosecuted in the preceding 15 years prior to this case that involve the Horizon software. Some of which they won and have had SPMs thrown in jail for fraud etc., all related to this Horizon software.

The Judge in this case has referred the witnesses in some of those criminal prosecution cases to the CPS for investigation into whether they perjured (i.e. lied under oath, gave knowingly false testimony) themselves.

So, how else but as 'malicious prosecution' could it be described to pursue more than 20 criminal cases that involve the Post Office allegedly perjuring themselves (via false witness testimony) to secure convictions?

How is this not potentially "take out a lot of spurious cases"?

All of this was explained in the article, did you actually read it?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon