In defense of Gareth
Post Office counters brought a case against a sub-postmaster to the Old Bailey (Central Criminal Court) with the express intent of making an example, including a full team of barristers and solicitors for the prosecution, while the sub-postmaster chose to represent himself.
The sub-postmaster highlighted an example that he believed to be conclusive proof that the system was defective, but there were scenarios where it could be normal:
1) Messages were transmitted (via UDP) between counter 1 & 2 were first written to disk by counter 2 (idle device) while counter 1 (single CPU) was concerned with counter transactions
2) Session-move key was used to transfer the session to another counter (e.g. to use weighing scales), but cancelled.
Gareth's evidence related to the specific scenarios mentioned in defense, he was not cross examined or asked about other defects : The UK courts rely on the adversarial principle if you don't cross examine, doubt is not considered. The judge could have asked questions, but it is likely they were peeved by the professional discourtesy of not engaging a barrister.
Had the case been reported to police, a solicitor would have been appointed (who would seek legal funds from Federation of sub-postmasters, and/or professional indemnity insurance); and CPS would have considered evidence before seeking prosecution. This didn't happen because POCL used crown-agency status to investigate and prosecute, choosing to bypass crown court and seek trial at highest court (only appeal to supreme court can override the Old Bailey, and only if a legal precedent is needed). Application for leave to appeal was not sought.
It was a miscarriage of justice, but not because Gareth didn't volunteer an answer to a question that was not asked.
