To clarify how this happened: in the UK anyone can bring a private prosecution where they effectively act as the prosecutor. This is usually used by charities who take on laws to prosecute (eg., crimes against animals).
Here the post office used the law to prosecute its own staff in alleged crimes against the post office. So they were both the prosecutor and the victim.
This gave them overwhelming incentives not to reveal all evidence to the defence, and indeed they hit many reports on these computer systems.
That is a crime; and I imagine senior staff at the post office should be themselves prosectued.
But the underlying issue is the gap in the law where private prosecution by companies is permitted even when they're the victims and when they hold all the evidence. This is the mechanism which created the insanity.
Here the post office used the law to prosecute its own staff in alleged crimes against the post office. So they were both the prosecutor and the victim.
This gave them overwhelming incentives not to reveal all evidence to the defence, and indeed they hit many reports on these computer systems.
That is a crime; and I imagine senior staff at the post office should be themselves prosectued.
But the underlying issue is the gap in the law where private prosecution by companies is permitted even when they're the victims and when they hold all the evidence. This is the mechanism which created the insanity.