I have monitored this case from its inception, when it first garnered public notice via Computer Weekly. Several noteworthy aspects caught my attention:
Evidently, the PO administration had the belief, which was likely accurate, that a small number of sub-postmasters were engaged in embezzlement and fraudulent activities, but they lacked the necessary evidence to substantiate their claims. The fact that Horizon seemed to be detecting instances, as anticipated and shown, confirmed their perspective. The phenomenon you are referring to is known as confirmation bias.
Fujitsu conducted a covert "data correction" initiative due to their awareness of certain operational conditions that would result in inaccurate reported balances. The absence of a transaction audit trace in this procedure is unacceptable.
The procurement officer (PO), in collaboration with Fujitsu, failed to provide enough assistance via the helpdesk and intentionally aimed to deceive those who reported balance difficulties by asserting that they were the only one experiencing such problems, therefore isolating people with legitimate concerns.
Evidently, none of the individuals in the PO has the intelligence or insight to formally request the helpdesk logs from Fujitsu and thoroughly examine or evaluate them. Instead, they chose to accept the notion that fraud had been detected (see to point #1).
The Post Office undertook a deliberate and covert operation to obstruct any attempts to uncover the underlying issues raised by the sub-postmasters' grievances.
Recently, it has been revealed that the postal office intentionally deceived its targets, going so far as to accuse them of theft even though their own investigators had determined that there was no evidence to support the accusation. This was done with the sole purpose of pressuring them into admitting guilt for a lesser offence of false accounting. This technique is both corrupt and unlawful.
In the end, there are many individuals in both the PO and Fujitsu who are accountable for this situation. The individuals responsible should be identified and, more significantly, subjected to appropriate sanctions for their acts. Targeting the CEO as the symbolic leader of the organisation may seem deceptively straightforward, but there are likely many others who have even more responsibility.
Regarding the sub-postmasters who have been impacted, I do not support a general pardon for all of them, since some may have really committed acts of embezzlement and fraud. However, the duty of evaluating each case should be taken away from the Post Office and given sufficient resources to ensure a prompt resolution. To ensure compliance, the Public Official must be obligated to provide complete information in each instance without any redactions. This will also aid in identifying the individuals inside that company who should be held responsible.
