Connect with us

Published

on

A Post Office fraud investigator today denied he and other investigators “behaved like mafia gangsters” – as he faced questions at the inquiry into the Horizon IT system.

Stephen Bradshaw, a Post Office employee for more than 45 years, was involved in the criminal investigation of nine sub-postmasters.

During more than seven hours of questioning at the inquiry in London, a bullish Mr Bradshaw…

• Denied he and other investigators “behaved like mafia gangsters”;
• Refuted claims he was a bully and called a sub-postmistress a “b****h” on the phone;
• Said he was “not technically minded” when asked why he did not question Horizon system;
• Told the inquiry he was “no expert” on the system, but had working knowledge;
• Said statement he signed saying Post Office had “absolute confidence” in Horizon was not written by him.

Throughout his witness statement, submitted earlier to the inquiry, Mr Bradshaw said his investigations had been conducted in a “professional” manner.

He also said in the statement: “I refute the allegation that I am a liar.”

‘Not technically minded’

Mr Bradshaw, a witness in the inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal, began giving evidence on Thursday morning.

His evidence was given at the start of phase 4 of the inquiry, which has been hearing witnesses since February 2022 and has already heard from many of the victims.

Mr Bradshaw was involved in the criminal investigation of nine sub-postmasters, including Lisa Brennan, a former counter clerk at a post office in Huyton, near Liverpool, who was falsely accused of stealing £3,000 in 2003. She was one of the first witnesses to the inquiry.

Screen grab taken from the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry of Post Office investigator Stephen Bradshaw giving evidence to phase four of the inquiry at Aldwych House, central London. Picture date: Thursday January 11, 2024.
Image:
Stephen Bradshaw gives evidence to the inquiry

Mr Bradshaw was questioned by counsel to the inquiry, Julian Blake, about why he did not question the reliability of the Horizon system.

He acknowledged he was aware of newspaper reports of technical bugs but said: “I’m not technically minded with that. I would expect that to come from the people above.

“If there was an issue, I would expect Fujitsu [the maker of Horizon] to inform the Post Office and the Post Office to let us know what the issues are.”

Asked how early on he was aware of Horizon being an issue, he said 2010, but “some may have mentioned it earlier”.

‘Investigations done correctly’

Mr Blake also asked Mr Bradshaw if, over the past 20 years, he “may have been involved in what has been described as one of the largest miscarriages of justice in British history?”.

Mr Bradshaw said he had “no reason to suspect at the time” that there was anything wrong with the Horizon system, because his team had “not been involved”.

“The investigations were done correctly,” he said.

“The investigations were done at the time, no problems were indicated by anybody that there were issues with the Horizon system.”

‘You have told me a pack of lies’

Mr Bradshaw had previously been accused by Merseyside sub-postmistress Rita Threlfall of asking her for the colour of her eyes and what jewellery she wore, before saying: “Good, so we’ve got a description of you for when they come”, during her interview under caution in August 2010.

Another sub-postmistress, Jacqueline McDonald, claimed she was “bullied” by Mr Bradshaw during an investigation into a shortfall of more than £94,000.

In her interview with Mr Bradshaw, which was read to the inquiry, Ms McDonald was accused by the investigator of telling him a “pack of lies”.

The exchange between Ms McDonald and Mr Bradshaw, read by Mr Blake, included the investigator saying: “Would you like to tell me what happened to the money?”

Ms McDonald replies: “I don’t know where the money is I’ve told you.”

Mr Bradshaw continues: “You have told me a pack of lies.”

Ms McDonald says: “No I haven’t told you a pack of lies because I haven’t stolen a penny.”

Mr Blake said the witness’s words sounded “somewhat like language you might see in a 1970s television detective show”.

Read more from Sky News:
Investigators ‘offered bonuses’ to prosecute sub-postmasters
Mass exoneration of sub-postmasters ‘right thing to do’, says minister

Responding to Ms McDonald’s allegations of his aggressive behaviour in his witness statement, Mr Bradshaw said: “I also refute the claim that Jacqueline McDonald was bullied.

“From the moment we arrived, the auditor was already on site, conversations were initially (held) with Mr McDonald, the reason for our attendance was explained, Mr and Mrs McDonald were kept updated as the day progressed.”

At the inquiry, Mr Bradshaw added: “Ms Jacqueline McDonald is also incorrect in stating Post Office investigators behaved like mafia gangsters looking to collect their bounty with the threats and lies.”

Post Office bonuses

Mr Bradshaw was asked about whether staff were paid bonuses for successful prosecutions.

He told the inquiry that “bonuses have always been paid by the Royal Mail Group and Post Office”.

Screen grab taken from the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry of the chair of the inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, during phase four of the inquiry at Aldwych House, central London. Picture date: Thursday January 11, 2024.
Image:
Sir Wyn Williams is chairing the inquiry

Asked if success in a criminal case would impact the amount paid, Mr Bradshaw replied: “No, not at all.”

“I’m paid whether one case is done or a thousand cases,” he said.

“We don’t get any extra bonus because of this. It’s how well you do your job.”

Mr Blake then asked: “If you’re considered to have protected the business and prevented the wider impact on the business, do you think that that might lead to a bonus?”

Mr Bradshaw replied: “It may do, and it may not do.”

‘Absolute confidence in Horizon’

Mr Bradshaw was asked about a letter, signed by him in November 2012, in which he declared the Post Office’s “absolute confidence” in the “robustness and integrity” of the Horizon system

He told the inquiry that the statement was written by lawyers from the law firm Cartwright King.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Asked if it was appropriate for him to declare “confidence” in the IT system in the 2012 statement, he said: “I was given that statement by Cartwright King and told to put that statement through.

“In hindsight… there probably should have been another line stating, ‘These are not my words’.”

Mr Bradshaw told the inquiry he was not “technically minded” and was not equipped to know whether there were bugs or errors in the Horizon system.

The statutory inquiry, which began in 2021 and is chaired by retired judge Sir Wyn Williams, has previously looked at the human impact of the scandal, the Horizon system roll-out and the operation of the system, and is now probing the action taken against sub-postmasters.

The probe was established to ensure there is a “public summary of the failings which occurred with the Horizon IT system at the Post Office” and subsequently led to the wrongful convictions of sub-postmasters.

Continue Reading

UK

Labour sinks to lowest approval rating of this parliament

Published

on

By

Labour sinks to lowest approval rating of this parliament

Labour has sunk to its lowest approval rating for this parliament, according to a fresh YouGov poll for Sky News.

Sir Keir Starmer’s party is currently on 20% of the vote – the lowest level since last year’s general election and just three points ahead of the Conservatives. on 17% of the vote.

Politics latest: Labour goes on the attack against Reform

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which on Tuesday outlined plans to deport hundreds of thousands of migrants if it wins power at the next election, is currently in the lead with 28% of the vote.

Asked about the polling, Nick Thomas-Symonds, the EU relations minister, told Sky News’ Anna Jones that the government had been forced to take “very difficult decisions to stabilise the public finances early in this parliament”.

He said Labour had acted in the “national interest” by securing a reset deal with the EU which lowers costs for supermarkets and shoppers, and which the government hopes to extend.

“That is acting in the national interest, that is not about particular opinion polls you are showing me today,” he said.

“That is about work the prime minister asked me to do and to prepare for before this government came into office and that is what this government does. It does the hard yards of delivery for the British people.”

He added: “What Nigel Farage does is to stoke problems and offer empty promises for their solution.”

Mr Thomas-Symonds, who represents Torfaen, took the fight to Mr Farage in a speech today, where he accused the Reform UK leader of wanting to “reverse our progress” and of “dividing communities and stoking anger”.

The government wants to get a permanent deal with the EU on food and drink agreed in the next 18 months.

The current temporary agreement, which was put in place in June, stopped checks on some fruit and vegetables imported from the EU, which meant no border checks or fees would be paid, and is due to expire in January 2027.

Mr Farage has previously called for the agreement between the UK and EU to be torn up, saying in May that the SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] provisions agreed that month would push the UK “back into the orbit of Brussels, giving away vast amounts of our sovereignty for very little in return”.

In his speech, Mr Thomas-Symonds said the Tories and Reform UK only offer “easy answers and snake oil” over the UK’s relationship with the EU.

“Some will hysterically cry even treason,” he said. “Some will say we’re surrendering sovereignty or freedoms, but that is nonsense.

Read more:
Farage’s small boats plan is about putting Labour on the spot
How Farage’s latest ‘leave’ plan might impact you

“We are determined to plug the gaps, to rebuild Britain, protect our borders, bring down bills in every part of the country and secure good jobs, a new relationship of mutual benefit, one that brings freedom back to our businesses and exercises our sovereignty.

“And it needs pragmatism. When you’re tough, decisive and collaborative. That cannot rest on easy answers and snake oil. The Tories [are] completely 2D, stuck with a ghost of Brexit past. And then Nigel Farage, who has pledged to reverse our progress.”

A Reform UK spokesperson said: “No one has done more damage to British businesses than this Labour government.

“With 157,000 fewer people on payroll since Labour took office, their jobs tax is stifling success and hitting small and medium-sized businesses across the country.

“Cosying up to the EU and leaving us entangled in reams of retained EU law which Kemi Badenoch failed to scrap will not resuscitate Britain’s struggling economy.”

Continue Reading

UK

England warned it faces six million new cancer cases by 2040 – with these areas worst hit

Published

on

By

England warned it faces six million new cancer cases by 2040 - with these areas worst hit

More than six million new cancer cases could be diagnosed in England between now and 2040, according to leading charities.

This would equate to a diagnosis every two minutes, which is up from one every four minutes in the 1970s.

A coalition of more than 60 cancer charities, known as One Cancer Voice, is warning the government must take urgent steps to tackle cancer care in England – including faster diagnosis targets and better prevention policies.

The analysis carried out by the charities is based largely on pre-pandemic data and suggests cases will increase by 14.2% over the next 15 years, with diagnoses of some of the most common cancers reaching all-time highs.

This includes over a million new prostate cancer diagnoses, and more than 900,000 for breast cancer by 2040.

The research also finds regional variations:

• South East – over a million diagnoses

• North East – 865,000

• East of England and the South West – 722,000

• London – 714,000

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Man loses voice box after late cancer diagnosis

Six key demands

These figures starkly set out the need for change, and the timing of their release is significant.

Later this autumn, the government is expected to publish its long-awaited National Cancer Plan.

These leading charities have combined forces to put pressure on ministers ahead of its publication, demanding six measures which they say must be implemented if cancer outcomes are to improve:

• A pledge to meet all cancer waiting times by the end of parliament in 2029

• A new earlier diagnosis target, with improved screening programmes

• The introduction of strong cancer prevention policies

• Addressing inequalities in patient care

• Improving access to clinical trials for cancer patients

• Better support for people to live well with and beyond cancer

‘A defining moment’

The pandemic had a huge impact on cancer care in the country, and an ageing population adds further pressures.

But the most recently available data, which is around a decade old, suggests the NHS is still lagging behind many comparable countries.

The chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Michelle Mitchell, described the national plan as a “defining moment”.

“If the UK government delivers an ambitious fully funded strategy, we could save more lives and transform cancer outcomes, propelling England from world lagging to among world leading when it comes to tackling this disease,” she said.

Read more:
Are we are entering ‘golden age’ of cancer treatment?

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “This government is prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS.

“We’re already making an impact, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year.

“This will soon be supported by our new National Cancer Plan, setting out how cancer care will improve over the coming years.

“We’re also making it easier for people to get tests, checks, and scans with DIY screening kits for cervical cancer, new radiotherapy machines in every region, and by creating the first smoke-free generation.”

Continue Reading

UK

Nigel Farage has a new ‘leave’ campaign – here’s how it could work and how it might impact you

Published

on

By

Nigel Farage has a new 'leave' campaign - here's how it could work and how it might impact you

Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.

The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.

In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.

Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.

What is the ECHR?

On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.

It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.

The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.

The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.

Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.

Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
Image:
Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR

To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.

There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.

ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.

Read more:
Why Farage’s small boats plan is not actually about policy
Legal expert explains if Farage deportation plan would work

The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
Image:
The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP

How is it actually used?

The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.

The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.

The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.

An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.

All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.

The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.

Read more: Asylum seekers in charts and numbers

Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
Image:
Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP

How could the UK leave?

A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.

At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.

The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.

Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?

Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.

It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.

The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.

Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
Image:
Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR

How would the UK’s human rights protections change?

Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.

For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.

Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.

Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.

The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.

Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
Image:
Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA

How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.

Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.

He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.

Continue Reading

Trending