Yet another major miscarriage of justice has
surfaced in the UK – to add to those which have plagued the poor suffering
Brits, be it Hillsborough,
Grenfell or the Birmingham Six, The
current issue of the New Statesman expresses it most clearly -
As a miscarriage of
justice, it is perhaps unrivalled in British history. Between 1999 and 2015,
at least 3,500 sub-postmasters were wrongly accused of theft, fraud and false
accounting by the Post Office. The fault lay with the
defective Horizon IT system, which incorrectly suggested that there were
financial shortfalls where none existed.
Trapped in a Kafkaesque
nightmare, workers protested their innocence, but this did not stop them being trampled
upon. More than 700 sub-postmasters received criminal convictions and 236
were imprisoned. Others were forced to pay back tens of thousands of pounds
and suffered financial ruin. Family homes were lost and marriages destroyed. At
least four victims are thought to have taken their lives as a consequence.
For years, this story
has played out in the background of British public life. In 2019, a group of
campaigners led by Alan Bates – the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance – won
a major legal victory when the High Court found that the Fujitsu-developed
Horizon system contained “bugs, errors and defects”, and that there was a “material
risk” that financial shortfalls in branches were caused by it. Dozens of
Post Office workers subsequently had their convictions quashed by the Court of
Appeal in 2021.
A police investigation
and an independent public inquiry into the scandal were also launched during
this period.
But it
has taken a TV show – “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” – to give the affair
the political prominence it deserves. The four-part series, which was broadcast on ITV
at the start of this year, is testimony to the power of drama.
But it was one of my favourite blogs – Stumbling
and Mumbling – which put it all in the necessary perspective –
A well-ordered society has
mechanisms which prevent such people getting power or doing much damage if they
do get it. The
Post office scandal shows that we lack such mechanisms, in at least four
respects:
- There's good evidence that companies actually select for psychopaths. People who are
unusually concerned with status and power are precisely those who aim for the
top of hierarchies (whereas many others of us just want to get on with our jobs),
and psychopaths' superficial charm and fluency appeals to hirers. As David
Allen Green says, "the likes of Paula Vennells are always with us and will
always somehow obtain senior positions." This is consistent with a finding
by Luigi Zingales and colleagues, that a lot more corporate fraud occurs
than is actually detected. What's more, companies also select for over-confidence as
they mistake "competence
cues" - the right body language or the illusion of knowledge - for actual
ability. (All this might also apply to politics).
- Ministers failed to control or to
replace Post Office management, believing - in a remarkable example of not
understanding the function of ownership - that it "has the commercial
freedom to run its business operations without interference from the
shareholder." Ed Davey distinguishes himself from the other ministers
merely by being so uncouth as to have blurted this
out in public.
- Police for years did not
investigate the likely fraud and perversion of the course of justice by Post
Office bosses. The fact that they have begun to do so
since the screening of the ITV drama reminds us that the Met is more concerned
with PR than with justice.
- The courts failed to acquit
innocent sub-postmasters, for systemic reasons discussed by
David Allen Green. This was not an isolated miscarriage of justice; it occurred
over 700 times.
We should think of our
main social institutions - markets, the democratic process, the legal system
and so on - as selection devices. What we have here is evidence that these
do not operate as you might think they should, not in one or two instances but
systematically and persistently.
·
The
Post Office board and government ministers did not select honest or competent
bosses.
·
The
police did not choose to investigate serious crimes.
·
And
the courts failed to correctly distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.
These, however, are by no
means the only selection mechanisms which don't work as one might imagine they
should.
·
Politicians
are selected for fanaticism rather
than competence.
·
Financial
markets often do not select the best investment opportunities, which is why we
have asset price bubbles and under-performing fund managers.
·
Product
and labour markets do not eliminate the "long tail of extremely badly
managed firms" described (pdf) by
Bloom and Van Reenen. Peer review often does not select the best academic research.
·
And
the media does not select for informed expertise.
Society's main social
institutions, then, very often do not select the best or filter out
the worst. Often, they do the opposite. What should we make of this fact? One reasonable inference
is that it is just really difficult to make good decisions with limited
information and so there will always be a great
deal of ruin in the nation.
If this were all, though,
we'd expect to see political activity and debate focusing upon how we might
improve such mechanisms. But it isn't. Instead in
recent years politics has been consumed with Brexit and other culture war
issues. Which is of course yet another example of a selection mechanism:
politics selects to focus on irrelevancies rather than more important matters.
This is part of a pattern.
It's normal for people to neglect structural and societal forces and to pay
more attention instead to individual humans. Which is why public anger is
focussed upon Paula Vennells rather than the mechanisms that recruited and enabled
her. People like a witch-hunt and are attacking Vennells in the same way that
criminals attack nonces - to remind themselves that they are morally superior
to at least somebody.
Even good people can
inadvertently reinforce this tendency. In exposing the detail of the Post
Office scandal there's a danger of missing the big picture. Both journalism (even
when done well) and drama look more at human interest stories than at social
structures.
And this suits the ruling
class. It has long flattered itself that the system works because "good
chaps" will be in charge. The fact that "good chaps" so
rarely are - and that the Post Office merely joins a list of systemic
injustices such as Hillsborough, Windrush and Grenfell - doesn't seem to
undermine this complacency.
Which brings me to a
concern. You might have noticed that I've avoided using the word
"failure" to describe all these different selection effects. This is
because they might not be failures at all. The fact that the powerful can
enrich themselves at the expense of the powerless; that markets permit the
incompetent wealthy to stay rich; and that politics is a clownish sideshow that
avoids substantive issues all suit the elite perfectly well. Prem Sikka is
right to say that
the Post Office affair "has once again shown the UK to be a hotbed of
corruption and cronyism where in pursuit of profits and private gains innocent
people are bludgeoned to silence and submission."
It has thus shown what
Marxists have long known - that law and justice are veils behind which lay
exploitation and cruelty. The question for the establishment is how they might bring
these veils back down.