Talk:British Post Office scandal/Archive 5

Appeals against convictions
This section should be about actual appeals and actual overturning of convictions. I have removed various opinions about this which are speculative and not really relevant to this section. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This goes to the nub of the scope of the scandal. The scope is not to be determined by POL alone. Its attempts to define the scope is an important aspect of the scandal.  Having been judicially proven to have unlawfully prosecuted a huge number its legally protected place in the appeal process is being challenged.  Four legal experts (not including Moorhead)  went before the Justice Committee yesterday. arguing that point.  The scandal is that POL flouted its obligations as a private prosecutor and unlawfully obtained a huge but as yet unknown number of unlawful convictions.  The fact that our legal system demands that POL must have a place in each and every appeal against any conviction it obtained has led to the proposing legislation to bypass the appeal process.  The section should primarily be about this rather than cases
 * This section of the article should not just be randomly selected list of successful appeals. It should address that ways in which the system was used, abused.  Individual cases documented should illustrate and identify the particular aspects that show. The Wolstenholme case has some but not identified in its documentation here. Jacksoncowes (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that Casleton & Wolstenholme are civil put them under a different heading in the way the article is currently structured but the point I have tried to elucidate remains. Jacksoncowes (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)