From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 01/12/2025 17:07, Jethro_uk wrote:

I see the police are asking for postmasters who may have signed NDAs with
the Post Office to contact them, stating that the NDAs "ould no longer be enforced".

The Post Office has specifically stated that they will not be enforcing
any of the terms in NDAs signed by Postmasters as part of the issues
with the Horizon system.

It seems to me that under the guise of an NDA, people are under thread of (presumably) civil action if they break the NDA to disclose a crime or
act as a witness in a criminal investigation.

No.

When was this established in English Law ?

It never has been. You have misunderstood the police's references to NDAs.

Or (as I suspect) it's never been accepted, and you simply cannot use a commercial contract (which is all an NDA is) to prevent someone from
giving evidence in a *criminal* trial ?

An NDA cannot prevent an individual from reporting a crime to the police
(or other appropriate regulatory body, (e.g. SFO, FCA, HSE, etc.)) and
any NDA that attempts to do this is void and unenforceable.

Bear in mind that section 17 of the recently enacted Victims and
Prisoners Act 2024 strengthens the protections against improper NDAs.

For NDAs signed after the 1st October 2025, (when the above act came
into force), a victim can disclose information about suspected criminal conduct to specific individuals and organisations to obtain support and
advice without being deemed to have breached the NDA.

This includes:

- seeking advice from a qualified lawyer;
- seeking professional support from a regulated professional, (e.g.
doctor, social worker, therapist, etc.);
- speaking to victim support services;
- co-operating with regulators as part of an investigation;
- seeking support from close family members, (e.g. a parent, partner or child).

However, the NDA can still be enforced against someone whose primary
purpose is to release information into the public domain, (such as by
speaking to a journalist) but this is planned to be changed with
amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill which will, broadly speaking,
void any clause that prevents a victim of crime from speaking about
criminal conduct to anyone for any purpose, (which would include both journalists and the public).

If you can stop people from giving evidence then what crimes are
covered ? Fraud ? Rape or sexual assault ? Murder ?

As the conditional part of your question fails, the remainder is irrelevant.

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 02/12/2025 10:03, Martin Brown wrote:

On 01/12/2025 21:08, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 17:07:42 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

I see the police are asking for postmasters who may have signed NDAs
with
the Post Office to contact them, stating that the NDAs "ould no
longer be
enforced".

That remains to be seen. I suspect the NDA as originally drafted is a
bit like an unbreakable vow and PO lawyers would try to enforce it.

The PO have explicitly given a binding undertaking that they will not be enforcing the NDAs.

It seems to me that under the guise of an NDA, people are under
thread of
(presumably) civil action if they break the NDA to disclose a crime or
act as a witness in a criminal investigation.

When was this established in English Law ?

Or (as I suspect) it's never been accepted, and you simply cannot use a
commercial contract (which is all an NDA is) to prevent someone from
giving evidence in a *criminal* trial ?

An NDA is always subordinate to the law. An NDA can never prohibit giving
evidence in any court, civil or criminal. But an NDA may prohibit
disclosing confidential material in any non-judicial context.

Which is probably enough to prevent such a trial taking place - at least
in this instance.

See my post elsewhere in the thread about what an NDA could and could
not restrict, what it can and cannot restrict now and what changes are
planned for the future.

The point here, I think, is that the police are after informal
information
from people who, themselves, are unlikely to end up making a formal
witness
statement or appearing in court as a witness. In which case, an NDA could
potentially prohibit such discussions, since it's outwith the juduicial
process.

Shouldn't the police know this and so question any postmasters in such a
way that they are legally protected from malicious prosecution by the PO lawyers for breach of their earlier NDA settlement terms.

It seems to me that large corporations almost always use NDAs, expensive lawyers and cunning gambits on the steps of the courthouse to avoid
having their mistakes aired for public scrutiny. NDAs in this context
are primarily a tool used by the very powerful with deep pockets to hide their misdeeds by imposing oppressive draconian terms on their weaker victim.

The legal landscape has evolved in an attempt to make things more
equitable. In addition to legislation introduced to limit the scope of
NDAs, there's also the measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) to combat so-called SLAPPs.

This is in addition to measures taken by the relevant regulators to
ensure their members act in a responsible and ethical manner when
drafting NDAs. (See for example the SRA's Warning Notice on NDAs. [^1]

NDAs concerning disclosure of critical IP are perfectly legitimate.

NDAs which protect commercial interests, reputation, and confidentiality
are considered legitimate by most, if not all.

Regards

S.P.


[^1] https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/non-disclosure-agreements-ndas/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 23:09:58 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:

On 01/12/2025 17:07, Jethro_uk wrote:

[quoted text muted]

The Post Office has specifically stated that they will not be enforcing
any of the terms in NDAs signed by Postmasters as part of the issues
with the Horizon system.

The problem here, is that with a track record of (a) lying and (b)
breaking the law, this isn'[t really worth the photons used to display
it. Certainly I remain unconvinced.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 24/12/2025 11:37, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 23:09:58 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:

On 01/12/2025 17:07, Jethro_uk wrote:

[quoted text muted]

The Post Office has specifically stated that they will not be enforcing
any of the terms in NDAs signed by Postmasters as part of the issues
with the Horizon system.

The problem here, is that with a track record of (a) lying and (b)
breaking the law, this isn'[t really worth the photons used to display
it. Certainly I remain unconvinced.

I am not sure what further evidence might be adduced to convince you of
the accuracy of the statement I made.

Will a statement from the Chair of the Post Office Inquiry do it?

If so, here's a statement from Sir Wyn Williams:

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/statement-chair-regarding-post-office-limited-non-disclosure-agreements-and-second-sight

If that still does not do it for you, how about a legally binding letter issued by solicitors acting on behalf of the Post Office?

If so, here are two links to two such letters:

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/file/537/download?token=-7d9l89k

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/file/540/download?token=l-r4EGgK

If you remain unmoved after having read all of those, then I am not sure anything is going to convince you otherwise.

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 17:14:08 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:

Will a statement from the Chair of the Post Office Inquiry do it?

Sadly not. People wrongfully convicted, imprisoned and having lost money, homes and more are still waiting for restitution.

And no one has yet been charged with the criminal charges that the
wrongdoing exposed thus far (with more to follow, it seems).

With this scale of bad actions, words just don't cut it.

If you want to know why, you try knowingly falsely accusing and
prosecuting innocent people before stealing their property and putting
them in prison and see what happens to you.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-24, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 17:14:08 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:

Will a statement from the Chair of the Post Office Inquiry do it?

Sadly not. People wrongfully convicted, imprisoned and having lost money, homes and more are still waiting for restitution.

And no one has yet been charged with the criminal charges that the wrongdoing exposed thus far (with more to follow, it seems).

With this scale of bad actions, words just don't cut it.

If you want to know why, you try knowingly falsely accusing and
prosecuting innocent people before stealing their property and putting
them in prison and see what happens to you.

But what does "words just don't cut it" mean? What would "cut it"?
It's simply not possible for there to be anything other than words,
is it?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2