Congratulations to those Subpostmasters who no longer have convictions blighting their lives.

A huge cohort of people now have access to a minimum of £600k each by way of compensation.

Two important groups are currently excluded.

1) Scottish Subpostmasters.

Thanks to foot-dragging by the Scottish authorities, Scottish Subpostmasters are not (yet) having their convictions quashed. Horizon was used in Scotland and was just as unreliable there as it was in the rest of the UK. Post Office investigators in Scotland were as bad as those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So were their investigations. It is arbitrary and unfair that several dozen Scottish Subpostmasters and their families are having to wait (after many years delay already) to get their convictions quashed.

2) Subpostmasters whose appeals have been refused.

This is more tricky. Despite claiming it will look at all aspects of a case, since 2021 the Court of Appeal appears to be ignoring inept Post Office investigations and focusing on whether Horizon evidence was “essential” to any prosecution (the terms of the original referral from the Criminal Cases Review Commission).

Some appeals appear to have been deservedly refused. Some appear to have been refused because the Court of Appeal (and, at times, the Subpostmasters’ own representatives) have focused on how “essential” Horizon might be rather than stepping back and looking at evidence and (lack of) criminal intent across the piece.

I was in court to hear Wendy Cousins’ case in 2021 and I met her family last year (Wendy sadly died in 2022). I have looked at the information available. There is no hard evidence that she was involved in any criminal activity. There is the possibility of criminal activity at her branch, and a similar possibility of criminal activity outside her branch.

There is the possibility that no criminal activity was taking place at all, and errors were being made by her or others either inside or outside her branch. Horizon was being used to record data which was eventually used in her prosecution and the people who investigated Wendy were the Post Office’s usual inept team who assumed guilt whilst failing to conduct a thorough investigation.

Knowing what we now know about the Post Office’s investigation failures and the gaps in this particular case, I think if Wendy’s appeal were to be heard again, it could, or even should have a different outcome. This, again, seems arbitrary and unfair in the light of the new law.

Slipping through the net

Some people who may be guilty will now have their convictions quashed and access to a minimum of £600,000 compensation, providing they sign a statement of innocence. This leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. On that:

a) We simply don’t know how many people among the 700+ people who still have convictions are guilty or innocent. No idea whatsoever. And that is down to the staggering incompetence of the Post Office investigators. They didn’t know what they were doing. Ron Warmington from Second Sight, a highly experienced fraud investigator, told the Post Office this in 2013, when he wrote:

POL investigators and investigations are overwhelmingly focused on obtaining an admission of False Accounting from the interviewed SPMR (or employee).

POL Investigators often appear to have paid scant attention to the interviewee’s assertions of innocence or his/her reference to specific transaction anomalies. They seem to have shown little or no willingness to establish the underlying root cause of any given shortfall. This disinterest seems to be driven by the desire to ‘get the money back’ from the SPMR, knowing that a False Accounting conviction will provide a relatively inexpensive (to POL) pathway to that goal.

And:

The overwhelming impression gained from reviewing the transcripts of investigative interviews is that the SPMR was viewed as an enemy of the business. The culture within the Investigation Team appears to be one of a presumption of guilt when conducting an investigation, rather than the aim of seeking the truth.

That (on the face of it) is straight up abuse of process.

b) It is a foundation stone of our democracy which suggests it is (morally) better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent person is convicted of a crime (Blackstone’s ratio). Well, this is what that lofty ideal looks like when it is applied in real life. Not so noble, but still, I think, makes the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act a sensible and pragmatic course of action.

Well done all

Finally, congratulations to Alan Bates and the vanguard campaigners at the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance. Without them, today simply would not have been possible. Congratulations to the lawyers, Paul Marshall, Flora Page and Lisa Busch, the four members of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board – Prof Chris Hodges, Lord Arbuthnot, Kevan Jones and Prof Richard Moorhead – all of whom had a huge amount of behind-the-scenes influence in making today happen. And although it pains me to praise anyone in any government, well done to Rishi Sunak, Kemi Badenoch, Alex Chalk and (probably most of all) Kevin Hollinrake and their teams. I think history will judge them well for their work in making this historic day happen.

---

The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.