Some of the Subpostmasters who had their convictions quashed at the Court of Appeal in 2021 have been sent a letter notifying them that Nick Vamos, a barrister working for Peters and Peters, the law firm acting on behalf of the Post Office, was “not authorised” to carry out the litigation he conducted.

The letter, dated 28 November 2025, is sent by Master Alex Beldam KC, the judiciary’s Criminal Appeals Registrar. Master Beldam tells the recipients:

“Your appeal against conviction as a result of a prosecution by the Post Office Limited was dealt with by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). At those proceedings, the Post Office Limited was represented by Peters & Peters LLP. Mr Nick Vamos, Partner at Peters & Peters LLP, oversaw the conduct of your case. The Registrar has been informed by Peters & Peters LLP, that as an employed barrister Mr Vamos was not authorised to conduct litigation. The solicitors who represented you for the appeal proceedings have been informed. Mr Vamos worked on the cases as part of a large team of solicitors, including other partners, all of whom were authorised to conduct litigation.”

But what does it all mean?

According to the letter, conducting litigation is a “reserved legal activity”. Carrying it out without authorisation is an offence punishable (at its maximum) by “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).”

Furthermore, “a person who is guilty… of an act done in the purported exercise of a right of audience, or a right to conduct litigation, in relation to any proceedings or contemplated proceedings is also guilty of contempt of the court concerned and may be punished accordingly.”

After setting this out, Beldam writes: “Mr Vamos has reported himself to the appropriate authority who have confirmed no action will be taken against him.”

One former Subpostmaster, who wishes to remain anonymous, wants an investigation: “Yet again those in a place of authority can do what they want without any consequences. And the innocent pay the price… They can’t keep running straight over us.”

There’s more. Beldam’s letter states: “The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) will consider any representations about any consequences, if any, this has on proceedings Mr Vamos conducted. The Court would wish to do that without avoidable delay and therefore invite anyone who wishes to suggest that any further action is required to set out their position in writing within a reasonable time. It is a matter for you if you wish to take legal advice.”

Subpostmasters’ legal teams have been informed of the situation.

Implications

One of the biggest potential implications of this development follows for those whose appeals failed. If the Post Office was conducing litigation using someone who was not authorised to carry out that litigation, the process was potentially improper, or even invalid. Or was it?

Subpostmasters whose appeals failed at the Court of Appeal were not covered by the legislation which quashed everyone else’s convictions. This was either an important decision to recognise the integrity of the appeal court’s processes or a cosy little stitch up designed to spare the judiciary’s blushes, depending on your perspective.

What is undoubtedly true, is that in 2021, when the Court of Appeal was considering its first tranche of appeals, it had no idea just how inept or corrupt the Post Office’s prosecution processes were. It considered appeals through the lens of whether Horizon IT data was “essential” to the prosecution. That alone makes the current situation problematic. Today’s revelation adds more questions.

I have written to the Judiciary press office, Mr Vamos, Peters and Peters and a couple of legal types to ask for their perspectives. I’m particularly interested in identifying the “appropriate authority” which decided Mr Vamos would face no further action, as it would be useful to know more about their decision-making processes.

---

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 occasional, irregular but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.