Post Office Scandal

Secret 2016 Post Office Chairman’s Report Not Shared With PO Board

Nick Wallis

Fri 12 August 2022

5 comments
6 min read

Where to start with this…? Perhaps by thanking Eleanor Shaikh, whose forensic and determined FOI campaign has been unearthing some real gems.

Yesterday, as a result of one of her requests, the Post Office published a hitherto secret report commissioned by the Post Office minister in September 2015 following the August 2015 Panorama investigation ‘Trouble at the Post Office’.

I was told last month by a government source that this document was coming and was expected to set the cat among the pigeons. I hope it does.

In 2015 Baroness Neville-Rolfe, on behalf of the government, told the incoming Post Office chairman Tim Parker to properly review the Horizon situation. He did so, commissioning the former First Treasury Counsel (top government lawyer) Jonathan Swift QC to investigate.

Swift, who is now a judge – Mr Justice Swift – wrote a wide-ranging Review in which he largely (and as it transpires, wrongly) sided with the Post Office on most things. Swift nonetheless raised very strong warning signs that potential miscarriages of justice might have taken place. He is particularly concerned at the Post Office’s switcheroo tactic of charging Subpostmasters with theft and false accounting and then offering to drop the theft charge in exchange for a guilty plea to false accounting.

“The allegation that POL has effectively bullied SPMRs [Subpostmasters] into pleading guilty to offences by unjustifiably overloading the charge sheet is a stain on the character of the business.” he says.

“Moreover, it is not impossible that an SPMR would have felt pressurised into pleading guilty to false accounting believing it to be less serious when they might not otherwise have done so.”

There is so much more in the Review which needs picking over, not least why it has stayed secret until 11 August 2022.

Patrick Green QC, lead counsel for the claimants in Bates v Post Office, confirmed it was not disclosed to the claimants during the epic High Court group litigation (GLO). This morning he said:

“The Review is an incredibly important document and we would have wished to have shown it to the Court if it had been available to us.”

James Hartley from Freeths told me the Review was:

“Yet more evidence of issues and questions of profound gravity that were known to the Post Office’s most senior management – at the very time when they were launching the most aggressive defence to the GLO claim that public money could buy.

“Had the Post Office been transparent and responsible about how to address these issues then there is every likelihood that the GLO claimants could have been spared the ordeal of the High Court litigation that the Post Office put them through.”

Parker’s “significant error”

On legal advice from the Post Office’s General Counsel Jane MacLeod, the Review (and the as yet unknown “follow-up work” engendered by the Review) was not even shown to the full Post Office board.

This “significant error of judgement” by Tim Parker was picked up in 2020 by the Post Office’s Senior Independent Director Ken McCall and reported to the government by the UKGI’s director on the Post Office Board, Tom Cooper. Cooper says McCall felt it would be wrong to take any action against Parker because it would be “disproportionate”.

Cooper tells his colleagues in government that he hasn’t asked McCall “to put any of this in writing or come in to meet Ministers or officials to discuss, but this is an option.”

As a result of Cooper’s email, Sarah Munby, the Permanent Secretary for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy wrote to Tim Parker in October 2020 saying:

“We understand that you were advised at the time by the Post Office’s General Counsel that for reasons of confidentiality and preserving legal privilege the circulation of the report should be strictly controlled. Nevertheless, given the background of parliamentary interest, the fact that your review was commissioned by the Minister responsible for the Post Office and the potential significance of the recommendations made by Jonathan Swift QC, we consider it was an mistake not to have ensured that the whole board had an opportunity to see and discuss the detail of its findings and agree what any next steps should be. With hindsight, this information should have been seen by the board and we are disappointed that it wasn’t.”

Analysis

Richard Moorhead, Professor of Law and Professional Ethics at Exeter University has read the Review and says the points made about remote access seem to be “a bit of a show stopper both for its impact on potential appeals and on the Bates v Post Office litigation. Did Parker understand that Bates was run on the basis there was no remote access? It seems likely, and unless the views of Swift on remote access were strongly countered, this raises a significant question over that litigation and Parker’s Chairmanship.”

Moorhead describes McLeod’s advice not to disclose the Review to the board “very concerning” adding “either the GC got the law of privilege wrong or she had a conflict of interest and should not have advised in these terms. The matters in the review were highly material to her client, the Company, and she had a professional obligation to ensure the relevant people knew of them. The report should have been disclosed to the Board.”

Swift’s references to Brian Altman QC (brought in to advise the Post Office on disclosure in 2013) also intrigues Moorhead. The Post Office has so far refused to release the Altman Review of October 2013 which appears to contain some kind of test for disclosure to already criminalised Subpostmasters.

Moorhead says the references in the 2016 Review to Altman are a “reminder of how important he was or might be to this saga. It provides an interesting contrast to the position Altman took in the Court of Appeal [in 2021] which was that they did not know how documents which should have been disclosed were not.”

The 2016 Chairman’s Review is of considerable significance to this scandal, and is perhaps the most important document to be unearthed this year. I have uploaded to this blog post searchable versions of the 2015 commissioning letter, the 2016 Review itself and the 2020 email reporting Parker’s error of judgment.

Rebecca Thomson and I will be discussing the Review with the barrister Paul Marshall in the next episode of our podcast “Investigating the Post Office Scandal”. You can find and listen to it by searching “Investigating the Post Office Scandal” and following on Spotify, Apple Podcasts or Audioboom.

20160208 Chairmans Review Redacted Searchable PDF Download

20150910 Rolfe to Tim Parker searchable PDF Download

20200916 Tom Cooper email to UKGI and BEIS searchable PDF Download

UPDATE: Since I wrote the above post, Professor Moorhead has properly gone to town on what I think we are now calling the Swift Review. He has written an entire epic saga of substack posts fisking the Review, which are very much worth reading, especially if you are interested in corporate governance or one of m’learned friends:

Swift I: The Perils of a Safe Pair of Hands

Swift II: the GIGO problem

Swift III: How legal framing can shift the balance of reviews

Swift IV: The Gareth Jenkins Problem

Swift V: Independent Reviews, breaking bad news gently

Swift VI: Independence, a particular professional blindspot

Swift VII: No systematic problem?

Clicking on any one of the above links will take you to Professor Moorhead’s substack page. I highly recommend subscribing to his free newsletters.

Blog
Podcast Episode 6 – The Richards

Nick Wallis

Wed 27 July 2022

0 comments
1 min read

Subpostmaster Richard Hawkes and Professor Richard Moorhead speak to Rebecca Thomson

6: Ep 6 – Richard Hawkes on his quashed conviction and Professor Richard Moorhead on legal ethics – Investigating the Post Office Scandal

Rebecca has been along to the Court of Appeal to witness five more Subpostmasters have their convictions quashed. She spoke to one of them – Richard Hawkes – about his ordeal. Rebecca has also interviewed legal blogger and academic Professor Richard Moorhead from Exeter University who has opened up an entire field of study based on the Post Office Scandal, particularly the legal failings which have been highlighted. Nick, on the other hand, is ill with what sounds like a suspicious dose of man-flue, and so has not contributed much to this episode other than sounding ill and needy.

Rebecca and I have put up another podcast. Hopefully you can see it on the left (if you can’t, you can find it here). If this is the first you’ve heard of our podcast – Investigating the Post Office Scandal, you are more than welcome to have a listen to the first five episodes here. In Episode 1 we discuss what we should call the podcast, introduce ourselves and the scandal, and then we get going on it.

Do subscribe, like and/or follow if you feel so inclined. You can find us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts if that’s where you prefer to listen to your audio stuff.

Blog
Compensation Hearing 2

Rebecca Thomson

Thu 14 July 2022

0 comments
5 min read

Bankruptcy and “severe psychiatric issues”

Sangeeta Kalia, Davinder Misra, Parmod Kalia

Barristers outlined the impact on their clients caused by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and lambasted the Post Office for fighting postmasters “tooth and nail”

The second compensation hearing at the ongoing public inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal heard that one in five of Hudgell Solicitors’ clients have experienced bankruptcy, and many have suffered “severe, enduring psychiatric issues” and long-term physical problems as a result of their ordeal at the hands of the Post Office.

There is also a new three-week deadline in place for money to reach postmasters eligible for the government’s latest £19.5m pot.

Psychiatric issues

Tim Moloney QC, counsel for Hudgell Solicitors, which represents 63 postmasters, said the psychiatric issues postmasters experience often translate into physical illnesses which render them incapable of working, citing the example of one client who had been offered £15,000 compensation after being off work for three years with a stress-related illness.

Moloney also referred to the “crippling” debts most former postmasters face, saying most interim payments are used to pay these debts:

“Many have been in significant debt for very long periods of their lives. It’s not hyperbole to describe them as crippling debts. £100,000 sounds like a lot, but their debts are usually well in excess of that.” He added that a fifth of Hudgell’s 63 clients have experienced bankruptcy, saying: “That’s just one symptom of the havoc wreaked in people’s lives.”

He added: “The position of many of the claimants is really bad, which you can image would be case after 15 years of being a criminal, a bankrupt, and in very low paid jobs.” He said many were in middle age when they took over their post office branches. “The last third of their earning life was blighted by this scandal, and their earning potential destroyed.”

Moloney also drew attention three clients of Hudgells who are yet to receive any compensation. The Post Office chose not to contest their appeals and their convictions have been quashed, but the Post Office now refuses to pay compensation on the basis that it is not certain that Horizon caused the shortfalls in their cases.

“In effect, they say: ‘Sue us in the civil courts.’ They say to these people who were wrongly convicted… that they will not pay them.” Parmod Kalia is one of these three former postmasters, and Nick and I spoke to him for our podcast on this week’s hearing.

Fighting tooth and nail

Flora Page, a barrister represting Seema Misra, Tracy Felstead and Janet Skinner, also criticised the Post Office’s attitude towards her clients and other postmasters, specifically with regard to its stance on postmasters unhappy with their compensation offers. The Post Office says those who don’t wish to accept settlements can seek alternative dispute resolution, arbitration or litigation. She said:

“The Post Office has fought them tooth and nail, and once again it says if you don’t like what we offer we will fight you tooth and nail. Once again, the lawyers will get paid while the Post Office resists doing the right thing.”

She added postmasters are still waiting for sums they were forced to pay to the Post Office up to twenty years ago when holes in branch accounts were first discovered: “We are told the historic failings are a matter of great regret but there is little evidence of this.

“There is simply no justification for the Post Office keeping these sums – it’s been well over a year since the overturning of convictions, and there have been no moves of its own initiative to give these sums back.

“Where is the proactive desire to right wrongs? I see very little evidence of the much-vaunted change at the Post Office, little evidence that the failings are indeed historic.”

Three-week deadline

Sam Stein QC, speaking on behalf of Howe & Co solicitors, which represents 153 postmasters, said an agreement had been reached during a break that offered a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ for many of the 555 Group Litigation claimants (GLO).

GLO claimants were the 555 postmasters who fought the Post Office in the High Court, winning their case in 2019 and bringing the scandal to light. The terms of that settlement dictated they would receive no other compensation, but this changed on June 30th, 2022, when the government announced a £19.5m interim pot.

Yesterday (July 14th), Stein said, a timetable was devised for fast payment of that money, with law firm Freeths and the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) working to get it to postmasters within three weeks.

Rebecca Thomson, July 2022

Rebecca’s report on Day 1 of the Compensation Hearings can be read here.

Rebecca Thomson has a substack account, where a version of this article, alongside her other journalism is published.

Nick Wallis is the author of The Great Post Office Scandal, available from Amazon, Bath Publishing and all good retailers.

Nick and Rebecca have created a podcast called “Investigating the Post Office Scandal“, which can be found by searching on Spotify, Apple Music and via this link on Audioboom.

Inquiry
Compensation Hearing 1

Rebecca Thomson

Wed 6 July 2022

0 comments
6 min read
Kevin and Sharon Brown and Seema Misra after the hearing

A barrister acting on behalf of postmasters claiming compensation from the Post Office last week described the process as a “scandal within a scandal.”

Speaking at the first compensation hearing at The Oval cricket ground in South London on 6 July 2022, Howe & Co’s lead counsel Sam Stein QC, on behalf of 153 of the postmasters affected, said:

“The approach of the Post Office and BEIS [the department for business, energy and industrial strategy] replicates past behaviour.

“There is the danger of a scandal within a scandal about compensation.”

The July hearings (the second is on 13 July) are designed to get to the bottom of problems with the compensation process. Nick and I recorded a podcast at the hearing which you can listen to here.

There are several separate compensation processes:
- · The first, the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS), is for postmasters who repaid shortfalls and perhaps lost their businesses, but who weren’t prosecuted and weren’t part of the 555-strong group who took the Post Office to the High Court.
- · The 555 received money in their £58m settlement but it only equated to £20,000 or less each – most was swallowed by legal bills. The terms of their settlement said they were not entitled to any further claim. This changed on 30 June 2022 when £19.5m was announced for this group.
- · People with quashed convictions are immersed in their own mediation process
The whole picture is further complicated by the fact that some of the 555 are in this group too.

The core problems with the compensation process, as described during the first hearing and in the published submissions from legal teams, are:
- · The Post Office is the final arbiter of how much compensation a postmaster is offered, despite being the organisation that caused their trauma in the first place.
- · Postmasters are left in ignorance of the status of their claim and there have been delays of up to two years without news.
- · The original form was confusing.
- · There is a lack of full legal advice, with little funding available. Postmasters have to fund their own legal advice and can only claim a maximum of £1,200. Only 3% of postmasters applying to the main compensation scheme (named HSS) have had representation. Hudgells solicitors represent a group whose convictions have been overturned and say their team has not yet been paid anything so far, for what must be thousands of hours of work.
- · The burden of proof is on postmasters – they have to prove their losses, and they have to prove other ‘consequential’ effects such as stress-induced illness or lost income. Sam Stein described many as suffering victim fatigue, with some likely to be experiencing undiagnosed PTSD, meaning many haven’t been able to face going through this process. He also said that in many, if not most, cases, the Post Office seized paperwork from postmasters during the audit process. There is some indication that some records were automatically destroyed after six years.
- · Sometimes the Post Office is using evidence it holds on people to determine how much to offer the postmasters, but not telling them what evidence it used until an offer is made. Postmasters’ legal teams argue this is the wrong way around when the burden of proof is on postmasters.
- · There is a lack of transparency over the principles applied when the Post Office and its legal team are assessing cases and making offers.
- · For those who were prosecuted and have had their convictions overturned, the process is much more complicated and there are issues there too. The Post Office wants to pay a smaller amount of money than the postmasters feel is their due, and there were hints in the submissions that these cases could end up in court.
- · The Post Office has refused to pay interim payments to people for amounts that have been agreed, while they consider another part of someone’s claim. This is contributing to postmasters’ continued financial problems.
As a result of all these challenges, Stein said it is likely that a number of postmasters have accepted a lower amount of compensation than they might have been entitled to.

Overall, delays and a lack of urgency to compensate people have been the biggest issue. Sam Stein said:

“The harm that the Post Office has caused is ongoing and made manifest in desperate financial consequences.”

He added:

“When the Post Office wanted its money [when requiring postmasters repay shortfalls] they wanted it there and then, under threat of criminal prosecution.”

Mr Stein described postmasters who are on the verge of bankruptcy, who have not been able to repay elderly relatives, who have had to sell jewellery, who visit the supermarket at 4pm to shop for reduced price food, and who can barely afford the parking and transport costs to attend the inquiry hearings.

“There has been delay, obfuscation, they make statements and excuses. They do everything but pay up promptly. The money is needed right now, to solve immediate problems, to get people out of holes created by the Post Office.”

£19m for the High Court litigants

On June 30th BEIS put out a press release announcing a £19.5m pot of interim compensation for the 555 High Court claimants, who had previously been excluded from all schemes due to the terms of their High Court settlement.

This announcement was released on the same day that the submissions to the inquiry were published. These contained scathing criticism from the legal teams acting on behalf of postmasters. Sam Stein said about that announcement:

“This is a terrible scandal, it should not be an opportunity to secure public relations points through the media. BEIS has to be dragged kicking and screaming in the right direction.

“It’s possible to believe that the Post Office is so incapable of understanding even now that they have victimised their own staff.”

He added there was a lack of clarity over the way forward for that particular pot of money, no application process and no immediate hardship payments available.

Rebecca Thomson, July 2022

Nick adds: My thanks to Rebecca for her report. Rebecca has started her own reporting substack, covering Post Office issues and other stories which interest her. Here is the link if you want to subscribe: https://rebeccathomson.substack.com/
Inquiry
Book Talk Dates

Nick Wallis

Thu 16 June 2022

0 comments
1 min read

All the following dates have been confirmed and those with links have tickets on sale now. I am hoping to have a special guest at every event. Keep checking this page to see who has been confirmed!

14 September – Sheringham Little Theatre, Sheringham

16 September – The Quay Theatre, Sudbury

19 September – Norwich Theatre Playhouse, Norwich with former Subpostmaster Ian Warren.

10 November – Kenton Theatre, Henley-on-Thames

Book
Three Day Book Tour!

Nick Wallis

Wed 30 March 2022

0 comments
4 min read

The Great Post Office Scandal had next to no advertising, marketing or launch budget. Bath Publishing are a tiny (but delightful and committed) publisher. TGPOS is their first mainstream book. They don’t have the sort of relationships that could see them wander into the Waterstones’ chief buyer’s office and tell them about their next hit publication. They can’t swing reviews as favours.

Going out on the road and physically telling people about the book is therefore essential. It is something we can do.

Bath Publishing and I have now worked with some wonderful folk in Wanstead, Manchester, Derby, Bath, Farncombe (Surrey) and Liverpool to put on a series of readings and Q&As – many involving former Subpostmasters. The response has been astounding.

Ver Tap

My first talk before a paying audience was at The Wanstead Tap on a Wednesday night in January. It is a lovely venue, with a committed live events audience, but I don’t know anyone in Wanstead. It sold out. Fifty people bought tickets costing £8.50 to hear me talk about the story, on spec.

I had no visual aids and no real clear idea of what I was going to do, but I was happy to give it a go. I needn’t have worried. People are so engaged and enraged by this story. They just want to find out more. So I told them everything I knew. After two hours we had to knock it on the head, but it was such a powerful experience.

Going live

Over the last couple of months I have spoken at various venues, with various different guests attending and had the same incredible response. Seventy people in Manchester, a hundred people in Bath, two hundred people in Farncombe. Last week in Liverpool four former Subpostmasters came along, two of whom I hadn’t met before. I invited them onto the stage and they spoke so movingly about their experiences, it became very emotional. But people did not leave sad, they were motivated and determined.

St John’s church, Farncombe

The last question asked by a member of the audience at the Liverpool event was a rather plaintive “What can we do to help?”

As I burbled a bit, a former Subpostmaster turned to the questioner and politely said “Tell. Everyone.”

So that’s what we’re going to do.

A friend of mine is a live events producer who knows the bookers at most of the small theatres in the UK. Between us we have put together a run of three nights based on a format which has been growing organically since my first reading in Wanstead. There is the usual introduction to the story and a few short readings, but this time we are going to put together some audio-visual testimony and explanatory media to make it a more comprehensive experience. As before, we will be joined by some very special live guests.

To ensure the venues are happy and to cover the costs of things like a professional sound engineer, travel, accommodation and food, we are selling tickets, but we have tried to keep prices as low as possible, so you can bring your friends. 10% of everything we make on this mini-tour will go to the Horizon Scandal Fund.

The first dates we have booked are:

29 June 2022 – Ropetackle Theatre, Shoreham-by-Sea – info and tickets here.

30 June 2022 – Chequer Mead Theatre, East Grinstead – info and tickets here.

1 July 2022 – Leatherhead Theatre, Leatherhead – info and tickets here.

We want audiences to come along hungry to find out more. We want them to depart having been armed with the facts of this scandal and determined to spread the word. Please put one of these dates in your diary if you can – especially to the Leatherhead event – the theatre there has 500 seats!! It would be great to see you and I promise they will all be unforgettable events.

Thanks.

Book
73 Convictions Quashed

Nick Wallis

Fri 25 March 2022

0 comments
3 min read

This week the 73rd Subpostmaster conviction was quashed. Margaret White (neé Sowinska), ran the Banbury Road Post Office in Oxford. In 2007, she pleaded guilty to two counts of false accounting after Post Office “auditors” found a £28,000 discrepancy at her branch. That conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

The Oxford Mail has a write-up, here.

Of the two other cases heard the same day, one was adjourned, the other was opposed and a judgment will be made in due course.

According to information I have been given, of the 706 convictions Post Office convictions which the Post Office believes may be Horizon-related, 100 have now been through the appeal courts.

72 convictions have been overturned unopposed and 28 have dismissed, abandoned or refused permission.

One Postmaster conviction secured by the DWP (using Horizon evidence) has been overturned, a further five have either been opposed by the CPS and upheld or abandoned.

Statistical oddity

The Court of Appeal has so far maintained its record of failing to overturn any case which the Post Office has opposed, whilst also quashing all the convictions of those whose appeals have been unopposed.

It’s not clear how much actual analysis of each case the Court of Appeal is doing, or what effect this might be having on CCRC referral decisions.

The barrister Paul Marshall, who represented Seema Misra, Janet Skinner and Tracy Felstead told me:

“The Court of Appeal appears to have adopted, as the determinant of whether an appeal is allowed or not, a test that correlates exactly with whether the Post Office resists the appeal or contests it.

“If the Post Office contests the appeal, the Court of Appeal… appears to adopt a formula that in loose terms is…: ‘was Horizon/its reliability central to the prosecution’?

“While attractive for its beguiling simplicity, that formulation… may be doubted. For the whole of the relevant period, the only accounting system available to the Post Office was Horizon. Further, there was, intentionally, no other parallel system…

“The only way in which the Post Office was able to evidence amounts paid out or in was by Horizon. Without doing too much injustice to the Court of Appeal’s approach, to apply a test of whether the issue is a “shortfall of cash or stock” might suggest that the court may not have fully grasped the full scale, consequences and effects of Horizon’s unreliability – or various other unresolved doubts about the Post Office’s systems and processes.

“Oversimplification may readily be productive of error.”

I will be putting Mr Marshall’s points to the CCRC and Court of Appeal in due course.

Blog
Treasury Announces Compensation for 555 Civil Litigants

Nick Wallis

Wed 23 March 2022

2 comments
6 min read

After all the hints, it’s finally happened. On Tuesday 22 March 2022, a full two years and three months after the settlement of Bates v Post Office, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that all 555 claimants in that case will be properly compensated for their losses.

Two years and two months ago, Alan Bates invoiced the government for the sum of £46m – representing the figure taken from the £57.75m High Court settlement to cover legal fees and the litigation funders’ success fee. He was told to go away.

He did not. Bates, along with his fellow litigants and their MPs continued to push the government – relentlessly – until the Treasury was forced to agree the funds.

Both the PM and Chancellor were quoted in Tuesday’s press release. This is what Boris Johnson said:

“We’ll be introducing a new compensation scheme for those who led and won the landmark legal case over the failings, so they can receive their fair share… Whilst it cannot take away the years of distress, the postmasters who have suffered terribly over the Post Office Horizon scandal deserve to be fairly compensated.”

And this was what Rishi Sunak came up with:

“Without the efforts of these postmasters, this terrible injustice may have never been uncovered so it is only right that they are compensated fully and fairly. That is why we have set up this new compensation scheme for those who played a crucial role bringing this scandal to light.”

As the SNP MP Marion Fellowes said in the subsequent parliamentary debate:

“The Horizon scandal has spanned decades under Labour, Lib Dem and Tory Ministers. It is a stain on the Post Office and its single shareholder the Government. This response proves that the Government do the right thing in the end, once they have done everything else.” [my italics]

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, former Subpostmaster Lee Castleton, who is one of the 555 said of the compensation package:

“I just hope that it encompasses everybody in the group…. it needs to be inclusive, it needs to be respectful and it needs to happen quite quickly. There are people in the group who are coming to the ends of their lives and they deserve to finish this.”

Therium

The Business Minister, Paul Scully, took up his current post in February 2020. He spent a large part of his first year as a minister telling the 555 civil litigants that the compensation they received from the Post Office was “full and final”, whilst sympathising with their plight.

In April 2021 there was a shift in his language. During an interview, when I challenged him on compensation for the 555, Scully told me:

“I can’t just pledge to step in at this moment in time. But I want to make sure that I can have good conversations with Alan Bates and the Postmasters within the 555, just as much as I want to have good conversations with other wronged Postmasters, because they need justice and they need fair compensation.”

Since then, the minister has moved, glacially, towards where we are today. This was not without relentless pressure from backbenchers, peers and campaigners themselves.

One of the reasons Scully gave for the delay in announcing proper compensation for the 555 (once the government decided, possibly after the Court of Appeal ruling in April 2021 that it was something it wanted/had to do) was a concern that Therium, the litigation funders for the claimants in Bates v Post Office, would have a legal claim to a percentage of the compensation heading the Subpostmasters’ way.

Therium did not take the full amount they were entitled to when the settlement was made. They might have asked to recover that, plus a percentage of any further compensation, based on the fact they funded the court case which led to it being announced. Scully told MPs that Therium have sensibly agreed to waive any future claim they might have, adding:

“I also thank Lord Arbuthnot, whom he mentioned, who has helped in the past couple of weeks to unlock the situation we have today.”

Lord (James) Arbuthnot used to be Jo Hamilton’s MP and is very close to the Justice for Subpostmaster’s Alliance. I understand he set up the line of communication between Alan Bates and Paul Scully which led to Bates getting confirmation from Therium that they would not raise any claim.

The dreaded consultation phase

Now the compensation has been announced, what any scheme will look like has yet to even be discussed, let alone decided. Scully said he was planning to have a meeting with “representatives of the JFSA” on 30 March and would be writing to them “to consult it about the scheme’s operations”. The JFSA presumably means Alan Bates and his advisor Kay Linnell. Whether any legal representatives will be there, or indeed any other former Subpostmasters is not known.

Concerns any scheme could take as long as the Historical Shortfall Scheme to set in motion were not exactly put to bed by the minister, who said:

“The historical shortfall scheme started slowly, as it first worked through the cases and benchmarked those that would help inform future payments, so that we know so much more about the 555. Dovetailed with the HSS information that we have gained, I want to ensure that we can start delivering that compensation very quickly. I am still aiming for the end of the year for the HSS. We need to establish, once we know what the process is, an exact timescale agreed with the JFSA.”

Fujitsu

Another interesting snippet came out of yesterday’s announcement – the prospect of the government going after Fujitsu to recover all or part of the compensation the taxpayer would otherwise have to stand. In parliament, Karl Turner asked:

“What are we doing to get some money back from Fujitsu? This will cost the taxpayer potentially hundreds of millions of pounds. How on earth are we going to allow Fujitsu to get away with it?”

Paul Scully replied:

“The frank answer is that we will not – we will push as much as we can in any avenue to tackle compensation. Wherever it comes from, it should not be the UK taxpayer who is picking up the tab for other people’s problems.”

The government vs Fujitsu could well be the next battlefront to be opened in this scandal, and it could get litigious very quickly.

Compensation
Tim Brentnall’s Closing Statement

Nick Wallis

Thu 17 March 2022

0 comments
2 min read

Tim Brentnall ran the Roch Post Office in Pembrokeshire. He was convicted of false accounting in 2010. His conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal on 19 July 2021. Tim gave evidence to the Post Office Horizon Inquiry on 1 March 2022.

Tim’s closing statement is a powerful piece of rhetoric aimed at reminding the inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams that he should not be investigating the IT, but the people who used it to systematically deny hundreds of people their reputations, livelihoods and mental well-being.

Following Tim’s lead I have clipped out the relevant section of video from the inquiry’s youtube channel so you can watch what he said as well as read it):

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry – Tim Brentnall

Here is the text of Tim’s statement, slightly tidied up for clarity.

“I know this inquiry is called the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry. It’s fair to say it’s the root cause – and the problems started with Horizon – but we’re here discussing the human impact and I think the inquiry should also be looking at the human cause of these problems.

Myself as every other Subpostmaster you’ve heard from and probably will hear from, had problems that started with Horizon, but their problems did not finish with Horizon.

Horizon merely provided the data that showed a shortfall, but it was people who chose to believe that data over myself or hundreds of other Subpostmasters.

It wasn’t Horizon that prosecuted us, it was the Post Office. It wasn’t Horizon who encouraged us to pay back money under threat of theft charges, that was people at the Post Office.

It wasn’t Horizon that sacked Second Sight when they found uncomfortable truths in their report in 2013, that was people at the Post Office.

It wasn’t Horizon that then went on to shred documents. That was people at the Post Office.

Horizon then did not try and outspend the group litigation people – the 555 as we are known – in court, as an attempt to deny us justice. That was a Post Office decision.

Horizon did then not try and recuse the judge at that trial. That was a Post Office decision.

Horizon did not tell hundreds, if not thousands of us that we were the only people having problems.

That is the evilest of lies. And again, that was the Post Office.

And I hope this inquiry will look very closely not only at Horizon, but the people.”

You can watch all of Tim’s evidence here and read the transcript here.

Inquiry, IT
Chirag Sidhpura’s Closing Statement

Nick Wallis

Thu 17 March 2022

0 comments
8 min read

Rushita Patel (Chirag’s wife) and the man himself outside the inquiry

I watched Chirag Sidhpura give evidence today. You can read about his story here, and in the live-tweets I put together whilst he was talking. At the end Chirag read out a prepared statement, which he has kindly shared with me (whilst also showing me how to work my new phone).

Chirag is an extraordinarily determined person, and the journey he has been on is unique, but it started in the same place: Post Office auditors finding a discrepancy at his branch and Post Office investigators threatening him with criminal prosecution unless he made it good.

Do read Chirag’s story and the tweets or just dive into the closing statement (with minor edits for clarity) which follows:

“The Post Office bought misery not only to me and my family but also a local community.

I had goals and plans to give myself and my family a better life and a bright future. This was stolen from me overnight.

The Post Office, from top to bottom, knew there were bugs, errors and defects within the computer system, especially when it came to the ATM machine.

The Post Office tried to take away documents which I held in my branch but were unsuccessful as I stood my ground and told them it’s information which I have produced, not them, so I would not be handing anything over.

I was advised by the auditor to have a look at my trading statements which I had produced from Horizon to try and identify the alleged shortfall. I had gone through all this over and over again but could not find anything wrong.

I had followed everything the way in which I had been trained, not for days, weeks or months, but for years. As informed by the Post Office investigator the alleged shortfall has come about within 6 months of the date of the last audit. If that was the case then why would Post Office continue to send large amounts of money week-in week-out to service the office? Why was this not bought to my attention earlier? A phone call, email, a letter in the post to say ‘we think there maybe something wrong in your office please investigate’ or to tell me if I needed any assistance to contact them.

But as far as I was aware everything was ok.

I was left fearing that I may have to leave my family and friends behind for a while because I may be sent to prison. I can not even describe the way I felt as I have always been a law-abiding citizen, with a clean record.

I was advised by the National Federation of Subpostmasters to obtain a criminal solicitor due to the value of the alleged loss. I was threatened by Post Office investigators that I would be interviewed with the police present under caution. To me this was all bully tactics to try and get someone to say they have done something even though they haven’t. I was shadowed by a fantastic solicitor Michelle George who gave me all the confidence to stand my ground.

Approximately £80k worth of cash and stock was left in my premises for near 9 months, even though the Post Office Limited terminated my contract. I was told I had no right to appeal this, which I thought was totally bizarre. If I had murdered someone and admitted I had committed the crime, the Police would still have to build a case to take to the CPS, then to court. If I was found guilty of the crime I would still have the right to appeal. This is the law of the land. The law of the land also states that any person is innocent till proven guilty, but with the government-owned Post Office I was guilty until I could prove my innocence, like many others.

I had challenged the Post Office for many documents which should have been provided to me. Instead I had to pay for data access through information rights.

I was generally told by Kerry Moodie [the former information rights manager at the Post Office] – “This is commercially privileged”.

When I kept challenging this is was told in a polite way by Kerry to go away as she will not respond to any more emails from me.

I was contacting many other Postmasters who helped me as much as they could to identify possible causes, which led me to provide information to Paul Southin to investigate rather than being the other way round.

I was left scared, anxious, depressed, stupid, worthless, incompetent and I’m sure there are many more words that could describe my mental sate and feelings. This was all done by the hands of one individual representing the most trusted brand in the country:

Angela van den Bogerd was appointed by the Post Office to conduct an independent review of my case, but because the trend was already set by Paul Southin she could not go back and change that even if she wanted to. This was months before the GLO [Bates v Post Office group litigation] was to start.

I was left a broken man. I used to be confident, proud, outgoing. I always made time for my family and friends. This has now all changed due to the way the Post Office have treated me.

My marriage is broken due to the stress of me trying to prove not only to the Post Office but also to my wife that I have not done anything wrong. Even today we argue because I was in charge, so I am to blame. The Post Office has turned me into a self-centred individual. All I seem to do now is try to prove I have not done anything wrong.

Interaction with my children has been hard as my eldest daughter used to ask me “Daddy are you going to jail?” This broke me even more. I could not even look my kids in the face. I would lock myself in the bedroom and not come out. Sometimes I leave the house when they are awake and not return until they are asleep.

I could not face anyone as fingers were being pointed. People had now a different view of me.

I had many thoughts of suicide, running away, relocating – but I was extremely lucky to have my father-in-law and also my staff and friends who supported me through my darkest days, they gave me strength and support to get to where I am today.

I have had to give up something that I was so proud of and worked so hard for without any financial gain whatsoever.

The Post Office have a lot to answer for in the way they conducted my case as I still have not got answers.

During the time where the Post Office was shut down – a further 5000 had gone missing from the Horizon system the post office put this down to auditors mistake and was quickly and quietly brushed under the carpet…. Why? – because the very person dealing with the alleged second shortage could not go back and say sorry this could be a systemic error as the whole class action could have collapsed. It would have definitely saved the UK government a substantial amount of money.

At this point I had no doubt that there is definitely a problem with the computer system. All the evidence is there.

If a shortfall can occur when the computer system has been shutdown and not used what can the system do when it is in use committing thousands of transactions a day.

I am today still passionately serving my local community behind the same Post Office that I was accused of taking… losing… £57,500. How ironic.

With the help and support and certain people I have now become stronger – to have the courage and support to battle the Post Office.

I will not allow a man-made computer system beat me. I am determined. I may have been left a broken man, mentally but with the support I have behind me makes me stronger than ever.

What I would ask the Post Office to do is the right and lawful thing which would be to:

– pay back what I have paid including the interest

– put me back into the financial position that I would have been in to date

Unfortunately no amount of money is going to be able to buy time, or a family, or love, or mental health but what it can do is help me move on in life. To do the things which my family missed out on due to the Post Office’s wrongful actions.”

The video of Chirag’s full evidence and the transcript will be posted on the inquiry website – it usually appears within 48 hours.

I will be speaking to Chirag at St John’s Church in Farncombe, Surrey, tomorrow evening (18 March). More information can be found here.

Compensation