• Horizon Remote Access 2016-style

    Sue Edgar at the inquiry

    Sue Edgar is Chair of the National Federation of Subpostmasters and a serving Subpostmaster. Her story is fascinating. The evidence she gave to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry on the afternoon of Fri 4 March will undoubtedly be seen as significant for a number of reasons, but I would like to focus on what she said about remote access to Subpostmaster branch accounts.

    By 2016, the Subpostmasters’ campaign for justice was well known to the Post Office and the National Federation of Subpostmasters. Remote access to the Horizon IT system was a live issue.

    In order to maintain confidence in the integrity of its prosecutions (and sackings/asset recovery processes), the Post Office had to convince everyone that Subpostmasters were in sole control of their accounts.

    After all, if someone else had access to them through the Horizon system back-end, particularly if that access could not be detected, then they were not in sole control of their accounts. If that was the case, it was a little unfair to criminally prosecute them. More than a little unfair, in fact.

    In 2015 three Post Office executives stated, on the record, to a Panorama producer:

    “It is 100% true to say we can’t change, alter or modify existing transaction data, so the integrity is 100% preserved.”

    The Panorama producer checked: “And that’s true now, and has been for the duration of the system?”

    To which the Post Office execs answered an unequivocal “Yes.

    This was not true. Proving it was not true would require a multimillion pound High Court case which eventually went to trial in 2018.

    But in 2016, according to her evidence on 4 March 2022, Sue Edgar and a fellow Subpostmaster called Ann were invited to Fujitsu HQ. And this is what Mrs Edgar said happened:

    “They were showing us what the Horizon would do and what it couldn’t do after a conference one year… and we went and we were looking round and we were saying, ‘Oh, so this is where you do whatever, and this is where you write the programmes’, and what have you.

    And then they took us into another room that we weren’t allowed to discuss because we shouldn’t have been in there apparently and this guy was showing us … so we said, ‘What do you do?’ He said, ‘Oh, I go through the systems and blah, blah’.

    I can’t really exactly say what he said but he said, ‘Look, I can get into every Post Office in the land, I can get into their system’, and Ann and I just looked at each other and he said, ‘I’ll show you’. What he did, he said, ‘There, look what I’m doing’, and he went into a postmaster’s stock unit and he took I can’t remember the amount but he took some Euros out of that guy’s stock unit, and our jaws just dropped to the floor, and we were looking at each other and said:

    ‘But won’t he be short now? Are you putting them back in?’

    ‘Oh no, I’ll put them back in tomorrow.’

    ‘Right. Well, what happens if it’s his trading period or he wants to balance?’

    ‘Well, he’ll be short but they’ll be back tomorrow and he’ll find them tomorrow.’

    And we said – ‘But you can’t do that’ – it was wrong.

    ‘Oh no, no, it’s okay, it’s okay. I’ll put them back tomorrow.’

    Now, we left that night and got on the train to come home but we didn’t know if he’d put them back in and whether that postmaster was right or whether he balanced right or he balanced short.

    People used to say they could do that and I said ‘no’, but I used to say ‘there will be a back door’, I mean even though I’m not techie I knew there must be a back door into a system because every computer has that and I did mention this to… I can’t remember exactly the date but we think it was about 2016 and I mentioned this to my contracts manager.

    I mentioned it to a couple of people that were in the Federation at the time who were higher than me, because I was just at the branch secretary then, and they more or less – especially Post Office, they just fobbed me off with: ‘No, he was just carrying on. He was just like showing off. He can’t do that. He’s just like telling you that. Because you don’t understand he’s just saying that’. But we actually saw it. Two of us saw it at the time and, to be honest, it was a topic of conversation all the way home.”

    You can watch Mrs Edgar’s saying the above here, (thanks to Tim Brentnall):

    Rudkin re-run

    Not only is Mrs Edgar’s evidence extraordinary in itself, it almost exactly echoes the experience of Michael Rudkin, a former NFSP exec, who visited Fujitsu HQ for a look-see at the Horizon system in 2008. Here are the relevant passages about this episode from my book:

    “Rudkin was met at Fujitsu reception by a friendly chap called Martin Rolfe, who signed him in, gave him a guest pass and took him on a little tour of the building. This concluded at Rolfe’s own office space.

    Martin introduced Michael to one of his colleagues, who didn’t take well to a Fed exec being in his place of work. ‘He was rude and rather negative,’ said Michael. Martin engineered a swift exit. ‘He said, “Let’s get out of here. Come with me, Michael.” As though I was his long lost friend.’

    The two men went through several secure doors which needed a pin-pad entry code. As they did so, they discussed some of the issues Rudkin wanted to raise around problems with bureau de change and accounting for foreign cash.

    They went downstairs and ended up in the doorway of what Rudkin describes as ‘a boiler room. A subterranean office. All their gubbins – the air conditioning, the central heating was in that room.’

    In what sounds like some kind of bizarre dream, Rudkin told me that alongside the machinery in this boiler room, there were two desks, with two Horizon terminals sitting on them.

    The terminals were recognisably the same as the terminals Rudkin had in his own Post Office – that is, exactly the same hardware you’d find on a Post Office counter top – and they were running the same software. Four men in office-wear were present. Rolfe introduced them as ‘The Covert Operations Team.’

    As soon as the men clocked the arrival of visitors, three of them left. They were not friendly as they did so. One remained sitting at a terminal. Rolfe gestured towards the unattended Horizon terminal and said,‘This is one of the offices we have a problem with.’The man who had left the terminal in a hurry was still logged on.

    Rudkin said Rolfe was showing him the branch’s figures and told him, ‘This is the live system.’ Rudkin asked what he meant – could the figures be adjusted in real time on the system?

    According to Rudkin, Rolfe ‘made an alteration on screen to demonstrate to me that he could do that. He then reversed the transaction and he made a joke about reversing the transaction, otherwise the office would not balance.’

    Rudkin challenged him. ‘I said, “Have you just altered the bureau de change figures in that branch?” and he said “Yeah.”’

    Rudkin was aghast. ‘I said to him, “For years, we’ve been told that you do not have remote access into Post Office branch accounts.”’

    Rolfe seemed to think it was a bit of a joke. Rudkin didn’t, asking in that rather intimidating baritone, ‘What the fuck is going on here?’

    Rudkin told me he could not be escorted out of the building quickly enough.”

    The day after Mr Rudkin’s visit to Fujitsu he was suspended by the Post Office over an alleged discrepancy. Michael resigned his position on the NFSP and was systematically discredited by the organisation’s leadership (for the full story, please do buy my book).

    The point is – here was something almost identical happening to another Subpostmaster, eight years later.

    As Mrs Edgar states – she mentioned this experience to the Post Office via her contracts manager, and to her NFSP superiors. Everyone denied it.

    What was going on in there?

    You can watch Ms Edgar’s evidence in full here, or read the full transcript of it here.

  • “She didn’t even have the guts”

    For obvious reasons I have spent many hours dealing with sacked and convicted Subpostmasters, rather than those still working.

    David Hartley at the Inquiry

    The evidence given to the Post Office Inquiry has come from both serving and former Postmasters. I am currently watching the focus group session on the afternoon of Fri 4 March – particularly because of some social media interest in what the Chair of the National Federation of Subpostmasters, Sue Edgar, told the inquiry about remote access to Horizon, the Post Office’s disastrous IT system.

    I haven’t got to the relevant bit yet, but before I do, I thought it was worth putting up a post about the evidence from David Hartley.

    David is a serving Subpostmaster at Bispham Road Post Office in Southport, Merseyside. He is an active member of the National Federation of Subpostmasters. David took on his Post Office in 2005, but before that he ran Hope Place Post Office in Nelson for sixteen years. David decided to take on a Post Office “because it’s seen as a national institution” and a “trusted brand.” He told the inquiry “I thought it was a good move and that it would settle our future together.”

    David’s disillusionment was writ large in his demeanour throughout the focus group session. He described himself as “well past retirement age… but to actually sell a post office now is nigh impossible because the word’s got out there to the general public, and naturally they don’t want to touch it with a barge pole. Would you?”

    Automated Teller Madness

    Like so many other Subpostmasters who had given evidence, David spoke clearly about the sense of abandonment he felt and how it continues to this day. The Post Office has apparently recently switched many of its cash machines (ATMs) away from Bank of Ireland to an in-house set up.

    Although the Post Office publicly denied it, ATMs have long caused huge issues for the Post Office and postmasters over the years, with Postmasters being badly trained and held liable for thousands of pounds worth of discrepancies.

    When independent forensic investigators Second Sight raised problems with accounting for cash dispensed by ATMs back in 2014 they were publicly rubbished by the Post Office who said “there is little evidence to support this view”. A year earlier, a secret report presented to the Post Office noted “losses from ATMs have been one of the major concerns.”

    Bispham Road PO and its ATMs

    So how is the Post Office managing the sensitive switch from Bank of Ireland ATMs to the new system? According to David:

    “We were sent a booklet, just a few leaves of paper actually, not even a booklet. That was the extent of the training for it. I’ve since – and I’m not on my own – experienced losses in the ATM. I’ve got a paper here that’s asking me to pay £1,426.61. That’s just come yesterday because of shortages in the ATM.”

    David welled up with tears as he described the losses he’d experienced since Horizon was introduced and the Post Office process for dealing with them:

    “The process was you put it right”, he said. “That was the end of it. There was no… it was either a black and white. There was no grey areas… If there was a shortage you put it in. You made that right… We’ve had to borrow from family members, from friends, we couldn’t even… sorry … we couldn’t even afford a pint of milk one week because we’d had to put that much money in.”

    Federal Failure

    Although David himself had been an executive officer of the National Federation of Subpostmasters (around 2012), he described the NFSP’s failure to act on Horizon:

    “We were told by the then General Secretary that we have to believe that the system is robust, even though I’ve been paying God knows how much back to the Post Office over the years from when Horizon first started. So I believed it. I thought it’s bound to be mistakes on somebody’s part. I’ve sacked staff in the past thinking they were stealing.”

    The full horror of this treatment of Subpostmasters – suspecting their employees whilst experiencing the creeping dread of their livelihoods slipping through their fingers – has to be seen in the context of Paula Vennells’ relentless drive to reduce Subpostmasters pay, which ran pretty much throughout her seven year tenure. David told the inquiry:

    “We’ve taken pay cuts as postmasters to keep the business afloat and I challenged the then chief executive officer, Paula Vennells. I stood up at conference and said, ‘Can you tell me why we are taking pay cuts and you are awarding yourself an 18 per cent pay rise of over £500,000?’

    “I said, ‘You should hang your head in shame’. She didn’t even have the guts to respond to it. She just looked at her side-kick and nodded and she stood up and said, ‘I think that’s rather personal’. Well, yes, it was rather personal. It was personal to all of us that we’re taking pay cuts.”

    Watch David’s evidence here. Read the transcript of the focus group session here. The inquiry will continue to take evidence from former and serving Subpostmasters until the end of this month.

  • “Good news” for the 555 “in the next few days”

    Paul Scully, Minister for Postal Affairs

    This scandal has been characterised by many things, but one of the most striking is the absolute relentless determination of backbench MPs and peers to hold the government to account.

    To my mind, it is a racing certainty that without consistent pressure from parliamentarians of all stripes, the government would not have made available £1bn in compensation to wronged Subpostmasters outside the High Court litigation settlement, nor would we have a statutory inquiry.

    That is not to belittle for one moment the excellent work done by campaigners, lawyers and other professional people who care about what happened or who were affected by it, but the sound and fury – particularly since the settlement in Dec 2019, has been something to report.

    Bridgen the gap

    Thursday was a case in point. Andrew Bridgen MP secured a debate. Once more the Post al Affairs minister Paul Scully was forced to the despatch box.

    Scully’s first statement spoke of compensation to the 555 Subpostmasters locked into the settlement agreement which gave them a fraction of the compensation they are owed.

    Scully again admitted:

    “It is unfair that they received less compensation than those who were not part of the case. I cannot yet report a resolution of that legally complex issue, but we are doing everything we can to address it.”

    For the Members listening, that did not cut it. Andrew Bridgen, Michael Rudkin’s MP, responded:

    “They deserve justice and adequate compensation now—not in months and years when the Department, which is partly culpable for the situation, finally gets its act together.”

    Scully replied:

    “The 555 have been pioneers in this area, and I will absolutely work at speed. I do not want this to go on a moment longer than necessary, which is why we have tried to do everything we can to short-circuit any bureaucratic processes to be able to get on and compensate everybody fairly.”

    Not good enough

    He was pressed again, this time by Kevan Jones, Tom Brown’s MP and a long-term campaigner for the Subpostmasters:

    “if the problem is the Treasury, can he not call that out now, so that we can put the fire on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure we get the funding that is needed properly to compensate these individuals? The Minister knows as well as I do that this scandal will not go away.”

    And this was when Scully came back with something new. He replied:

    “There is no single blockage in the Treasury. We are trying to work through the holistic view about where the money is coming from… We are also trying to unpick that legal settlement… That will take a few days, but I want it to take days, not months—certainly not years—and I am working as quickly as I can to get that resolution. I am really hoping that I will be able to come back to the Despatch Box and have good news for him in the next few days.” [my emphasis]

    Siobhan Baillie, Nicki Arch’s MP, caught the significance immediately:

    “I was going to press him on a timeline, but I think he said days, not weeks or months. Will that be the case…?”

    Scully backtracked slightly:

    “I am working at pace and need to give myself a little bit of leeway, but it is days or weeks—it certainly will not be a moment longer than is necessary to put these people out of their misery and give them compensation and justice.”

    David Davis got to his feet and, describing himself as “a long-term Whitehall hand”, said:

    “I see the symptoms of a Minister caught between the jaws of the Treasury and Whitehall lawyers. Lawyers do not always deliver justice and the Treasury rarely does. What I will say to him is this: nobody deserves justice more than the 555. They opened up the worst miscarriage of justice in modern Government. If it helps him in his battle to get this done quickly and properly, I will say this to him: if he cannot do it, we will find a way of having this House instruct the Government to do it. Let him use that in his battle with the Treasury and the lawyers.”

    Scully rather limply responded: “any pressure will be gratefully received.”

    But anyone watching will now know that the jig is finally up. The civil servants and lawyers at the Treasury and BEIS will no longer be able to keep blocking fair compensation to those who deserve it most. Parliament is simply not going to let them.

    You can read the full debate here, which I recommend, as it is relatively short. Or watch it here on parliament.tv

    So – it looks as if the 555 civil litigant claimants can expect to be hearing some welcome news, and soon.

    Addendum

    A couple of weeks back, Paul Scully tweeted that he was reading my book, which was good to know. On Thursday, (possibly because he is finding it difficult to put down?) he brought it into the House of Commons debating chamber. Given that less than twelve months ago this book had only just been commissioned and lived as nothing more than an idea inside the laptop on which I am currently typing, please forgive me for having a little moment when I saw it nestling there by the despatch box. I hope lots more powerful people read it, and I hope it has an effect.

  • “They never want the truth to come out.”

    Lesley and Malcolm Simpsom

    Malcolm Simpson was a Subpostmaster at Boxgrove Post Office near Chichester, West Sussex. Malcolm came to the inquiry on 24 Feb with his wife Lesley (pictured above).

    Malcolm and Lesley bought Boxgrove village shop in 2003. It had a Post Office counter which was run completely separately by the incumbent Subpostmaster. The Subpostmaster left in 2007 and although he was reluctant to do so, Malcolm said it was the “logical step” for him to take over.

    After inadequate off-site group training (during which Malcolm said none of the trainees could balance correctly) he was let loose on Horizon in his branch.

    A Post Office trainer came in to monitor Malcolm’s account balance at Boxgrove at the end of his first trading period. He was £150 down. According to Malcolm, the trainer “said ‘oh that’s the way it is. Go and get the money out of the shop till to balance’ as if it was normal.”

    Malcolm’s problems continued. Discrepancies arose which he had to make good – losing £12,000 in the process. He was eventually suspended and sacked in 2012 after his third audit, which found an alleged stock discrepancy of £4820. He was threatened with criminal prosecution if he did not make good this and his other accumulated discrepancies.

    Malcolm was relatively calm as he described the way the Post Office had methodically gone about destroying his business, his life and his health. He tried to explain how he felt now, saying:

    “I’m a bit broken… cautious and scared. I’ve always been somebody who respects authority and expects people to treat you as you treat them. The Post Office… don’t care about anybody, and that makes you anxious and scared all the time when you’re working for them… and there’s no support. They don’t care… you’re just a number, and I couldn’t cope with that. I’ve always worked in teams and with people who there’s mutual respect and there just wasn’t any of that and it just grinds you down… [he breaks down]… you feel so alone. And so… I’m not as confident as I was.”

    Malcolm has had two strokes, brought on by stress. During his evidence he paid tribute to Lesley, calling her the “strongest person I know”.

    Before he finished, Malcolm gave a written statement to the inquiry. It is a powerful cri de coeur which goes to the heart of this whole scandal. Afterwards the inquiry chair, Sir Wyn Williams, paid tribute to this “formidable speech”. As he left the witness seat, I asked Malcolm if I could have what he had written. He very kindly gave me his handwritten papers. I have transcribed his words below:

    Malcolm Simpson’s oral statement to the inquiry

    “These people take away your sense of worth and your sense of self. There is no need to invest in the individual, to nurture and develop. No desire or culture to help people grow, to make them feel valued.

    Instead there are just lies, indifference, aggression, all take. Demands for total loyalty to the brand and blind acceptance the Post Office is always right.

    The reality is the complete opposite. The only people within the whole Post Office structure who are held accountable for every action, every stamp and every penny are Subpostmasters. And that accountability is managed by a totally corrupt computer system which is not fit for purpose. And a system that is policed by a corrupt hierarchy who spout the party line over and over – “Horizon is robust and works very well”, “You are the only person in the whole network who is having problems.” – Nigel Allen [Malcolm’s Contracts Manager] told me that.

    Auditors arrive, turn your business into a crime scene, provide no written evidence, get the Contracts Manager on the phone after just one-and-a half hours and his first statement is: “Well – you need to resign.”

    When I reacted to this he just hung up – he knew he didn’t have to argue with me – everything is stacked in his favour. He knows I am going to crash and burn. After all, Subpostmasters are totally expendable.

    You are belittled by the whole process, you can’t prove your side of the argument, you can’t defend yourself, there is no support, no honest fair process, you are alone.

    It’s too much for many. You feel abandoned, tainted and that is what they want. A quick call, grab some money, move on to the next victim. Leaving heartache, anguish and devastation in their wake.

    If you’re lucky, and I was, someone steps up, trusts you and guides you through to the calm times. They carry the whole burden until you recover. Eventually you dig in, start afresh, reinvent and move on. But the hurt and pain is always there, buried deep, suppressed, but always eating away.

    After a stroke you are known as a ‘stroke survivor’. I’m lucky enough to consider myself a Post Office survivor as well – but they damaged me and tried to damage my self, my worth, my family, my business and my community.

    What do I want from the the Post Office?

    – Significant compensation paid to all victims including the 555 [claimants in the Bates v Post Office litigation] now. Plus the costs that are owed to the 555. It will never bring back loved ones lost or replace all the lost years but it will allow every victim to move forward with some sense of security and with less stress, anxiety and hurt.

    – Post Office to start behaving with honesty and integrity. Providing full and open disclosure going forward. They will never extinguish the deeply embedded toxic culture that still exists until there is root and branch change. This change will only come through closing this devastating chapter fully, by coming clean and admitting all the lies and exposing all the guilty at all levels of the organisation.

    I fear for this inquiry in the long run, because the actions of the Post office previously all show that they will do anything at any cost to protect themselves. The civil case [Bates v Post Office group litigation] was fought in the most aggressive manner by Post Office and when they attempted to recuse Judge Fraser and tarnish his reputation, it showed everyone how low they are prepared to go.

    Be careful, Sir Wyn, and your colleagues here at the inquiry. Post Office will try every underhand, dishonest and evil tactic to destroy any threat and they have powerful friends who will back them all the way. They never want the truth to come out. I fear for all your reputations and well being.

    Messrs. Scully [Postal Affairs Minister], Kwarteng [Business Secretary] and Read [Post Office Chief Executive], through your delaying and blocking of proper compensation for all the victims of this scandal you are as guilty and complicit as [Paula] Vennells, [Angela] van den Bogerd, Elaine Ridge and Nigel Allen and all the others who bullied and terrorised so many.

    Sort it out now – do the decent thing for once and put the victims first.”


    After putting Mr Simpson’s statement on twitter, I went to Derbyshire, where I had been invited to read from my book in a pub (the Royal Oak in Ockbrook – see below). There was a member of the 555 present (Tracy McFadden, who spoke very movingly), several serving Subpostmasters, a CPS lawyer, a police officer, a lawyer representing 11 convicted former Subpostmasters and two senior Post Office executives. I finished by reading Malcolm’s statement to the room, and I will continue to read it at every event I go to.

    The Royal Oak function room
  • Numbers Matter

    The number of people affected by the Horizon scandal is a question news editors used to ask me and journalists used to ask themselves when trying to get some kind of handle on scale of this story. This was in the bad old days when the Post Office refused to give out information and no one else had a record of it.

    Alan Bates from the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance always had a perceptive view of the likely scale. In our very first conversation in 2010 he told me the number of people affected could be “the high hundreds, possibly more”. I thought that sounded unlikely.

    Computer Weekly’s seminal 2009 article which broke the story featured seven people.

    The Welsh-language Taro Naw documentary strand, which broadcast its first investigation the same year, found a further 29.

    By the time I did my first investigation for the BBC in 2011, that number had expanded to 55.

    Then, in 2013, the Post Office’s own Complaint and Mediation scheme attracted the hitherto unimaginable figure of 150.

    In 2017, at the first open hearing of the High Court litigation, we were told that 198 people had signed up as claimants. This included people who had been forced to hand over money and/or been sacked, as well as those who had been prosecuted and convicted.

    By the time the group litigation at the High Court began in 2018, there were more than 500 claimants. Of those claimants 74 had been prosecuted and 61 had criminal convictions.

    It was only after the claimants had secured their stunning victory at the High Court that the true scale of the scandal became apparent. In April 2020 the Post Office told me it was looking at “around 500 additional cases … which resulted in convictions.”

    That was the moment the doors were blown off. We knew there were 500+ people involved in the civil litigation – ie people who had lost money over the scandal, but now the Post Office was fessing up to “around 500criminal convictions using Horizon evidence.

    This admission came at the same time thousands of people were dying of a horrible virus, which rightly dominated the news agenda. I passed the figure to the excellent Tom Witherow at the Daily Mail. He and his editor were equally astounded, but given what was going on in the world, we were lucky it made p27.

    On 25 May 2020 we were told the Post Office was “reviewing” 900 prosecutions since 1999, then, in April 2021 we were given the final reckoning – the Post Office believed 736 convictions between 2000 and 2013 might be unsafe . This briefly increased to 738 convictions between 2000 and 2015, but in the last couple of weeks the Post Office has settled on a number of 706.

    The number has reduced from 736 “as further information was received during the work” the Post Office is doing to investigate prosecutions based on Horizon IT evidence.

    Of these 706 “94… have now been through the appeal Courts” with “71 convictions overturned and 23 dismissed/abandoned/refused permission” (the 72nd conviction which was overturned was a DWP prosecution based on Post Office Horizon IT evidence).

    On 11 January the Post Office chief executive told Parliament that 736 convictions were unsafe. If the Post Office is now saying it believes 706 convictions might be unsafe, of which 23 are unlikely to be overturned, we are down to the high six hundreds.

    Getting the numbers right matters, as is remembering that every number represents a person and a family being put through hell. The fact these figures are still in “the high hundreds” is almost insane. And that’s before you begin to count the thousands of Postmasters who weren’t prosecuted, but who were still forced to hand over money to cover the holes in their branch accounts. Many of these individuals lost their life savings. Some were sacked anyway, losing their business investment and livelihoods.

    I’m rather glad there is going to be a statutory inquiry, so we can at last begin to understand how this happened.

    NB – all the unlinked stats above are referenced in my book, which is available below.

  • Recusal Top Dog Revealed

    Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court. Pic copyright the Royal Society

    One of the most extraordinary episodes in the Bates v Post Office group litigation was the Post Office’s attempt in March 2019, in the middle of the Horizon trial at the High Court, to have the managing judge, Mr Justice Fraser, recuse himself on the grounds his first (Common Issues) trial judgment was somehow biased.

    During the recusal hearing, which took place in April 2019, the Post Office’s QC, Lord Grabiner – a true legal Big Dog – told Mr Justice Fraser:

    “This is regarded as an extremely serious application to be making. It was made at board level within the client and it also involved the need for me to be got up to speed from a standing start. And I am not the only judicial figure or barrister that has looked at this… It has also been looked at by another very senior person before the decision was taken to make this application.”

    The hitherto unnamed “judicial figure or barrister” involved in the recusal attempt was Lord (David) Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, now Lord Grabiner’s colleague at One Essex Court chambers. This information has been confirmed to me in a much-delayed answer to a Freedom of Information request I made in November last year. The delay was due to the Post Office deciding whether or not it was in the public interest to tell me.

    The shadowy “judicial figure” has always been the subject of intense speculation in the legal and political world, not least because almost everyone I spoke to thought the recusal attempt during the Horizon trial was both morally illegitimate and deeply cynical.

    Every legally-qualified person I spoke to variously thought the recusal attempt was desperate, doomed to fail and/or little more than a delaying tactic. And let’s be clear what it was delaying – justice. It prolonged the agony for hundreds of people who had their lives materially changed for the worse by the Post Office.

    “Absurd” application

    At the time the application to recuse Mr Justice Fraser was made, Patrick Green, the claimants’ QC, told the court it was “likely – if not calculated – to derail these proceedings.”

    Once the application got to the Court of Appeal it was given the contempt it deserved. Lord Justice Coulson described it as “misconceived”, “fatally flawed”, “untenable” and “absurd.”

    Coulson set out his findings in some detail over 19 pages, but emphasised he was only doing so “because of the volume and nature of the criticisms which have been made and the importance of the group litigation to both parties.”

    He made it clear he was not giving such a detailed ruling “because of the merits of the application itself,” which he said was “without substance.”

    Lord Coulson added:

    “It is a great pity that the recusal application and this application for permission to appeal have had the effect of delaying the conclusion of the critical Horizon sub-trial. Indeed, the mere making of these applications could have led to the collapse of that sub-trial altogether. Although I can reach no concluded view on the matter, I can at least understand why the [claimants] originally submitted on 21 March that that was its purpose.”

    Neuberger’s involvement

    Given the opprobrium heaped by all sides on the recusal application, one wonders why on earth Neuberger got involved. He must have known how his seniority would be weaponised.

    Lord Grabiner’s statement that he was “not the only judicial figure or barrister that has looked at this” was careful and deliberate. Fraser was being warned off.

    In his rejection of the recusal application, Lord Justice Coulson said:

    “Such a comment, presumably made in terrorem, should not have been made at least without proper explanation of its relevance.”

    It wasn’t explained. It was left hanging there. Well – at least we now know who it is.

  • A Lot of Criminals in Society

    Paula Vennells, Chirag Sidhpura, Jeremy Hunt MP

    In 2017, the Farncombe Subpostmaster, Chirag Sidhpura, was sacked over a £57,000 discrepancy at his Post Office branch. Chirag’s case was taken up by his MP, Jeremy Hunt, and the campaigner Eleanor Shaikh.

    In a recent newsletter to constituents, Jeremy Hunt wrote:

    “In 2017 the tail end of one of the biggest miscarriages in British legal history struck at the core of Farncombe, devastating the life of our ex Sub-Postmaster Chirag Sidhpura and his family.

    “Chirag was accused of stealing £57,000 on account of a faulty IT system, just as Post Office Directors were gearing up to fight 555 ex-sub-postmasters at the High Court who all faced a similar fate to Chirag: some were convicted, bankrupted, imprisoned; others lost homes, marriages, their sanity or their lives.

    “I remember meeting the then Post Office CEO Paula Vennells about Chirag’s case – she looked me in the eye and said chillingly I just needed to accept there were a lot of criminals in society even amongst sub-postmasters.”

    The inference, I think, is clear. I have written to Ms Vennells’ legal representatives to see if she has a different recollection of events.

    Chirag was never prosecuted. In fear of losing his job, he borrowed the money to cover the £57,000 hole in his accounts and paid it to the Post Office. He was sacked anyway. You can read more detail about Chirag’s situation here. Maybe Ms Vennells believes she is privy to more information than Chirag has given me, but if the Post Office thinks Mr Sidhpura is a thief, it should say so. If it doesn’t, they should give him his job back and return the £57,000. It is wholly unacceptable that this has still not been resolved.

    On 18 March at St John’s Church in Farncombe, South West Surrey, I am doing a book reading/signing and Q&A. I hope it will serve to highlight Chirag’s situation and I do hope you can come along. Tickets are available here – one option includes a free signed book.

    My thanks to Eleanor for her efforts in organising the event and also for spotting the above paragraph in Jeremy Hunt’s email newsletter.

  • The Whites of Their Eyes

    Howe and Co sit down with BEIS officials to see just how serious the government is about compensation

    On 19 January 2022 a meeting was held between officials from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and three lawyers from Howe and Co, who represent 146 Subpostmasters at the Statutory Inquiry into the Post Office Horizon IT disaster.

    The meeting had been called by Howe and Co on the back of some vague promises by the Postal Affairs Minister Paul Scully that he was going to “continue to work” with Alan Bates and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance to see what can be done to properly compensate the 555 Subpostmasters who took the Post Office to the High Court and blew the scandal wide open.

    Though the Subpostmasters won the case in December 2019, it finished in a settlement which saw them receive £57.75m, all but £12m of which was swallowed by legal and litigation funder success fees.

    Immediately following the settlement of the litigation, Alan Bates, the founder of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance issued the government with an invoice for the remaining £46m. It was refused.

    Bates has been fighting the government for that money ever since, turning his campaign into a Parliamentary Ombudsman complaint in December 2020 and escalating the claim to £300m in the process, which he said properly reflected what the 555 had actually lost.

    Post Office CEO swaps sides

    Nick Read, Post Office CEO

    Things took an interesting twist in April last year, when Nick Read, the Post Office Chief Executive, signalled he also thought the Bates v Post Office litigation settlement which he had negotiated was unfair. Claiming ignorance of the litigation funding system, Read said of the settlement:

    “it has only become apparent through various news reports since quite how much of the total appears to have been apportioned to the claimants’ lawyers and funders”

    Read called on the government to “ensure that all Postmasters affected by this scandal are compensated and compensated quickly.”

    This meant that both men who had signed the settlement agreement which ended Bates v Post Office now thought it was no longer fit for purpose. The government had other ideas. Since assuming his post in early 2020, the Postal Affairs minister Paul Scully has been telling anyone who would listen that the compensation received by the 555 was “full and final“. This mantra has been dented by:

    – the sustained sound and fury coming from backbench MPs and peers who have relentlessly held the government’s feet to the fire on this

    – Alan Bates’ focus on grinding away at the government via any avenue open to him, including making a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and lobbying the Statutory Inquiry to cover the issue

    – the background threat of legal action against the government for its part in the Horizon scandal

    How far we’ve come

    It is worth bearing in mind that in the months after the Bates v Post Office settlement, not only was the government not proposing any further discussion about compensation for the 555, it was not even considering a review of what went wrong. On 25 February 2020, the BEIS minister Lord Callanan told peers there will be:

    “a series of quarterly meetings between the CEO and Ministers, to make sure that we put in place all the appropriate accountability that is required.”

    Paul Scully, BEIS minister for Postal Affairs

    That was it. By spring 2020, the BEIS minister Paul Scully was promising the government was committed to establishing “an independent review”. This was formally announced in June 2020 and became statutory nearly a year later on the request of its chair after the April 2021 finding at the Court of Appeal which ruled the indiscriminate criminal prosecution of Subpostmasters on the basis of untested IT evidence was a bad idea.

    The only other thing to note is that the JFSA (which effectively is Alan Bates, advised by forensic accountant Kay Linnell) doesn’t appear to be working directly with Howe and Co any more, despite Alan encouraging his followers to sign up with them in May last year.

    Matters seem to have come to a head over how explicit the issue of compensation was in the terms of the Statutory Inquiry. Bates did not think they were explicit enough, Howe and Co felt they were. Bates has since withdrawn the JFSA as a core participant to the Inquiry (but agreed to co-operate with it), leaving Howe and Co representing those Subpostmasters (many of them JFSA “members”) who wish to remain core participants.

    Is that all clear? Good.

    So what happened on Wednesday, then?

    According to a briefing note sent to Howe and Co’s 146 Subpostmaster clients, the meeting was attended by BEIS officials and David Enright, Martin Howe and John Sheridan, all from Howe and Co. Mr Enright told the BEIS reps that Paul Scully had already said that the Bates v Post Office settlement:

    “was “not equitable” (i.e. not fair).”

    David Enright from Howe and Co

    The note goes on to say:

    “Mr Enright also reminded the BEIS representatives that the Minister had told the Committee that “[compensation of subpostmasters] is by far and away the most pressing issue in my list of responsibilities as minister”. Mr Enright stated that subpostmasters wanted the Minister’s words translated into deeds without further delay.”

    But how?

    “We advised that the legal and legal funding costs could simply be returned to Freeths LLP (solicitors who conducted the Group Litigation against Post Office). They, with the assistance of the JFSA Steering Committee, could distribute those monies efficiently. It is our view that Freeths and the JFSA Steering Committee would be best placed to distribute the legal and legal funding costs, if repaid, as they conducted the litigation and handled the distribution of the settlement funds in the first instance.”

    It goes on:

    “We emphasised that Howe + Co have not sought any monies from subpostmasters for our work in persuading the Department for Business and Post Office Limited to return the legal and legal funding costs to the claimants in the Group Litigation. However, we emphasised that it was a priority that these monies be returned to our clients and the other group litigants.”

    Unfortunately the BEIS mandarins listening to this did not have any authority to make any agreement with Howe and Co over compensating their clients. So what now? The note continues:

    “Following the meeting, we briefed the Steering Committee of the JFSA on the outcome of the meeting. We also briefed Freeths [the claimants’ solicitors in Bates v Post Office] of the conduct and outcome of that meeting, who were grateful for the work we had done on this vital issue. We understand that Freeths and the Steering Committee of the JFSA will be meeting the BEIS officials that we met with in the near future.”

    Now that is interesting. The Howe and Co brieing note concludes:

    “We have done all we can to lay the groundwork for that further meeting and to create a positive attitude from BEIS and the Minister in taking what will be a highly unusual step of effectively re-opening a full and final settlement where BEIS understands costs were provided for within the settlement agreement. It will now be for the Steering Committee of JFSA and Freeths to provide BEIS with information and assurances to build on the groundwork we have done to secure repayment of part or whole of the legal and funding costs for the 555.”

    Alan Bates, JFSA founder

    Cynically speaking, you could say that it has taken two years and huge amounts of energy on the part of dozens of parliamentarians, campaigners and lawyers to get to the point where unelected government mandarins with no authority to make decisions have finally indicated they are willing to have a meeting with Alan Bates and Kay Linnell, and… er… that’s it.

    On the other hand, it does seem as if some serious and well-informed people believe that things are progressing in the right direction.

    Alan Bates has already announced he is looking for new legal representatives to sue the government (“we have an open contract available to any law firm that wants to pick up our case to have the settlement agreement set aside”), and it may be the mere threat of this is enough to keep officials talking.

    Even if the government think they have a watertight case, it wouldn’t exactly look great if they decided they were going to let things go back to the High Court, this time in the full glare of the UK’s media.

  • The £1bn Disaster

    I recently got a call from a parliamentary friend – not an MP, but someone who works with MPs. He pointed me in the direction of a website I had never come across before. It lists grants made by the government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS – which “owns” the Post Office) .

    The thinking behind the Subsidy Transparency Database is written up here. The entry I was being alerted to was here. It states the following:

    Subsidy scheme namePost Office Historical Matters Compensation
    PurposeRescue aid
    Legal basisS103 Postal Services Act 2000
    Subsidy typeDirect Grant

    A direct grant in rescue aid to the Post Office, you say? How interesting.

    What the web page doesn’t state is the amount handed over. To find that, you have to go here, and search for it. You need to search the specific company name – “Post Office Limited” (don’t shorten “Limited” to “Ltd” or you won’t get anywhere), and tick “Select all” on the next three pages. When it asks if you are looking for subsidies within a specific date, select “No” and then, finally, you get this:

    Yes, that is correct. On 20 December last year, BEIS quietly awarded the Post Office £685,600,000 in “Rescue Aid” to help compensate Subpostmasters.

    Mystifyingly, this gigantic sum was not mentioned on 15 Dec 2021 on the floor of the House of Commons when BEIS minister Paul Scully announced the grant, saying:

    “The Government have been working with the Post Office to agree funding to facilitate the Post Office making final compensation payments to postmasters. As I announced in a written ministerial statement to the House yesterday, the Government have now agreed to provide funding for that purpose. We are working with the Post Office to enable the final settlement negotiations to begin as soon as possible.”

    Something you want to tell us, lads?

    It is also mystifying that neither Scully, nor the two senior civil servants who sat either side of him (Carl Cresswell and Tom Cooper) at the BEIS Select Committe hearing on Tuesday 11 Jan 2022 elected to mention this £685m compensation grant to MPs, when compensation was exactly what the committee was there to discuss.

    Fool me thrice

    If you follow the search criteria as outlined above, you will see this is a trick BEIS has pulled before. The next entry on the results page is another Direct Grant in “Rescue Aid” to the Post Office, this time for a mere £94,400,000. This is the sum quietly allocated to the Post Office back in July 2021 when the government announced the Interim Compensation Scheme, offering £100,000 to each Subpostmaster whose conviction had been quashed. Again, at the time, no mention of the size of the grant was made in parliament or any press release, and the figure passed all of us by.

    The third entry – a cool £233m – is the sum agreed to cover the Historical Shortfall Scheme. The total value of claims to the scheme had exceeded £300m by July last year, but on 11 January this year, Tom Cooper told MPs he thought the total cost of the scheme would not be much more than £153m, though whether he was talking just about the total compensation or overall cost of the scheme was not clear.

    Whatever the final cost of the Historical Shortfall scheme, the Post Office Horizon IT disaster is now a fully-fledged £1bn scandal.

    During the select committee hearing on 11 Jan, Post Office CEO Nick Read told MPs the Post Office had already spent “in excess” of £300m fighting, litigating and belatedly compensating Subpostmasters – this sum includes the £100m+ spent on the disastrous High Court litigation, which ended with 555 claimants being given a relatively paltry £57.75m in compensation (£46m of which went on legal and litigation funder success fees).

    If you disregard the sum allocated to the Historical Shortfall Scheme, but add Mr Read’s £300m+ to the £94.4m and £685.6m handed over in July and December you have a cool £1.08bn+ chalked towards the Horizon scandal, and that’s before you go down the route of providing proper compensation to the 555 civil litigation claimants – something Mr Scully has said is “by far and away the most pressing issue in my list of responsibilities as a minister.”

    Rose to our attention

    My thanks are due to my parliamentary mole, who was surprised by the size of the grant and astounded that neither the minister nor his civil servants saw fit to mention it to the BEIS select committee on 11 Jan.

    My source said that he in turn is grateful to a public sector advisory lawyer by the name of Alexander Rose (see below), who brought the Subsidy Transparency Database to the attention of those us interested in this scandal in a tweet to Darren Jones MP.

    Thank you, Mr Rose.

    Addendum: since publishing this blog post, BEIS have been in touch to say the sums described above have been “set aside for potential use”, not spent, and that much of the final total “will be dependent on the number of convictions quashed by the courts,” adding “final compensation amounts will be based on individual circumstances.”

    BEIS also tell me that the estimated £153m cost of the Historical Shortfall Scheme just covers the actual compensation, not its overall cost.

    Notes: the initial version of this blog post only contained information about the two “Rescue Aid” direct grants made by the government to the Post Office last year. An eagle-eyed secret emailer spotted the “Employment” [?!] grant of £233m, allocated towards the Historical Shortfall Scheme. I am grateful. If you’d like to receive the secret email newsletters, please see below.

    Addendum 2: Karl Flinders has been in touch to point out he broke this story in the pages of Compuer Weekly well before this blog post was published, something he does with stunning regularity. Happy to give credit where due. Go read his brilliant piece.

  • Read Admits All 736 Post Office Convictions Are Unsafe

    Nick Read, rendered in glorious Parliamentary Potatovision

    I am not going to attempt to rehash the entire BEIS select committee hearing earlier today as you can still watch it in full here and you can read the transcript here.

    If you want a blow-by-blow account you can read my live-tweets, carefully collated into a single, readable web-page by the brilliant thread reader app here.

    The news lines which came out of the sessions (in my mind, anyway) are:

    1) Nick Read describing all the 736 convictions of Subpostmasters (prosecuted at a rate of one a week between 2000 and 2013) as “unsafe”. Up till now we knew the Post Office considered Horizon to be an element in the prosecution of these cases, and we knew the PO had written to 640 of the 736, inviting them to appeal the convictions.

    Now we know that there were 950 convictions between 2000 (when Horizon arrived) and 2015 when the Post Office finally stopped prosecuting (it all but stopped in 2013, but prosecuted two more in 2015, none in 2014) and that the Post Office believes 736 are unsafe. That’s a big deal and the longer just 72 of them have had their convictions overturned the more pressure there will be on the Post Office to find the remainder and help them get their convictions quashed and compensation paid.

    2) The Post Office has spent “in excess” £300m fighting Subpostmasters (legal fees) settling with them and administering the claims process. I am not sure if this figure includes the Post Conviction Disclosure Exercise (which involved solicitors and 60 barristers examining more than 14 million documents for a year) or the legal fees at the Court of Appeal. I suspect it does.

    3) The government has spent £5.7m handing out interim compensation to 57 Subpostmasters whose convictions have been quashed.

    4) The government believes the Historical Shortfall Scheme will only cost them £153m in compensation (a previous estimate of £311m was recorded by BEIS here and reported by me here). There is a tiny bit of wiggle room – that £311m figure may have included operating costs, and the £153m doesn’t, but nonetheless it is much lower than the original estimate – though still 5x higher than the Post Office’s first estimate of a couple of hundred applicants and a cost of £35m (more on that here).

    The number of successful applicants to the HSS has been confirmed at 2500 with a further 122 who have come forward after the scheme’s closure date (it was open from 1 May 2020 to 14 August 2020 with a limited extension period under “special circumstances” until 27 November 2020). To date only 777 offers have been made under the scheme (and anecdotally these are mainly smaller claims), but Nick Read said he wants 50% of applicants to have received an offer by the end of March and 95% by the end of the year. The minister, Paul Scully, added he wants it to be 100%.

    Paul Scully, from an equally good camera

    5) Paul Scully told MPs that he was meeting with lawyers representing some of the 555 civil litigants next week. This group (for new readers) were bound by the terms of a settlement they agreed at the Post Office which gave them £57.75m. Unfortunately legal and success fees left them with £12m to share between all 555, around £21,000 each – nowhere near enough for many who had lost years of their lives and hundreds of thousands of pounds.

    I understand that one of the lawyers meeting the government next week will be David Enright from Howe and Co. Howe and Co represent 150 Subpostmasters who are core participants in the Statutory Inquiry. Of course they are not all the 555 and some of them may well not have been part of the civil litigation, which Paul Scully raised as a problem, saying:

    “It’s actually about trying to understand some fundamental things about who exactly has legal oversight for the 555 now as opposed to what happened in the original litigation. Fundamental mechanisms like that. Which are again, seemingly apparent, but as soon as you scratch the surface, there’s a whole load of questions which need to be answered, which we’ll get sorted.”

    Alan Bates, founder of the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, and the only Subpostmaster to sign the civil litigation settlement agreement on behalf of the 555, recently announced he was seeking legal representation to sue the government after parting ways with Howe and Co. Let’s hope he signs a firm up soon.

    6) Finally, a striking comment from Paul Scully in specific reference to proper compensation for the 555. He told the committee:

    “Now the pandemic is starting to move towards the next stage this is by far and away the most pressing issue in my list of responsibilities as a minister.”

    That is the most explicit statement of intent by any member of government I have heard in the last ten years. What’s the betting Scully gets reshuffled before there is any resolution? Let’s see…

Categories

Tags

Alan Bates Amanda Burton Andrew Winn Bates v Post Office Bonusgate Brian Altman Clarke Advice Detica Disclosure Double-entry accounting False Accounts Fujitsu HCAB High Court Horizon Inquiry Ismay Report Janet Skinner Jarnail Singh John Scott Lee Castleton Lord Arbuthnot Nicki Arch Nick Read Noel Thomas Outcasts Creative Paula Vennells Paul Marshall Post Office Racist document Rebecca Thomson Receipts and Payments mismatch bug Richard Moorhead Richard Roll Rob Wilson Rod Ismay Rodric Williams Second Sight Seema Misra Simon Clarke Susan Crichton Suspense accounts Swift Review Tracy Felstead Wendy Buffrey

Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

Archives

  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021

Latest Comments

  1. Roderick Ismay FCA needs replacing with Roderick Ismay I D K * I don’t know. How these people get put…