Post Office Scandal

“This guy should never be let near a witness-box again”

Nick Wallis

Fri 17 December 2021

2 comments
17 min read
The above photo is of Dr Robert Worden, who was an expert witness for the Post Office in the Horizon trial, which was part of the Bates v Post Office group litigation. You can read about my experience of watching Dr Worden be cross-examined here, and you can read Mr Justice Fraser’s thoughts on the value of Dr Worden’s work here.

There follows, reprinted with permission, an article published yesterday by Jeremy Dawson. Jeremy lives in Australia and holds a PhD in Pure Maths and a Diploma of Law. He has spent 5 years in research and practical statistics, 3 years in legal work (deciding and litigating disputes) and spent a combined 30 years in the Australian Dept of Defence and Australian National University (ANU) – working on “correctness of software, mostly using computer programs to prove mathematical theorems, including software correctness properties.”

Jeremy is now retired, and has taken an interest in the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, most particularly, the evidence of Dr Robert Worden. He sent me his thoughts and I suggested he publish them, which he did, on the ANU’s servers, here. To make it easier to find, I have republished his article below.

I have no reason to doubt that this is anything other than Dr Dawson’s honest opinion. He doesn’t hold back.

The statistical evidence in the Bates (Horizon Issues) trial

by Jeremy Dawson

The judgment in the Bates (Horizon Issues) trial is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html.

Dr Worden’s first report (07 December 2018) to which I refer is at https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/06/horizon-trial-post-office-independent.html.

For Nick Wallis’s book, The Great Post Office Scandal, see https://bathpublishing.com/products/the-great-post-office-scandal-first.

Dr Robert Worden’s evidence

In the Horizon Issues trial, statistical analyses were provided by the Post Office’s expert witness, Dr Robert Worden. The judge, at para 805 of the judgment, quotes section 8.8.1 of Dr Worden’s report (paras 759 to 766), as follows:

760. Because Post Office has had an average of 13,560 branches over the lifetime of Horizon, the total number of monthly branch accounts has been about 3 million. 761. Therefore, if a bug like the Suspense Account bug has occurred 16 times in the lifetime of Horizon, the chance of it having occurred in any given branch in any given month is about 16 in 3 million. [omitted text refines this calculation] 762. I have considered a bug similar to the suspense account bug, which occurred about 10 times, and had a mean financial impact of about £1000 per occurrence. How many similar bugs would be needed, to give a one in ten chance of one such bug occurring, with an impact of £1000, on a particular Claimant’s branch in a particular month? 763. The answer, given by elementary arithmetic which I describe in section 8.5, is that there would need to be 50,000 of these distinct bugs. 764. So the Claimants cannot credibly assert that their shortfalls were caused by bugs in Horizon, unless there were something of the order of 50,000 such bugs.

This is complete nonsense. It like arguing in a murder trial that because the homicide rate in the UK is only 1 per 100,000 per year, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that the defendant is guilty.

This is so obviously nonsense that it may be superfluous to ask what is the flaw in the argument, but here it is. You can use his calcuation to get the probability that a randomly chosen person committed the murder in question. But the person on trial is not a person chosen randomly.

Likewise you could calculate the probability that a randomly chosen subpostmaster has been affected by a Horizon bug, or at least make a conscientious attempt to do so, as Dr Worden has done. But the subpostmasters who claim to have suffered unexplained shortfalls, possibly Horizon related, are not a randomly chosen subset.

I’m told this statistical fallacy is surprisingly common. I would hope it is not common among expert witnesses. I’m sure it’s not common among competent expert witnesses.

At this point there is not much more that needs to be said. But as I have spent so long reading the expert’s report, the transcripts and the judgment, I’m going to say some more anyway. Skip it if you like, but do jump ahead to my heading “The Suspense Account” – there are some different angles I discuss there.

Fortunately the judge gets this exactly right. I suspect not all judges would. At para 766 he says

I deal with that point in further detail below at [821] and [822] below, but this amounts to an assumption by Dr Worden that a group of SPMs who specifically allege they have experienced the effects of bugs are to be treated, in statistical terms, as though they are a random group of SPMs of the same sample size drawn from the wider population of all SPMs. They plainly are not a randomly drawn sample of nearly 600 SPMs. They are a very specific group (or sample) of those who say their branch accounts have been impacted by, or have experienced, such incidents. In statistical terms, the correct term for the group is that they have a bias – they all allege that they have experienced the effects of bugs, errors and defects.

After recounting Dr Worden’s statistical evidence (para 805) he goes into a long digression, and then (para 821) comes to the key issue:

However, the claimants are not a random sample of SPMs … As a sample, they have already been filtered or selected in that these particular SPMs already complain of bugs, defects and errors in Horizon having affected their branch accounts. This means that they are not a random sample. The way this would be expressed in statistical terms is that the claimant SPMs do not accurately represent the population of SPMs as a whole (…). The claimants are essentially self-selected, from those who believe they have experienced shortfalls and discrepancies in their accounts from the impact of bugs, errors and defects … The group has a bias, in statistical terms. They plainly cannot be treated, in statistical terms, as though they are a random group of 587 SPMs.

Exactly. But I’d add that this is such an elementary blunder that this guy should never be let near a witness-box again.

Dr Worden’s report provides some other analyses, which essentially make the same error in different ways. Assuming that bugs in Horizon are equally spread across Post Office branches and over time, and adjusted for how busy branches were, the effect of bugs on all branches would have been 160 times the effect of bugs on the claimants.

In section 8.7.9 he analyses known problems with Horizon and produces an estimate of the total effect of all bugs on Post Office branches.

I assume for this discussion that it is possible to make a plausible estimate and that he has done so. Then his assumption that the effect is equally spread over branches leads him to estimate the total effect of bugs on the claimants’ branches. This assumption is obviously unsound.

Branches may well be equally likely to be affected, based on their characteristics such as size, location, etc, so if the claimants were a randomly chosen group of postmasters then his analysis would be fine. But the set of claimants consists of people who say they have been affected – they are not a randomly chosen subset.

In section 8.8.2 he does essentially the same thing, here discussing how if bugs affected all branches equally to the claimed effect on the claimants’ branches then the Call Centre (which took calls about problems with Horizon) would have been inundated. His reasoning here has the same flaw.

In cross-examination, this issue was discussed several times.

On day 18, see the transcript at https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/06/horizon-trial-day-18-transcript.html about 80% down, or search for “Penny Black”. They agreed to assume that one person in 500,000 in the UK is a lady called Penny Black, and discussed the probability of finding one or more such at a party of 50 people. They then discussed the scenario of a party to which only people called Penny Black had been invited. Dr Worden said

“I should say generally that probability theory is what one uses in the absence of specific knowledge like you have just put to me, and that specific knowledge changes the whole ball game.”

However Dr Worden did not accept that this is relevant to his analyses about Horizon essentially because he should not assume that the claimants are correct in their stated belief that they have been adversely affected by bugs in Horizon.

This doesn’t change the fact that the claimants are not a random set of postmasters, but a self-selected sample.

But here is an analogy: since I mention coin-tossing later, I’ll do so here. Imagine a number of coins have been tossed and lying on the ground. Imagine then that someone, even somebody of doubtful honesty and worse eyesight claims to have separated out those showing a “head” (leaving them showing the same side as they fell).

So, for a coin among those which he has selected, what is the probability that it shows a head? You may not accept it as being 100% but you’re damn sure that you shouldn’t treat it as 50%!

Unless Dr Worden is saying that his opinion is based on the assumption that the claimants’ evidence is so unreliable as to be quite worthless. Now here is a legal, not a statistical, point, and one not noted in the judgment, so I may be wrong: an expert opinion, when based on a particular view of the primary facts, should say so, and if the court comes to a different view of those primary facts, then the expert opinion becomes irrelevant.

In any case, Dr Worden considers that he should disregard the claimants’ evidence, and uses this assumption to construct a statistical argument denying the validity of the claimants’ evidence, so that is a circular argument.

On day 19, see the transcript at https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/06/horizon-trial-day-19-transcript_32.html about 40% down, or search for “tweeting”. The barrister introduced a scenario similar to the Penny Black party, and then said

“I’m going to put a point to you that I’d be happy to put to my 13-year-old daughter, which is that when you look at a statistical sample the first thing you should do is look at the nature of the sample and how they were selected?”

The ensuing discussion led to Dr Worden saying

“the claimants are a self-selected sample and they selected themselves long after they suffered their shortfalls. So the point you are putting to me effectively is these people selected themselves and that somehow caused Horizon several years previously to rain bugs on them. And so the causation is completely the wrong way round between Horizon affecting the claimants and the claimants self-selecting. It doesn’t make sense.”

and later

“it [the fact that a postmaster believes that he/she has suffered in the way which is the subject of the proceedings] is not a material factor in whether Horizon during your tenure caused bugs to you.”

After a bit more on this theme, perhaps the judge sees the issue clearly, he says “I think [this sequence of cross-examination] has probably gone on long enough.”

So, is the direction of causation an issue? In a word, no. As in my murder trial analogy: the fact that the police and prosecutors have come to suspect a particular individual doesn’t cause him to commit a murder some time previously.

Or another coin-tossing example. Suppose two coins are tossed, and you are interested in the probability that both show a “head”.

A preliminary point here, on our intuitions about the notion of probability. If a coin is to be tossed in the future, then to say that there is a 50% probability that it will show a head has one meaning – most easily expressed that if you were to do it repeatedly, then half of the trials would show a head.

If a coin has already been tossed, then its probability of being a head is either 100% or 0%, you just don’t know which. To say that the probability of it being a head is 50% is a description not of the facts, but of your estimate of the facts. And then, after looking at the coin, your assessment of the facts will change, you will now say that the probability of it being a head is 100%, or it is 0%, as the case may be. (And of course your looking at the coin doesn’t cause it to be a head or not).

So now consider two coins tossed. On your knowledge at this point, the probability of both being heads is 25% (50% squared). If someone looks at the first coin and tells you that it is a head, then the probability of both being heads is now 50%. (In the theory of probability, these are the prior and posterior probabilities of Bayes’ Theorem. Using Dr Worden’s words, this new knowledge changes the whole ball game, but probability theory is nonetheless still relevant.) The probability changed, with no causation involved. Now, a second scenario, you are told that in fact the first coin tossed is a double-headed coin. Again the probability of both being heads is now 50%. Here there is causation involved, the fact of one coin being double-headed causes it to be more likely that both show heads.

But the numbers are the same in each scenario, and for the same reason. Whether causation is involved or not is irrelevant.

The Suspense Account

So what of the judge’s “long digression” (paras 810-820), before he gets to the nub of why Dr Worden’s approach is nonsense? Well, it can be put into the context of my murder trial analogy, thus:

(a) you should take into account that the homicide rate varies between male and female, young and old, and adapt your numbers to the age and sex of the accused (etc)

(b) the homicide rate may be (a lot) higher than you are actually aware of

Both points are correct, but tinker around the edges of the issue: neither point changes the fact that Dr Worden’s approach is quite unsound. Which is why I call the passage a long digression.

But it is a really interesting digression. Because on point (b), the issue is that the Post Office ran a suspense account. This consisted of all the bits of money the Post Office had, but didn’t know why it had them (or, one must infer, whether it should have them).

This really made me think WTF??? The Post Office runs an accounting system which can’t tell where all their money has come from. So why does it think that its accounting system is good enough to tell it that missing amounts of money must be the fault of the postmasters?

Maybe I’m naive: maybe this is normal in such large organizations. Page 208 of Nick Wallis’s book suggests that it would be a “miracle of finance” not to require such a suspense account. But I stand by saying that if their accounting system can’t tell why they have the money they have, then it can’t possibly be adequate to tell them why they are missing the money they are missing.

And I won’t deny that the Post Office’s accounting is probably better than my own. For example, I often find myself wondering where all the money I took out of an ATM a week ago has gone. But I don’t go making accusations of theft against the visitors to my home during that week!

There is a further point here which I myself didn’t pick up until reading Paul Marshall’s submission to the Williams Inquiry: how can they be sure that none of the amounts in the suspense account are actually the very same amounts that are missing from the subpostmasters’ accounts? If these could be the same amounts, then the Post Office was prosecuting subpostmasters for missing money which was actually in the Post Office’s hands.

This is alluded to in para 810 of the judgment (quoting the claimants)

“38. The Defendant operated one or more suspense accounts in which it held unattributed surpluses including those generated from branch accounts. After a period of 3 years, such unattributed surpluses were credited to the Defendant’s profits and reflected in its profit and loss accounts. 39. The Defendant thereby stood to benefit and/or did benefit from apparent shortfalls wrongly attributed to the Claimants which did not represent real losses to the Defendant.”

and in Nick Wallis’s book at page 381:

‘The Post Office has improperly enriched itself through the decades,’ he [Second Sight’s Ron Warmington] thundered, ‘with funds that have passed through its own suspense accounts. Had its own staff more diligently investigated in order to establish who were the rightful owners of those funds, they would have been returned to them, whether they were Post Office’s customers or its Subpostmasters. …’

This is also mentioned in a submission by Paul Marshall to the Williams Inquiry, see link to Paul-Marshall in https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/key-documents/written-submissions-november-2021 and see pg 6 item c.

Second Sight identified the existence of unattributed/unallocated funds/receipts in Post Office suspense accounts. This raises the important, indeed troubling, question as to whether the Post Office had in fact received monies for which it variously prosecuted, or pursued civil claim against, postmasters. That is an issue/question that to my knowledge remains unresolved. See further Second Sight Final Report April 2015 [at https://www.jfsa.org.uk/uploads/5/4/3/1/54312921/report_9th_april_2016.pdf (sic)] paragraphs [2.15], [2.16].

Coincidentally, an illustration from my own experience

I read Nick’s book over four days. By quite a striking coincidence, during those very four days, I received a cheque for over £18000, paid to me in error. (It was for the redemption of a share fund investment – but the same amount had also been deposited into my bank account).

I am not making this up! Even though Dr Worden’s arguments would conclude that I am, as follows (paragraph numbers are references to the analogous paragraphs in his first report):
- if the financial institution paid me double then it would most likely have paid everyone double, on average (see para 784.2)
- if the financial institution paid out everyone double, then it would fairly quickly notice the situation (see paras 785, 787-791) (this point I can accept)
- (therefore, we infer) it didn’t happen, to me or to anyone else
or, putting his argument another way
- after a lot of effort making an educated guess, say that the institution’s accounting systems suffer a glitch like this at a rate of one per 10,000 customers (or some other plausible number) and the amount of money involved (averaged over all customers) is (according to the average account size) say £3 (see paras 746-748)
- this is a tiny fraction of £18000, the amount of error I claim to have seen (see para 751)
- (therefore, we infer) it is most unlikely that this has happened to me and so I must be making this up
The bottom line of all this is obviously that it is possible for a system to make errors occasionally, and not to make them all the time.

So how do we evaluate the famous statement by Lord Hoffmann “It is notorious that one needs no expertise in electronics to be able to know whether a computer is working properly.” (DPP v. McKeown and Jones [1997] 1 WLR 295, 201 C-D, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldjudgmt/jd970220/mcke02.htm ) in the context of this incident?

Apart from the fact that this is “expert” evidence given from the bench, and so not subject to cross-examination, by a person unqualified to give such evidence, it’s just plain wrong.

Mostly the institution’s systems work fine. This will be the experience of experts in electronics and non-experts alike. Sometimes (rarely), as on this occasion, they don’t. Almost all experts and non-experts alike will be unaware of that. The tiny fraction of people affected, experts and non-experts alike will be aware of it (at least when the amount involved is £18000).

Possibly the error was triggered by unusual or idiosyncratic human input. Or possibly human error, not caught by the computer-based accounting system. Who knows? And, in the context of prosecuting people on account of such errors, so what?

ENDS
Civil litigation, IT
Compensation, Compensation, Compensation

Nick Wallis

Wed 15 December 2021

2 comments
17 min read

Tuesday 14 December 2021 was a busy day in Westminster during which three sources of compensation for three distinct groups of Subpostmasters were discussed in various parliamentary corners.

At just after 9am yesterday morning the Business (Postal Affairs) Minister Paul Scully (left) published a written statement announcing the government was going to underwrite compensation for Subpostmasters whose convictions have been quashed – or in minister-speak:

“making funding available to facilitate Post Office to make final compensation payments to postmasters whose convictions have been overturned.”

We knew the Post Office was unable to meet its compensation obligations which had arisen during the Historical Shortfall Scheme, and we knew that the government had authorised the funding of £100k interim payments to some Subpostmasters whose convictions had been quashed. Whilst it was therefore obvious that the Post Office could not meet the obligations which are likely to arise from the compensation claims of the latter group, the government had not, until yesterday, actually confirmed it was going to pick up the tab.

Scully’s statement, though, is carefully worded. He tells the House:

“We are working with Post Office to finalise the arrangements that will enable the final settlement negotiations to begin as soon as possible.”

It has been a year since some convictions have been overturned. Only now is the government announcing it is finalising arrangements to begin final negotiations. It’s clearly not in any hurry.

Scully concludes:

“With the Secretary of State’s status as sole shareholder in the Post Office, my Department continues to engage actively with Post Office Limited on this and will maintain strong oversight of the compensation process.”

This means the Post Office will be able to blame any delays on the government, and the government (as Peter Grant MP recently discovered) will be able to pass the buck for any delays back to the Post Office.

Historical Sh**show Scheme

I have been in contact with a number of applicants to the Post Office’s Historical Shortfall Scheme, none of whom seem particularly happy with it. This scheme was set up by the Post Office as part of a series of commitments in the Settlement Agreement which marked the end of Bates v Post Office at the High Court. It allowed every Postmaster other than the 555 claimants who were part of the High Court litigation to put in a claim for any losses they had suffered.

The HSS was set up last year and was open for a matter of weeks. This year the Post Office admitted it had only put aside £35m to cover it. Before the final total of claims had been assessed the Post Office realised it was facing a £311m bill. At that point it recognised it was essentially no longer a solvent business and raised the white flag, asking the government to step in and cover the claims.

Yesterday in parliament, Alistair Carmichael MP raised the subject of the HSS during a Westminster Hall debate. One of his (now sadly deceased) constituents, Elena Kimmett, had last year put in a claim for compensation to cover the losses she suffered whilst running Stromness Post Office on the Isle of Orkney. She died of cancer in December last year.

The losses weren’t huge, but between 2000 and 2008, they chipped away at what little Elena and her husband Archie had. Mr Carmichael told the House that Elena:

“went from being a happy, competent, outgoing mother to somebody who was withdrawn, quiet and reserved. On Wednesday night, the balancing night for the Post Office, instead of coming home for the usual family meal, she started not to want to take part.”

Mr Carmichael explained Elena:

“was making up the losses from the Horizon system from her own pocket. She asked the Post Office on many occasions for help, but she was always told that the system was infallible and that if money was going missing and it was not her, then it must be her staff. Her staff had all worked for her for long periods of time, and included her mother and husband.”

I spoke to Anne Robertson, Mrs Kimmett’s lawyer. Ms Robertson says Elena was repeatedly told by the Post Office that she was the only one having difficulties with the Horizon system, a lie which, when believed, generates suspicion between friends and family members and/or confidence-shattering self-doubt.

Mr Carmichael raised the debate because he and Ms Robertson were so concerned about the Historical Shortfall Scheme which Elena had used to apply for redress. It is clear to both Ms Robertson and Mr Carmichael that the scheme is a ruse to trap trusting applicants into claiming the minimum possible redress whilst asking them to provide the maximum possible ammunition which can be used against them.

Mr Carmichael said the application form for the scheme:

“should properly be regarded as a claim form. The wording of the questions is clearly slanted towards fault and questions actions by employees that are completely unrelated to the employment. The wording actively discourages and gives no space or invitation to specify what the experience of the applicants has been or the effect that it had on them.”

He went on to say: “The application form did not specify that it would be the only opportunity that Elena would be given to state her case. No advice was given that she should seek legal advice before completing and submitting what was a legal claim.”

Mr Carmichael felt the form was designed to steer applicants away from any thought of compensation, even to the point of the space given for the response. He then raised the issue of “consequential loss”.

“There is nothing in the form” said Mr Carmichael “that would allow for the sort of compensation that Elena should, in law, have been entitled to. The application form asks postmasters to identify any alleged shortfall losses, as well as any other losses that are caused by the Horizon shortfall—namely, consequential loss. That appears to limit any payment to the claimant to proven consequential loss as defined by the Post Office. There is no reference to compensation for anguish, upset or distress caused by its action. There is no reference in the form to any payment.”

Mr Carmichael and Ms Robertson complained to the Post Office about their handling of Elena’s claim. They felt she had been led into claiming far less than the Post Office (in Ms Robertson’s words) had “stolen” from her, and refused to accept the Post Office’s offer of £3000 (Elena’s claim – representing the final shortfall which caused her to resign from running the Post Office) plus interest and £400 in legal fees.

On 23 November this year, the Post Office organised a “good faith” conference call, which it refused to let Mr Carmichael or Ms Robertson record. The Post Office was represented by a barrister and a note-taker. Mr Carmichael said:

“there are two ways in which lawyers can be used on these occasions. They can be used as an adviser, and indeed as a conduit for good information, or they can be used to insulate the client from the anger of the claimant. It was pretty clear from the Post Office putting nobody up for that so-called good faith meeting that it was the latter, rather than the former.”

According to Mr Carmichael, the meeting ended with a threat: “When we indicated at the end that we were not content with what we had been told and would not accept the offer, the representative of the solicitors acting for the Post Office turned round and said, ‘Be aware that if you go to the next stage, it is possible that the sum offered could be reduced or withdrawn completely.’ If ever there was a point when we understood the lack of respect that still pertains between the Post Office, its representatives and the Subpostmasters whom we represent, that was it. That was the disgrace. That is why it has to change.”

From the above account, it seems the Post Office hasn’t changed much since it was conducting its negotiations with Postmasters in 2014 as part of the Complaint and Mediation Scheme, denounced by MPs in December 2014 at a debate in Westminster Hall as a “sham”.

Meanwhile, at the BEIS Select Committee hearing

Darren Jones MP, chair of the BEIS select committee, seems to be on top of his brief. In June last year he wrote three letters to: Paula Vennells (former Post Office CEO), Nick Read (current Post Office CEO) and the global head of legal affairs at Fujitsu which were so laser-like in their precision, they either elicited hard information or showed the respondents up for what they were. I’ll leave you to judge.

He also seems to “get” the Horizon scandal. And despite his inquiry being thrown into stasis by Sir Wyn Williams’ Statutory Inquiry, Jones seems to have found a way to get it going again.

It is a slightly annoying, but understandable convention that when the courts or a quasi-judicial process is examining or litigating an important subject, parliamentarians keep schtum and don’t start lobbing inconvenient bombs which may or may not disrupt the legal process. However, as Mr Jones said on Tuesday (watch the whole session here):

“We had letters from parliamentary colleagues and others highlighting problems with compensation and interim payments to victims of the Horizon scandal and given that compensation is out of scope of the Inquiry my committee sought agreement from Sir Wyn Williams with victims and representatives of victims and a second session in the new year with minsters and senior leaders from the Post Office specifically on the question of compensation and interim payments as that is out of scope of the statutory inquiry.”

This is interesting as Sir Wyn Williams has made it clear that the issue of compensation is one of the concerns of his Inquiry. Perhaps it wasn’t when he gave permission for Jones’ select committee to continue its inquiry, and it was only Alan Bates’ recent manoeuvrings that brought it to the fore.

Luckily Alan Bates (along with fellow former Subpostmasters, Jo Hamilton and Paul Harry) was a witness at the BEIS select committee oral hearing on Tuesday so he was able to articulate his position, which he did so by saying the settlement agreement he signed with the Post Office which saw an average of £21k returned to the 555 High Court claimants “may well be unsafe”. Bates said this was because “it was obtained by duress and unfair conduct”.

Alan Bates, JFSA founder

Bates then surprised everyone by continuing:

“which is why today we are announcing we have an open contract available to any law firm that wants to pick up our case to have the settlement agreement set aside.”

Alan Brown MP asked Bates why he thought the government was happy to fund compensation for those whose convictions had been overturned (and by implication those who weren’t part of the group litigation) but stuck to the line that compensation for the 555 who blew open the scandal should be full and final at an average of £21k each.

“It’s punishment. It’s the way they operate. They haven’t been at all happy that we brought this up in the first instance… they were determined to bury it at any cost. There’s a lot to come out and I think there’s been some sort of major cover-up that’s been going on, hopefully that will be revealed over the years. Why we should be suffering, why the 555 should still be suffering… is wrong.”

Dr Neil Hudgell

Dr Neil Hudgell from Hudgell solicitors also took part in the evidence session. He told the committee he represented 59 Subpostmasters whose convictions had been overturned. Of them, 42 had been given the full interim compensation payment of £100k, with six more agreements in principle.

Of the remaining 11, six had complications involving the official receiver (there is apparently a whole world of pain involved in receiving compensation if you are ever declared bankrupt), three have been refused, and the final two were still looking for paperwork which would better serve their cases.

The three who had been refused, said Dr Hudgell, “they were based on false confession evidence and Post Office have said essentially that Horizon and the operation of the iT system wasn’t intrinsic to the prosecution. We feel strongly about that and we are mounting a claim to present to them and if it’s not appropriately responded to then we will issue proceedings.”

Dr Hudgell explained:

“False confessions are quite a strong part of the story… there was certainly a prosecution strategy which involved [saying] “don’t blame Horizon… and as part of that, make up a story as to what you’ve done with money you’ve supposedly taken.”

Nusrat Ghani MP was interested in one of the Post Office’s key tools in steering Subpostmasters away from questioning the Horizon system and into the black hole of self-doubt and ultimately self-incrimination – that each individual was the only one having problems with their IT.

Jo Hamilton, former Subpostmaster

Jo Hamilton, whose conviction was quashed on 23 April this year told her: “If you actually shift back to 2003/4, social media wasn’t around really like it is now and we didn’t realise… we had the first meeting in 2009 and we literally sat round a room like this and we told our stories and we were all telling the same story. We’d all been told we were the only ones.”

Ms Ghani was keen to get more of this on the record. “I just want to drill down. When were you told you were the only one?”

Jo replied: “I remember the first time they said it… in 2006 when they came round to my house… the Post Office investigation team.”

Ms Ghani made sure: “So in 2006 you were told you were unique? You were the only one?”

Nusrat Ghani MP

“Yeah.” said Jo. “It was a lie. A complete lie. Subsequently when we got together in a group, we found the same investigators telling the same ones of us that we were the only ones – only like a couple of months later they were telling someone else they were the only one.”

Dr Hudgell said that this was part of “an inequality of arms, and inequality of arms which continues to this day. I’ve always compared to a jigsaw. If there’s an 800-piece jigsaw – just above the number of convictions there’s been – each person has one piece; Post Office has all 800, so there’s only one party that can see the picture and that was obviously Post Office.”

Towards the end of the session, the MPs started asking questions about the Post Office’s handling of its Post Conviction Disclosure Exercise (PCDE) during which it revealed it had written to at least 500 people telling them they might be able to get their convictions quashed.

Dr Hudgell told the committee:

“We still from time to time get new enquiries from people that were convicted a long time ago… but… there’s a bit of a fear of taking on Post Office again, because anecdotally I’ve heard that the Post Office have written out to all the people that were convicted and some people have written back saying “listen – I just don’t want to know about this” and obvious that’s incredibly sad because at the minute they’ve got a huge stain on their character that needs flushing away.”

Nusrat Ghani said she was “still struggling to understand” why the discrepancy between the 738 Horizon convictions and the percentage of those which have been quashed (72, so just under 10%) “is so huge”.

Hudgell replied:

“I know from my own experience that people become incredibly paranoid… cynical… fearful. I’ve got rafts of clients that have got psychiatric medical evidence that say that they’ve had a variety of disorders from which many of them are still continuing to suffer, even with the benefit of medication, counselling and all those things. So you can imagine people left to swim alone for many years it becomes a vicious circle. I think there’s a number of people who fit that category.”

Hudgell added:

“Sadly some will have died. I know some people who have left the country and I suppose if we have to be completely balanced and fair about it there will be one or two people whose convictions are actually entirely safe.”

Ms Ghani made a note that although the Post Office has said it is contacting Subpostmasters, there is no information available about who from the 738 has been found, who has replied and how they have replied and resolved to get that information from the “appropriate minister”.

In wrapping up, the chair, Darren Jones said:

“It sounds to me like the government might want to think about an independent body or organisation to reach out to victims. If people don’t want to hear from the Post Office because of their experience….?”

Jo Hamilton wasn’t too sure.

“Yeah.. or the group, the JFSA, they couldn’t be more supportive, if you reach out to them, because we’re all human, we’ve all been through it and we know the process… I personally know two people that have run a million miles from it. They’ve personally had letters from the Post Office and they won’t have anything to do with it.”

Darren Jones said he thought it would be something his committee could take forward, then switched histhoughts to the handling of the Historical Shortfall Scheme. Dr Hudgell pointed to his concerns (also expressed eloquently last year) that the scheme acted like a “funnel” which “trapped” people in a resolution process, echoing the comments of Alistair Carmichael and Anne Robertson above – that essentially the scheme exists to act in the interests of the Post Office before its victims.

Jones finished with a blast at Paul Scully for the written statement put before the House (where we started this epic blog post) announcing that the government would underwrite the compensation for those whose convictions had been quashed:

“To publish a written ministerial statement two hours before a session like this… leaking it to the press the day before, not providing sufficient detail or giving a statement to the house is, quite frankly, wholly unacceptable [Jo Hamilton: “It’s terrible.”]… it’s terrible I agree. And so we will be calling ministers and the Post Office to ask many of the questions that we’ve talked about today and to try to provide as many answers as possible.”

This blast may have had some impact. Today Paul Scully will be making an oral statement to the Commons under the title: “Approval of Funds for Full & Final Settlement for Postmasters with Overturned Criminal Convictions”. Watch it here.

Civil litigation, Compensation
More Opposed Cases Fail at Appeal

Nick Wallis

Fri 10 December 2021

0 comments
3 min read

The Royal Courts of Justice

Two Subpostmasters appealing their convictions at the Court of Appeal have failed to have them quashed. Roger Allen and Alan Robinson, who were prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions, were told today by a panel of three judges that Horizon evidence was not essential to their prosecution, and therefore their convictions would stand. They join Wendy Cousins, Stanley Fell and Neelam Hussain, whose convictions were upheld on 23 April 2021.

In April 2004 Roger Allen was sentenced to six months in prison at Norwich Crown Court after pleading guilty to the theft of £37,000 between 30 June 2000 and 10 November 2002. Alan Robinson was sentenced to a year in prison at Bradford Crown Court in March 2004. He too pleaded guilty to a charge of theft, admitting stealing £43,000 belonging to the DWP between 31 July 2001 and 22 April 2003.

Because these cases involved DWP pension dockets (Allen) and DWP order books (Robinson), the DWP was the prosecuting authority. As the DWP no longer has a legal function of this nature, the CPS represented the department at the Court of Appeal.

Allen and Robinson’s cases were heard on 22 November 2021 – the same day seven more Subpostmaster convictions were quashed. Today the Court of Appeal confirmed in writing the quashed convictions, but that Allen and Robinson’s appeals would be refused.

Of Allen, whose case was referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Court of Appeal said:

“there is very little by way of surviving paperwork… Having considered the material which was deployed before us, including not only the contents of Mr Allen’s two statements but also the evidence (both written and oral) which was given by Mr Henderson and Mr Allsop [a DWP witness], we are wholly unpersuaded by the suggestion made by Mr Moloney QC on Mr Allen’s behalf that this is, indeed, a “Horizon case”.”

Of Robinson, who applied directly to the Court of Appeal and whose application was refused by a single judge, the court said:

“the case against Mr Robinson related to order books which were issued by the DWP and which were stored at the post office prior to issue to customers. In essence, when customers visited the post office to collect their books, they were told that the books were not at the post office despite the fact that they were. This would then be reported to the DWP with the result that replacement books were issued to them. Given the number of reports by customers that their order books were not at the post office for collection, the DWP carried out an investigation which found that Mr Robinson stole 32 order books and dishonestly obtained money by cashing orders from the stolen books.”

The judges consider Mr Robinson’s appeal over seven paragraphs and conclude:

“we are quite clear that Mr Robinson has failed to establish that his is a “Horizon case” or even, indeed, to show that it is arguably such a case.”

Read the full judgment here.

All the convictions which were quashed were ruled an abuse of process on two counts – a lack of disclosure/failure to properly investigate (ground 1) and that their prosecutions were such “an affront to the public conscience” (ground 2).

Whilst everyone’s situation is, of course, different, there appears to be a pattern emerging. The Court of Appeal has so far ruled every unopposed case an affront to the public conscience, but on each opposed case, they have sided with the respondents.

Appeals
Govt Reverts to “Full and final” Mantra

Nick Wallis

Sat 4 December 2021

0 comments
4 min read

It seems the government has given up on trying (if it ever was) to find a way to offer proper compensation to the 555 claimants who settled with the Post Office for £57.75m in December 2019. As we know, £46m of that compensation was spent on lawyers and legal success fees with each claimant receiving and average of £20,000 each.

When I interviewed the Business Minister Paul Scully for Episode 11 of the Great Post Office Trial in May this year, he told me (during a section which I’m not sure made the final cut in full):

“We want to make sure that people are compensated fairly that have been affected by this, now clearly that group litigation was a full and final settlement. Government did not have a role in that settlement. I can’t just just pledge to you or step in at this moment in time but I want to make sure that I can have good conversations with Alan Bates and 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.”

A well-placed source subsequently claimed the matter was seriously being looked at with a view to seeing what might be done. Several months later, on 19 November, David Enright from Howe and Co wrote a circular to his 150 Subpostmaster clients (many of whom were part of the 555). It said:

“The Post Office has confirmed that they are aware of the sense of continuing injustice felt by subpostmasters, and they are in active discussions with government over the group litigation settlement.

“This is the first time that the Post Office Limited and Department for Business have moved away from their position that the settlement was full and final. The Post Office’s correspondence makes clear that it and government are in discussions now regarding matters which will directly affect the financial redress for subpostmasters.”

David Enright from Howe and Co on GB News

Not true

On Wednesday 1 Dec, on the GB News TV channel Mr Enright revealed that two of his clients had, that day, received letters from the government which revert back to the “full and final settlement” mantra.

One of the recipients of those letters has very kindly forwarded it to me. In it, Mr Scully says:

“I understand the strength of feeling by postmasters who only received a portion of the £57.75m settlement paid by Post Office. However, a full and final settlement was reached between the claimants in the GLO and the Post Office.”

Adding: “There is nothing further the department can do at this time.”

Responding to this on GB News on Wednesday, David Enright said:

“That is untrue. The Department of Business [BEIS] owns the Post Office. It is the 100% shareholder. The Department of Business can therefore in its own gift, do whatever it wishes. One of the elements of this is that the Subpostmasters who took on the Post Office and who have received the £50[+]m settlement – £47m was taken up in legal and legal fundings costs. They could not have brought that case without that legal funding, but the government must give it back because they did a public service. If that case had not been brought, we would never have uncovered the greatest miscarriage of justice in British legal history. So what we need now is immediate action.

“We need the Post Office to acknowledge fully, without any reservations, that they did wrong. They need to repay those legal costs to the Subpostmasters who did that public service. They need to provide immediate interim compensation to those Subpostmasters who, like Janet Bradbury, are now pensioners, struggling. And they need to begin, immediately, the propcess of designing a proper holistic and fair mediation scheme, not at the end of the of the Statutory Public Inquiry, but right now.”

What’s changed?

The government retrenching comes a week after:

a) Sir Wyn Williams explicitly told the JFSA that he would be looking at the issue of redress for all victims of this scandal, including whether “the 555 Claimants in the group litigation of Alan Bates and Others v Post Office… were adequately compensated for the wrongs they had suffered.”

b) Bates told his followers he was going to withdraw the JFSA as a core participant from the inquiry and focus on the Parliamentary Ombudsman complaint he raised over a year ago, which has the explicit aim of achieving proper compensation for the 555.

It may be the government is being advised by its lawyers to wait until the inquiry or Parliamentary Ombudsman makes a finding on the matter.

NB: If you want to watch a whole hour of discussion on the Post Office Horizon Scandal, featuring contributions from former Subpostmasters Chris Head and Janet Bradbury, Lord Arbuthnot, David Enright and me, please click here and start at 2h13m into the programme.

Civil litigation, Compensation, Inquiry
Inquiry Confirms All Compensation Is Under Scrutiny

Nick Wallis

Fri 26 November 2021

1 comment
3 min read

Alan Bates (JFSA) v Sir Wyn Williams (Inquiry Chair)

A week is certainly a long time in this story. Last Friday I was telling you Alan Bates had pulled the JFSA from the Satutory Inquiry into the Post Office Horizon Scandal because scrutiny of the compensation for the 555 was not explicitly present in the inquiry chair’s List of Issues.

Bates encouraged his members to stop co-operating with the inquiry, asking them to:

“withdraw your applications and show solidarity over the failure of the Inquiry to be concerned in the slightest of the victims’ greatest priority and most desperate need.”

This provoked the inquiry chair to ask Howe and Co (the JFSA’s lawyers) if they could:

“provide clarification and confirmation that the request [to withdraw] is genuine and endorsed by the members of the JFSA (by whatever means required by the constitution, formal or otherwise).”

Bates received this request and replied: “We are only exercising the same authority that was used to submit the application for Core Participant status and that authority was accepted by the Inquiry at that time.”

He added:

“Alan Bates & Kay Linnell, who are in agreement about withdrawing the JFSA from the Inquiry, are the authorised representatives of the JFSA which brought about the GLO legal action, and were contractually approved by each of the 555 members who signed up to the action to act on behalf of the group in all matters appertaining to the group action.”

Coincidence? Hmm….

Since that response was sent, two things have happened. The inquiry confirmed the JFSA is no longer a core participant. Then it told Howe and Co that:

“paragraph 183 of the Inquiry’s List of Issues is intended to consider whether all affected sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses, managers, assistants, including the 555 Claimants in the group litigation of Alan Bates and Others v Post Office… were adequately compensated for the wrongs they had suffered.”

In a subsequent newsletter to his members Bates wonders whether it was “a coincidence that the statement appeared after the JFSA had withdrawn and was encouraging others to join with it… or it may just have been a failure to clarify that point when paragraph 183 was written.”

Either way he says: “now it’s there, in writing.”

Bates has decided he’s not going to formally take the JFSA back into the inquiry, but will co-operate with it going forward, telling his members: “the JFSA will be delighted to provide whatever [information] is required, and it does not need to be a Core Participant in order to contribute on the matter. Obviously now that the Inquiry has made the statement that paragraph 183 will include investigating whether the compensation paid to the 555 claimants in the group action was adequate, it is down to every individual as to whether or not there is value to them in engaging with the Inquiry.”

Bates says he’s now going to focus on his parliamentary ombudsman complaint.

Inquiry
Seven More Convictions Quashed

Nick Wallis

Mon 22 November 2021

0 comments
7 min read

Seven more Subpostmaster convictions have been quashed at the Court of Appeal, bringing the total number to 72. This represents just under a tenth of the 738 people convicted using Horizon evidence between 2000 and 2015 when the Post Office stopped prosecuting people.

(l-r) Chris and Pauline Stonehouse, Gill and Greg Harding

Pauline Stonehouse, Greg Harding, Angela Sefton, Anne Nield, Janine Powell, Marisa Finn and Jamie Dixon were told Horizon evidence was essential in the cases against them, and there was inadequate investigation and/or disclosure in all cases.

In two cases – Greg Harding in 2010 and Jamie Dixon in 2013, the Post Office only accepted a guilty plea for false accounting if Harding and Dixon made no mention of problems with Horizon in any statement of mitigation. 2010 – 2013 is the period when the Post Office knew it had problems with Horizon and knew there was a campaign by the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance and amongst parliamentary backbenchers. This is the cover-up writ large and it created significant human suffering. The Post Office told the court today it now accepts its actions were “improper”.

Lord Justice Holroyde made no distinction between category 1 and category 2 abuse in all of today’s unopposed cases, which suggests the convictions were quashed on the same basis as those in April and July – all were category 2 abuse – an affront to the public conscience.

Pauline Stonehouse and Greg Harding were the only appellants in court today, the others either did not attend or did so remotely via videolink. Outside court Greg told me he thought the Post Office’s actions in prosecuting him were “despicable”. Greg ran the Hipperholme Post Office near Halifax. He was prosecuted over an £18,000 cash discrepancy and a further £2000 in supposedly missing stamps.

Greg Harding

He said today was an “awesome, absolutely awesome – worth waiting for”.

I asked him to explain what it was like to live as a convicted criminal when he knew he was innocent. He replied:

“I’ve had this horrible, gutting feeling of being ripped off by the Post Office for ten years. I have my business stripped away from me. I’ve lost relationships. The Post Office took that away.”

Before being suspended over the £20K discrepancy at his office, Greg and his wife Gillian had had two large discrepancies which they settled by re-mortgaging their home. Unable to do so again, in order to keep trading, Greg started covering another growing discrepancy by agreeing figures on the Horizon system which were not correct.

When a Post Office auditor came to his branch and and found the cash discrepancy Greg was honest about what he had been doing. He was suspended on the spot and had to sell his branch to settle the “missing” amount.

A few months later, on Gill’s birthday, Greg was told he was being prosecuted for theft and false accounting, something he describes as “Life-shattering. Gut-wrenching. I didn’t feel that bright over what happened anyway, but they just started throwing the book at us.”

Surprise surprise, Greg was told that if he pleaded guilty to false accounting, the Post Office would drop the theft charge, but they would only accept his plea if he didn’t criticise Horizon in any documents put before the court.

After receiving a 20-week sentence suspended for two years, Greg went back to his old job as a welder-fabricator. He describes the Post Office’s behaviour as “accusational. Why on earth would you steal from your on business? I thought I was the only one.”

Pauline Stonehouse

Pauline Stonehouse ran the beachside Post Office of Seaburn in Sunderland. On 1 August 2008 she was sentenced to a six month community order after pleading guilty to false accounting. In the words of Simon Baker QC in court:

“Mrs Stonehouse had herself contacted Post Office to assist her with unexplained [Horizon] shortfalls. At her request, a field support advisor had attended the branch to try to help her understand the source of her discrepancies. She had also disclosed to her business relationship manager that she had been suffering losses which she could not afford to make good and had therefore been covering up. When the branch was audited, Horizon showed a shortfall of £15,699.16.”

Despite Pauline’s requests for assistance with problems she could not understand, the Post Office forced her to make good the discrepancy and then criminally prosecuted her. She was told it was because they wanted to set an example. She accepted this explanation at the time because she had no idea anyone else had been prosecuted.

“I’m disgusted.” she told me “They could have ended our marriage. The accusations they threw at Christopher. ‘Are you sure your husband’s not taken the money?’”

The Post Office’s actions in nearly or actually destroying families has yet to be properly documented, and it’s this which brings home the real-world, lasting damage of the scandal in addition to the mental health trauma, financial loss and ruined prospects. Last week Norman Barber, whose conviction was quashed at Southward Crown Court told me his father stopped speaking to him when he was convicted and he hasn’t been able to rebuild the bridges since. Today, Pauline told me she was forced to confront her husband:

“I went home after my interview. I’d been there for hours and hours. I’d mulled it over and mulled it over and I asked him ‘Did you steal the money…? Babe, did you?’ And he said, ‘Why would I?’ but the fact they put the thought in my head when I knew he wouldn’t have done that. It could have ended our marriage. But we’re strong. We’ve got a good thing. We love each other. And they could have ended all of that. Because of their vindictiveness.”

Chris and Pauline Stonehouse

Nonetheless the couple have suffered:

“They knew they had a problem with Horizon, but they weren’t going to admit it. It’s livelihoods, families, reputations. For me to end up in Newcastle Crown Court and be photographed and have my face in the Sunderland Echo and Northern Echo and being named and shamed and making me out to be a bad person and I’m not a bad person.”

Pauline found out about about the Bates v Post Office civil litigation and applied to join up in 2017, but eventually decided it was all too much. She saw the appeals going through earlier this year, and was contacted in May by the Post Office who told her she may well have grounds for appeal. They sent her a list of solicitors. Pauline chose to go with Hudgells who she says have made the whole process “really straightforward, really easy. They’ve been so amazing to work with.”

There were two opposed prosecutions heard in court today. The appellants are Roger Allen and Alan Robinson, who were prosecuted by the DWP. The CPS (acting for the DWP as the DWP no longer has this legal function) opposes their appeals on the grounds Horizon evidence was not essential to their prosecution. The Court of Appeal will hand down a written judgment on Messrs Allen and Robinson’s cases along with its reasons for allowing the unopposed appeals at a later date.

More appeals are in the pipeline.

If you want to read the blow-by-blow tweets from today, they’re here all on one beautifully-curated webpage.

I have written a book about the Post Office Horizon Scandal which you can buy for £25 as a hardback or £8.99 as an e-book from Bath Publishing and all good outlets. Please click here for more information.

Appeals
JFSA Withdraws From Inquiry

Nick Wallis

Fri 19 November 2021

1 comment
6 min read

Founder says “the powers that be have decided the real and desperate needs of the victims are of no importance.”

Alan Bates, the leader and founder of the Justice for Subpostmasters’ Alliance has decided not to co-operate with Sir Wyn Williams’ statutory inquiry into the Post Office Horizon IT disaster.

Yesterday, Sir Wyn published the List Of Issues the inquiry will pursue. Alan Bates says the list contains “just two paragraphs purporting to deal with financial redress. Neither of them have any relevance at all to the victims group – probably, because in their eyes, we have had full and final settlement and we can be ignored from now on.”

As a result he has withdrawn the JFSA’s Core Participant status, and is urging his followers to do the same.

Financial redress for the 555 Subpostmasters who settled with the Post Office during the Bates v Post Office litigation is of “paramount importance” to Bates. The litigant group were given £57.75m by the Post Office as a settlement, but £46m was taken in success and legal fees.

Bates’ first move after the settlement was to issue the government with an invoice for the outstanding amount. It was refused. In December last year he issued a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman demanding more than £300m from the government to properly cover the outstanding claims of the litigant group, and he made it plain all along he was not going to allow the JFSA to take part in Sir Wyn’s Inquiry unless the issue of redress was a priority.

Bates decided the list of issues did not say enough about redress and has concluded that for the 555 civil litigants “there now isn’t the slightest benefit to you or the victims group by staying engaged in the Inquiry as a Core Participant.”

Bates says:

“I now write to all of you who have registered as Core Participants to ask you to withdraw your applications and show solidarity over the failure of the Inquiry to be concerned in the slightest of the victims’ greatest priority and most desperate need. Many of the group have already told me they will be doing so, and it is important that we demonstrate through actions, that as a group, we are solid in our demands and stance; after all, we only want what we are rightfully owed.”

He adds, in a manner which will raise eyebrows:

“Do you really want to be named as a Core Participant in the Inquiry that abandoned the rest of the victim group?”

One civil litigant, who wishes to remain anonymous, told me tonight: “I don’t feel this is the right decision to make. This could potentially halt the hearing altogether, stopping all of the uncovered information coming to light. Everyone will of course make their own decision, I hope. But it’s definitely not mine.”

Bates’ desire to carry JFSA members with with him and potentially stigmatise those who don’t agree with him may unravel. Howe and Co, the legal firm who have been working with Alan Bates and who signed up a number of JFSA members as Core Participants to the inquiry, also sent out a circular to its clients today. It says:

“As you will see from the Chair’s statement and the final list of issues which was published this week, the Chair has listened to our submissions and your concerns and he has amended the list of issues to confirm, explicitly, that the Inquiry will look into the adequacy of ‘financial redress’. [their emphasis]”

They add:

“Alan Bates has informed us today that he has decided that the JFSA (as an organisation) will no longer be a core participant in Sir Wyn’s public inquiry. We respect Mr Bates and his decision. However, it is our view and the view of Sam Stein QC and Christopher Jacobs that it would not be in the interests of subpostmasters to withdraw from the Post Office Inquiry.”

Howe and Co tell their clients:

“We and senior counsel are sure the continuing involvement of subpostmasters in this Inquiry will not only hold Post Office and government to account, but will also lead to early and tangible action to address the outstanding issues of legal and legal funding costs for the group litigation and urgent compensation for subpostmasters and their families.

“It is our view that withdrawal from the Inquiry risks undermining subpostmasters’ ability to achieve fair reparations, and may leave them with no voice in this important public inquiry.

“We also consider that withdrawal from the Inquiry of individual core participants would deprive those individuals of having access to important documents which are relevant to their cases and it would substantially reduce the pressure of Post Office Limited and BEIS to make good on their appalling treatment of subpostmasters. In short, the only parties who would benefit from Core Participants withdrawing from the Inquiry would be Post Office Limited, BEIS and Fujitsu.

“As you will see from the developments over the past two weeks, we have already made substantial progress. We are sure that further substantial progress will be made in the coming weeks, and that such progress can only be helped by your ongoing and full participation in this historic inquiry.”

But Lee Castleton, who attended the first open hearing of the inquiry on 8 November told me:

“I will never take part in an inquiry that will not do anything for my family. Honestly, I don’t care why it happened until I can be free of the problems that still haunt me to this day. Sir Wynn can talk about the ins and outs of the process which was twisted and turned in order to damage good people in terrible ways…I look at 75 year old Noel [Thomas, whose conviction was quashed on 23 April this year] and think why is it we need to know what happened… before helping a dear and good family man to live out his final years in comfort and joy?”

This all leaves JFSA members in something of a pickle. There is no doubt Alan Bates is a hero. His achievements at the High Court in putting together the legal team, the case and succeeding is one of the most extraordinary stories ever told, and he achieved it against all the odds. Without him, it is entirely possible no one’s convictions would have been quashed and the world would not know about this story. People, understandably, trust his judgment.

But as another anonymous civil litigant said to me of the JFSA circular tonight: “the tone of the message concerns me more than the content.”

More soon, no doubt.

Inquiry
Six More Convictions Quashed – Total Now 65

Nick Wallis

Thu 18 November 2021

0 comments
3 min read

(l-r) Neil Hudgell (solicitor), Anthony Gant, Megan Gant, Kirsty Gant, Balbir Grewal, Norman Barber, Mandy Barber

These were the first convictions quashed since July and the third round at Southwark Crown Court. As of today, the Southwark Crown Court has overtuend sixteen convictions (six on 11 Dec 2020 and two on 14 May 2021) and the Court of Appeal has quashed the remaining 51 (39 in a judgment handed down on 23 April 2021 and 12 at a hearing on 19 July).

Today marked the first conviction quashed after a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the Post Office. David Hughes (who did not take part in the group photograph above) was employed at Cockermouth Post Office. In December 2006 he found a discrepancy of £6,500 between the amount of cash in the safe and the amount Horizon recorded should be in the safe.

In the words of the CPS barrister, David “panicked and was scared” and so every day for the next three months he entered false figures into Horizon to cover up the loss.

The police were presumably called and the Crown Prosecution service noted that Mr Hughes had made a full and frank admission to false accounting. But what of the discrepancy itself? Although this didn’t come out in court today, one of the CPS pre-charge reviews into Mr Hughes’ case states:

“The Post Office aren’t able to say whether or not the money has gone or whether it is an accounting error or a number of smaller errors. Clearly the Post Office aren’t prepared to go down the route of forensic accountant investigations and I don’t propose that we should either.”

Eventually the CPS chose to prosecute Mr Hughes for forgery* and he pleaded guilty. He was given a community order.

Today the CPS said Mr Hughes had been trying to cover up Horizon problems. The CPS was now aware (“as is everyone else”) that Horizon was not remotely reliable. There was therefore no crime.

All six convictions were quashed peremptorily by the judge who told the appellants they “walk away from court with no stain on their characters.”

Outside there was a group photo for those who wanted to take part, then quick interviews. It was heartbreaking to hear the effects the convictions had had on people’s lives and families, and I will try to address them in a longer blog post tomorrow.

For the record, here is the full list of those whose convictions were overturned today:

• Mohammed Aslam pleaded guilty to false accounting at Newport Magistrates’ Court on 23rd January 2007 and was sentenced to 60 hours of unpaid work and a £300 fine. 

• Amanda Barber pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation at Warrington Magistrates’ Court on 6th June 2012 and was sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid work.

• Norman Barber also pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation at Warrington Magistrates’ Court on 6th June 2012 and was sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid work.

• Anthony Gant pleaded guilty to false accounting at Shrewsbury and North Shropshire Magistrates’ Court on 29th October 2007 and was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months and 100 hours of unpaid work.

• Balbir Grewal pleaded guilty to false accounting at Luton Magistrates’ Court on 13th August 2001 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence and a community order.

• David Hughes pleaded guilty to making a false instrument at Workington Magistrates’ Court and was sentence to a community order of 12 months and 100 hours of unpaid work.

All were referred to the Crown Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. All were represented by Hudgell Solicitors except David Hughes who was represented by WellsBurcombe.

* according to the CPS: “A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine.” An instrument can be a document.

Appeals
Launch Day

Nick Wallis

Thu 18 November 2021

0 comments
3 min read

Please forgive the indulgence of marking the launch day of my book with a blog post.

It has been a very strange year. I am used to collaborating with people on broadcast projects, or firing off short blog posts.

Putting together a 500 page monster over five and a half months has been another matter entirely.

That’s not to say there wasn’t any collaboration. Of course there was and I’d be floundering without it. The publishing/editing/admin team at Bath (David, Helen and Hannah) have been amazing, as has Clare Hoban from Reviewed and Cleared who lawyered the book. Cover designer Justin Folker from Nine Point design is also on top of his onions. It is a very striking cover which will hopefully stand out on the booksellers’ bookshelves. I’m delighted with the finished product (particularly the verdict from one close reader today who claimed he had not yet found a single typo. Typo extermination is essential, but rarely 100% successful. If we really have excised them all I will henceforth sleep a lot easier).

I am also extremely grateful to those who entrusted me to tell me their stories and those who gave me the documentary evidence I needed to write the book. Without them, there would be no book, so thank you. You know who you are.

Other than those who were kind enough to read a galley proof and give me cover quotes (see below), there have, to date, been two post-publication reviews, one from the esteemed Joshua Rozenberg and the other from the equally esteemed (but not as well known) JM Collins on Amazon. Please give them a click.

If you have read the book and want to say something about it – please do so on Amazon, whether you bought the book from them or not. Lots of reviews are apparently like catnip to the Amazon algorithms – good things happen when they get excited. If you want to buy the book, or more copies of the book, well step this way sir/madam. The Great Post Office Scandal is available everywhere, but Bath Publishing would, on balance, favour any decision made to buy it direct from them.

(As you may know, 10% of the income Bath Publishing get from the book will be deposited straight into a fund to help Subpostmasters and Post Office workers who have fallen foul of the Post Office’s punitive methods. I am hoping to be able to tell you more about that next week.)

Finally, I am extremely grateful to anyone and everyone who has put their hand in their pocket thus far. Your confidence in me, and your interest in the story really means a lot. I hope reading it repays you many times over.

Best, Nick.

Cover quotes:

Ian Hislop: “An extraordinary journalistic exposé of a huge miscarriage of justice.”

Mishal Husain: “The definitive account of the scandal.”

Rev Richard Coles: “A tale brilliantly told. I urge you to read it.”

Dame Joan Bakewell: “Nick’s narrative has the power of a great thriller.”

Book
Sir Wyn Receives Privilege Waiver

Nick Wallis

Tue 16 November 2021

0 comments
3 min read

Sir Wyn, chuckling away.

If you don’t ask, you don’t get. After hearing several arguments from knowledgeable and expert legal types at his statutory inquiry’s first open hearing last week, the chair of the inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, took the initiative. He wrote to the Post Office, the government (specifically the Business department and UKGI, its corporate arm) and Fujitsu, asking them to waive privilege on important legal documents.

Privilege relates to communication between lawyers and their clients (in this case, the Post Office, BEIS, UKGI and Fujitsu). The courts cannot demand to see this communication. Neither can statutory inquiries, but Sir Williams obviously heard enough from the various contributors on 8 November to act.

Within hours of the hearing’s conclusion he had issued his challenge, demanding a response by 4pm yesterday.

We have learned, as of this evening, in many substantive areas, the Post Office, the government and Fujitsu have rolled over.

You can read the various statements here.

Sir Wyn issued the following statement in response:

“The responses of BEIS, UKGI and FUJITSU speak for themselves. The response of POL, on any view, goes a very long way towards meeting the request I made of them. It is clear to me that in respect of many of the most crucial lines of investigation for the Inquiry POL has waived legal professional privilege.”

The prospect of another hearing before Christmas to decide on the issue of privilege has been dropped. Of course, actions speak louder than words, and Sir Wyn has warned:

“if, in the future, it becomes necessary to re-visit the issue of legal professional privilege on account of emerging evidence or for any other proper reason I will do so at an appropriate time and, if necessary, invite further submissions both in writing and orally.”

If the Post Office, government and Fujitsu really are going to turn over every substantive document to the inquiry, it will make for an interesting read.

For a start, we’ll get to see the Altman Review, written in October 2013 by Brian Altman QC – the same Brian Altman QC who acted for the Post Office in the Court of Appeal between November 2020 and April 2021.

Although we don’t yet know what the Altman Review says, it was such an important document that shortly after receiving it, the Post Office stopped prosecuting people, but also continued to deny any miscarriages of justice had taken place. It’ll be interesting to see the legal gymnastics going on there.

We also might find out why Susan Crichton, the Post Office’s General Counsel mysteriously disappeared shortly after finding out her Head of Security, John Scott, had ordered the shredding of documents relating to problems with Horizon.

And we might also find out what advice Chris Aujard, Susan Crichton’s replacement, was advising the board about the Second Sight investigation into the Horizon IT system and how to deal with it.

A lot of people are telling me I’m going to have to write a sequel to my book. I’m looking forward to it.

Inquiry