Former Top Post Office Lawyer Wins Battle To Give Evidence Remotely

A former Post Office lawyer has won her bid to give evidence remotely to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). Jane MacLeod, who lives in Australia, is being prosecuted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) over her failure to attend the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry in 2024 to answer questions under oath. An SDT has the power to permanently remove an individual’s right to practice as a solicitor and leverage unlimited fines. MacLeod, who was the Post Office’s General Counsel between 2015 and 2019, remains a person of interest to Operation Olympos, the criminal investigation into the Post Office scandal.

At a directions hearing today, the SDT considered an application by MacLeod – known as the Respondent in these proceedings – to give evidence remotely from Australia. Her barrister, Patrick Hill, told the Tribunal that there was “no material difference” in whether MacLeod gave evidence remotely or in person, suggesting that “in some instances” MacLeod attending remotely, visible to all on a screen, “provides a clearer view of the Respondent than… simply sitting in the court itself.”

Hill said that if “commonplace” directions were followed about where and under what conditions MacLeod should give evidence remotely, there was “no reason to think… that the quality or the weight of evidence will suffer in any way…. Ms MacLeod will be present and visible in a public hearing to press and to the public.”

Suggestions in the written application (which we have not seen) that the Tribunal might also like to give thought to the time differences involved and whether they should sit shorter days to accommodate that time difference were, Mr Hill declared, just that. “We simply thought it appropriate to bring to the Tribunal’s attention, of course. If the Tribunal says, ‘We’re satisfied that the application is properly made. And that the respondent may participate remotely.’ If unsociable hours are required, then in short, so be it.”

Either way, said Hill, the Tribunal had to consider whether “the cost and disruption of compelling a retired, non-practicing solicitor, resident in Australia” to travel to England to be prosecuted, was in the interests of justice. “That’s a consideration”, Hill said, “of weight.”

Ozin’s Gauntlet

Paul Ozin KC, who represented the SRA, told the Tribunal MacLeod was being prosecuted due to alleged “breaches of the SRA standards through… a failure to engage properly with a body investigating concerns in relation to legal services.” In other words, said Ozin, MacLeod “put her own convenience above that of the public Inquiry, concerned with the Post Office Horizon scandal, and that she presumed to put her own judgement of what was necessary for the Inquiry above that of the Inquiry Chairman himself, who determined that her attendance in person was desirable, and asked her to do just that.”

Ozin noted the “symmetry” between MacLeod’s refusal to attend the Inquiry and her desire to stay in Australia for her prosecution. He also noted the request to consider the hours during which the Tribunal might sit if MacLeod were successful in her application – essentially a request that “the Tribunal, all of those attending the Tribunal, all of those who have a stake in its outcome, should be inconvenienced, quite considerably on a daily basis, by short sitting hours, in order to accommodate the Respondent’s remote attendance in Australia. And to make sure that she is not too greatly inconvenienced by the time difference between Australia and the United Kingdom.”

Ozin said MacLeod’s entire application was coloured by “a focus on her inconvenience, and a failure to recognise… the countervailing considerations, in the inconvenience caused to others.”

The SRA barrister suggested there were significant advantages to ordering MacLeod to attend her own prosecution. Seeing witnesses in person gives the Tribunal panel a chance to assess their “demeanour” and “assess the nuances of their behaviour in the course of giving their evidence”.

Conduct Code Breach

There was also the public interest issue. As Ozin said, MacLeod was “the leader of the team at the heart of the issues of concern over the scandal and the miscarriages of justice experienced by a multitude of sub postmasters. And while she may have joined after the bulk of those prosecutions, the function she led was, in part, responsible for those miscarriages… The Inquiry with which these proceedings is concerned, that is to say, the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, was convened to consider such matters.”

Ozin then referred to the prosecution of MacLeod by the SRA, which came about through “the Respondent declining an initial request to attend the Inquiry in person, and following that refusal, a subsequent request, plainly a second best option, extended by the Chair, to give evidence remotely via video link”. Ozin said that MacLeod had refused that, too, and cited, amongst other things, “the passage of time”, as a reason not to assist the Inquiry. “She unilaterally determined” said Ozin, “that her written statement, already provided to the Inquiry, was sufficient for the Inquiry’s purpose.”

This may, of course, be outrageous to the lay reader, but it is also allegedly contrary to the regulations which govern being a solicitor. According to Ozin, MacLeod “showed no regard for the Inquiry’s request or expectations, and a complete disregard for the process in train. In particular, she disregarded the prerogative of the Chairman to determine those very matters. And we go so far as to assert that she thereby impeded the work of the Inquiry, and by doing so, gave rise to the breaches that are alleged – the specific breach under the code of conduct for solicitors to cooperate with such a body, and breached the relevant SRA principles. That is to say, those requiring her to act in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law, on the proper administration of justice, to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitor’s profession, and to act with integrity.”

Patrick Hill was given the opportunity to respond on behalf of MacLeod, and he did, calling the “symmetry that is suggested” when properly analysed, was “more rhetorical, than… real.”

Being Mindful

He also said that the allegation “that the Respondent wrongly puts her own view above the Inquiry’s was the very matter to be tried on the substantive application”, but wasn’t the issue at this directions hearing. Hill noted that with regard to the Inquiry “the complaint is that she declined to give evidence at all” whereas today MacLeod was making “a proper application… to attend and to participate fully” in the hearing. Just not in person.

“The measure is not mere convenience”, said Hill. “The Tribunal knows what the factual position is in relation to her whereabouts, and to the significant disruption and cost that would be entailed. It is a proper application, made on conventional basis.”

The Tribunal panel, led by Alison Kellett retired to have a think. They came back to tell the hearing that not only could MacLeod give evidence remotely, the court would only sit until 2pm each day “to take account of the Respondent’s location, being mindful of the fact she is based in Australia.”

The hearing during which Jane MacLeod’s fate will be discussed has been scheduled for the week commencing 25 January 2027. It will be a hybrid set up, allowing journalists and members of the public to attend remotely or in person at a designated hearing room at the SDT offices in London.

---

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