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

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

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

But what does it all mean?

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

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

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

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

Tom Hedges, a Subpostmaster whose conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal on 23 April 2021, said: “Not only are the Post Office incompetent they employ lawyers who are the same! Does that surprise anyone? I do not think so. Blind and stupid leading the blind and stupid.”

Implications

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

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

Subpostmasters’ legal teams have been informed of the situation.

The decision that Vamos was “not authorised” to carry out his work at the Court of Appeal turns on a ruling called Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys which was handed down on 16 September 2025.

According to the barrister and mediator Jacob Gifford Head this judgment “concerned whether a person who is employed by a firm of solicitors but who is not personally authorised to ‘conduct litigation’ is permitted to do so or not” under the Legal Services Act 2007“.

Mr Gifford Head tells me: “‘Conducting litigation’ is a legal term of art. There is some debate as to what precisely it entails but it is usually summarised as taking the formal steps within proceedings by, for example, issuing claims or applications, serving them or accepting service. Generally speaking, only fully-qualified solicitors automatically have a right to conduct litigation’. Practising barristers are able to apply to the Bar Standards Board to extend their practising certificate to do so. It is a relatively straightforward process, especially for someone like Mr Vamos who is a partner in a large law firm. I assume the reason Mr Vamos did not take that step was that, before the decision in Mazur, it was not uncommon for those without authorisation to conduct litigation to rely on a belief that the Legal Services Act 2007 permitted them to do so for a number of reasons, including that they were employed by a regulated law firm; were supporting a qualified solicitor; or were being supervised by one.“

Professor Richard Moorhead, a legal ethics specialist who sits on the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, had a different concern, saying: “Whilst this is nowhere near the most serious conduct problem, and given the experience of Mr Vamos in such work one can understand it being regarded as not meriting disciplinary action, I’d expect more from a regulator that was acting in the public interest than a simple No Further Action. Asking Mr Vamos to demonstrate his competence and training to conduct litigation, requiring him to make good the deficit in his status, and some form of admonishment would all have been appropriate.

“That is all particularly important given the proceedings in which Mr Vamos was involved about which larger and far more serious questions remain. Namely the late disclosure of the Clarke advice and the extremely limited and potentially misleading disclosure of Brian Altman’s role in reviewing PO work prior to the appeals. We do not know what role Mr Vamos and his team had in those problems, but there are questions of significant importance about their conduct of the litigation here.“

Cosy Little Stitch Up

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

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

Mr Gifford Head believes the Mazur ruling “came to a surprise to many. Legal Executives have widely criticised the judgment and, as a result, their representative body, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives has been granted permission to appeal the decision in Mazur to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).”

He adds: “The impact of the Mazur decision has been widely felt and courts throughout England and Wales have been hearing submissions on the consequences but without, as at the time of writing, any consensus as to what should happen. I think, in those circumstances, it is impossible to predict what the outcome would be in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to this situation.”

I have written to the Judiciary press office for more insight.

UPDATE Tuesday 9 Dec: Another letter has come to my attention – this one written by Peters and Peters – explaining their perspective to Subpostmasters. It reads:

“A recent ruling of the High Court, Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, unconnected with the Post Office matter, has clarified who is authorised to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007. This has caused many firms conducting litigation, including ours, to review those that conduct litigation on its behalf. Following our review, we have identified that one of the partners involved in the Post Office criminal appeals – including yours – was not specifically authorised by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) to conduct litigation. Solicitors are automatically authorised, but barristers are not. The partner, Nick Vamos, is a barrister who was previously authorised to conduct litigation when he was at the Crown Prosecution Service, where he held various senior roles before joining Peters & Peters. However, that authorisation was attached to his role rather than to him personally, so it lapsed automatically when he left the Crown Prosecution Service. Whilst Mr Vamos has always held a valid practising certificate, he should have extended this certificate to include the conduct of litigation, through what is a simple application process. He has now applied to the BSB for specific authorisation to conduct litigation and also reported himself to the BSB, which decided that it did not need to take any action. We should stress that Mr Vamos is extremely experienced and there would have been absolutely no issue in him obtaining the authorisation needed.

“Mr Vamos worked on your case as part of a large team of solicitors, including other partners, all of whom were authorised to conduct litigation. Your case would not have been dealt with any differently if Mr Vamos had had the required authorisation in place and it did not affect the outcome.

“We have nonetheless brought these facts to the attention of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (CACD) and Southwark Crown Court, which between them dealt with all the Post Office appeals. The error in question can amount to a criminal offence and contempt of court, and the CACD has asked that we inform every appellant or applicant in whose case Mr Vamos may have had the conduct of litigation, which is the purpose of this letter. We will also update the CACD that you have been notified of this issue.“

I have written to the Bar Standards Board asking them to explain their decision-making process and reasons for the outcome in this case.

---

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.