Post Office v Castleton – a second category Abuse of Process?

Lee Castleton

An extraordinary piece of evidence has been raised at the Post Office Horizon Inquiry. It came during the day long car crash which was Andrew Winn’s testimony.

Winn was a hopelessly over-promoted former postie who eventually fetched up reporting to the Post Office’s Head of Product and Branch Accounting, Rod Ismay (author of the infamous Ismay report).

Winn admitted he was completely unsuitable for the role he found himself in, which required a detailed knowledge of the Horizon IT system (he had almost none).

More on Mr Winn here. I want to draw your attention to a document mentioned by Flora Page, barrister for several Postmasters, towards the end of Mr Winn’s evidence. It concerns Lee Castleton, who in 2007 was taken to the High Court by the Post Office and bankrupted.

In 2003, Lee was the Subpostmaster at East Bridlington Post Office in Yorkshire. He had served in the RAF and worked briefly in the City of London as a stockbroker. He was comfortable with numbers. 

Lee had invested his savings in the Post Office business and, with his wife and young family, was making a go of it. Over a twelve week period starting in January 2004, the Horizon system at East Bridlington went haywire, randomly chalking up negative discrepancies in the thousands. Whilst this was happening, Lee repeatedly asked the Post Office for help, complaining that his Horizon system was malfunctioning. None was forthcoming. On 23 March 2004, there was an audit. A discrepancy of £22,963.34 was found. The branch was closed, Lee was suspended, and he was told to repay the discrepancy under the terms of his contract.

Going to Court

Lee refused. He did not see why he should hand over £22,963.34 of his own money to fill a computer-generated hole in his branch accounts. The Post Office sacked Lee and sued him in the civil courts. On the appointed day at Scarborough County Court, Lee arrived, prepped and ready, with his legal advisor. The Post Office didn’t show. The judge dismissed the case and awarded Lee damages on his counter-claim.

After months of silence, the Post Office re-raised their case at the High Court. We have not, until yesterday, had any unequivocal understanding as to why. Lee had no income, and no assets, save the now closed Post Office and his mortgaged home above it.

Bringing a case at the High Court is astronomically expensive. There was no way the Post Office would recover their costs from a penniless former Subpostmaster.

By this stage, Lee had run out of legal insurance. He defended himself, and lost on the basis he had signed for his accounts and therefore legally accepted responsibility for them, even whilst challenging the alleged debt. 

The judge also took evidence from Anne Chambers, a Fujitsu engineer (currently under police investigation). The judge accepted her evidence and ruled:

the logic of the system is correct, the conclusion is inescapable that the Horizon system was working properly in all material respects, and that the shortfall of £22,963.34 is real, not illusory.

par 11, Post Office Ltd v Castleton [2007] EWHC 5 (QB) (22 January 2007)

Lee Castleton’s name forms the opening two words to Rebecca Thomson’s groundbreaking investigation into the Post Office Horizon IT system for Computer Weekly. He is a heroic campaigner, and was one of the 555 Subpostmasters who took the Post Office to court in Bates v Post Office. Due to his experience of being bankrupted, Lee has not received anything like the compensation he is due. It is only this month he will be able to apply for compensation under the government’s new GLO scheme for Postmasters.

Sending a Clear Message

It has long being suspected that the Post Office took Lee to the High Court to make an example of him. On Friday we got the first hint that documentary evidence exists to support this suspicion.

Mr Winn had spent much of the day being questioned by the lead barrister to the Inquiry, Jason Beer KC. At the end of his evidence, Flora Page had the opportunity to ask him a few questions.

During this, Page said:

What we now know from documents in this Inquiry… is that there was a clear intent on the part of the Post Office, with legal advice, to pursue the claim: “not to make a net financial recovery but to defend the Horizon System and hopefully send a clear message to other SPMs that the PO will take a firm line and to deter others from raising similar allegations.”

The document Ms Page was referring to was not placed (at her request) on the inquiry screens, but it appears to suggest that the widely-held suspicion is correct. The Post Office ruined Lee Castleton pour encourager les autres. Not to recover the £22,963.34 they said he owed them.

Of course, the judgment could have gone against the Post Office. Lee, representing himself, could have persuaded the judge that Horizon was not working properly and that he did not owe the Post Office any money, but His Honour Judge Richard Havery QC was having none of it.

The testimony of witnesses Lee found who gave examples of Horizon going wrong were dismissed. Anne Chambers, the Fujitsu expert witness who told the judge there was nothing wrong with Horizon at Lee’s branch, was believed. This, as we now know, was incorrect. The inquiry is bringing to light a significant amount of evidence to suggest that even in 2007, the Post Office knew it was incorrect too. More on that to come, no doubt.

If you’d like to read more about Mr Castleton’s case, do have a look at Paul Marshall’s careful evisceration of HHJ Havery’s judgment in his lengthy, but excellent essay The Harm That Judges Do.

My work on the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry is crowdfunded. If you’d like to contribute, please click on the widget you should be seeing to the right of this text (or below if you’re reading it on a mobile). To find out more before donating, please go to my tip jar web page. All contributors will be added to the ‘secret’ email newsletter, which offers irregular, and at times, irreverent insight into the machinations of the inquiry and the wider scandal.

Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

13 responses to “Post Office v Castleton – a second category Abuse of Process?”

  1. Chris Whitehead avatar
    Chris Whitehead

    Imagine, at your place of work, some money goes missing. You get blamed. If you deny it you are threatened with court resulting in prison. Or if you admit it you just get a suspended sentence or community punishment. So to avoid prison you admit guilt. Over and done with you think. Then your company sues you for court costs because you were found guilty, you owe £350,000 in court costs. Your life ruined. This company is called the Post Office. Their logo is ” whatever you need us for, we’re here for you”. They spent £100 million in expensive lawers to try to avoid paying £58 million in compensation. The class action saw the incorrectly convicted see £20,000 in compensation after court costs. The executive salaries were between £250,000 and £500,000

  2. His Honour Master Richard Havery KC – IDIOTIC TWERP.

    Being kinder to the buffoon Havery than Paul Marshall (Cornerstone Barristers) was, I’ve left the senile duffer a glowing commendation in my reply to the sycophancy found at Scroll to the bottom where it says “Comments (1)”.

    Who would want to read anything peddled by such a buffoon?

    In Counsel Paul Marshall’s supplemental submission on compensation, dated 6th January 2023, to the public Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, at para 50 we find :
    “As noted elsewhere, virtually every material finding of both fact and law by Judge Richard Havery Q.C. in his judgment against Mr Castleton was wrong, when considered in the light of the pellucidly clear and rigorous judgments of Mr Justice Fraser”

    A comprehensive evisceration of the then HHJ Havery may be found at

    Surely even the most modest intellect would have realise that to certify – as the delivered judgment did, in effect – a guarantee of lack of material errors within a piece of software without a complete competent and thorough examination of its source code and of the validity of its compilation, and then extensive testing of it in the field, is the action of an idiot. But somehow, to Havery, him being “impressed” by the P.O. liar outweighed all rational thought.

    The certainty with which Havery worded and delivered his astonishingly fallacious judgment and supportive reasoning in Post Office v Castleton [2007] EWHC 5 reminds me of the old adage, most of the problems in our world are caused by only fools having certainty while the wise have only doubts. Havery’s ramblings were then used by Post Office Limited to terrorise SPMs and may well have led to the suicide of one of them.

    Furthermore, back then in 2007 the duffer surely lacked a ‘defence’ of senile dementia to which he might now be inclined to avail.

    Think I’m being a bit harsh? I’m not. The arrogant Dunning-Kruger specimen has no idea of how thick he is, and that becomes evident the more of his other-than-pellucid scribblings you encounter.

    I am shocked to note his scribblings on anything to do with the law, or computers, are treated with seriousness. Sheesh.

    Should he encounter this, I suggest, with the greatest possible respect, he reflect on his own contribution to why the judiciary is held in such profound contempt by those of us unafflicted by stupidity and prejudice.

    However, I’m sure the floosie sent by Fujitsu was easy on the eye, eh, cobber?

    1. Wow! Well said, keep it up, you are brilliant.

  3. Your article says “… Anne Chambers, the Fujitsu expert witness who told the judge there was nothing wrong with Horizon at Lee’s branch, was believed. This, as we now know, was incorrect. …”.

    Whilst it is now known that errors did exist in the Horizon system, has there been anything that shows that there was an actual error in what Anne Chambers said at the 2006/2006 trial ? (I ask this because the article says ‘this’ was incorrect. I am not sure if the ‘this’ the article refers to is the Horizon system as a whole, or specifically in relation to Anne Chambers evidence).

    I would be greatly appreciative if a link etc to where it is said that Anne Chambers’ evidence in 2006/07 was incorrect/disputed could be provided.


    1. For a fee, Anne.

      Money can buy one anything, right?

  4. Was this all kickin off just before splitting of royal mail with post office .. Adam Crozier.. etc. privatisation.. ? Reputation management …
    Who was p.m ? Blaire ..?
    Heads must roll..
    Except .. “it’s just business” .. and the Dons are kept isolated. . cosa imho ..

  5. Ronald Etherington avatar
    Ronald Etherington

    Judge Harvey should be debarred and stripped of his titles forthwith.

  6. Alison Merchant avatar

    Absolutely disgraceful it’s unbelievable, why has Lee CASTLETON only received £30,000 when he end d up bankrupt and had to pay over £300,00 in court costs ? This IS NOT JUSTICE AND HE SHOULD BE REIMBURSED . Personally I think he deserves £1000000 if not more .
    The rest of the victim need damages/ reimbursement immediately not in years to come, the government have said it will be sorted this year !!!! That won’t happen. My heart goes out to all of the affected post office employees, it made me cry .

    1. Shall I tell you the current value of the pile where Havery lurks?

      Were there justice….. (etc.)

  7. As a Francophone, would suggest that the aim, strictly speaking, was more a case of ‘pour décourager les autres’ (or even ‘pour désespérer les autres’) since ‘les encouragés’ would be POL and Fujitsu staff, but no quibbles with your conclusions.

    1. it’s a set phrase from the French revolution…

  8. […] on the basis that she gave evidence in the Post Office’s High Court civil prosecution of Lee Castleton, the former East Bridlington Subpostmaster whose name consists the first two words of Computer Weekly’s seminal first investigation into […]

    1. PCOJ Investigator avatar

      And here we find some ignorant sycophant describing the bigoted duffer as a “polymath”.

      Off-the-scale stupidity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *