Going postal: the Post Office Horizon scandal

The Post Office scandal, perhaps the greatest miscarriage of justice in our history, is still rumbling on, still not finally sorted. Many wrongful convictions, for fraud, dishonesty and false accounting have been quashed. There were some 700 or so postmasters and postmistresses involved, all managing small Post Offices. The computer system, Horizon by Fujitsu was faulty. Fraser J exposed the problems. Sir Wyn Williams, retired High Court Judge, is engaged in holding a public enquiry, expected to report towards the end of 2022.

What is being done?

The Post Office has made a number of compensation payments. The government has acknowledged that it will ensure full compensation, directly through taxpayers’ money or otherwise. Many millions of pounds will be required to make up for the ruined careers and businesses. Some postmasters have died – tragically, some even by suicide. So, the question arises, who, if anybody is potentially liable, civilly or criminally? No one is above the law, we all say, individuals, corporations, agencies – whoever.

Who is responsible in law?

As it happened, the Post Office survived the denationalisation polices of the 1980s and 1990s, for good or ill, probably because of the requirement for the universal delivery (probably unacceptable in the commercial world) – and a certain public attachment to the dear old Post Office. The government remain the sole shareholder.

Who can be prosecuted?

Anybody, individual or company or agency, could be prosecuted for a crime, such as fraud, dishonesty, theft, perjury, health and safety. The difficulty here is the time delay, the complications of the computer world, and the need to prove some kind of criminal intent. Defendants will say that they acted in ignorance, or in good faith, or on seemingly reliable advice, or they are not experts, or that the postmasters pleaded guilty (as indeed many did, presumably often on legal advice).

The CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal, which, on 23 April 2021 quashed a number of the convictions, in Hamilton v Post Office Ltd [2021] EWCA Crim 577. The Court of Appeal accepted the earlier civil findings of Fraser J in Bates v Post Office Ltd [2019] EWHC 3408 (QB), namely that Horizon was not robust, was of questionable reliability, and was not good enough to justify the Post Office confidence.

What about this criminal case?

In the criminal setting, were the convictions safe? The Post Office had not pursued the lines of enquiry they should have done, recorded the information they should have done, so as to be able to provide a fair trial, article 6. There had been a failure of investigation and disclosure, and an abuse of process – and accordingly no fair trial (despite the guilty plea in some instances). The conduct of the Post Office was an affront to the conscience of the court (paras [120]-[139]).

What about politics?