Saturday 24 August 2019

Post Office vs Mental Health: "It's been a living hell."

Deirdre Connolly used to be a credit controller working in Strabane, County Tyrone, for a company called Frylite, which delivers and recycles cooking oil. Deirdre's husband Darius was employed by Guinness as a forklift operator.

In 2006, as Deirdre was approaching her forties, she and Darius decided they wanted a change, mainly to spend more time with each other and their young family. A lease came up on a shop with a post office at Killeter, which wasn't that far from where they lived. The Connollys gave up their jobs, borrowed to buy the lease and got started. They thought they would be set for the rest of their working lives, or to use Deirdre's turn of phrase, "we would be carried out of there in coffins."

As part of a gradual transition process, Deirdre first took over the shop, and was given a basic idea of how to use the Post Office's Horizon system by the previous incumbents. For the first six weeks of being a Subpostmaster, no one from the Post Office came down to show Deirdre what to do.

"I had to go into the post office without training... and try to get used to the whole new system which I knew nothing about... I was reading manuals to work out how to do things."

Deirdre, did, of course, have access to the infamous Horizon helpline: "They were useless. They couldn't understand my accent to start off with [Deirdre has a rural Tyrone accent, and she does speak quickly, but it doesn't take long to get used to]. They could never actually explain anything, how to do anything... I didn't know what I was doing."

Deirdre was operating a system she didn't know how to use, under a contract she hadn't been given*, which would see her held liable for any financial discrepancies at her branch.

With Horizon it is possible for any operator to make a number of mistakes in seconds which could potentially create a balance discrepancy of tens of thousands of pounds. As I have found from speaking to other former Subpomasters, Deirdre's situation was not unique.
The Connollys' Post Office in Killeter, County Tyrone
After six weeks, a trainer came down for a day and a half. The Post Office would later claim Deirdre also went for a week's training in Belfast. "I didn't." she says, "It never happened."

Sitting duck

Somehow, Deirdre, with the help of Darius, got up to what they thought was a reasonable speed. The retail area became a success and with a lot of hard work, Killeter post office and store became a viable business at the centre of the community.

Things were going so well in 2008 the Post Office suggested the Connollys might like to take on a couple of outreach post offices in Ardstraw and Aughabrack. An outreach branch is where a Subpostmaster takes a Horizon laptop, cash and a pinpad into a community without a post office, and operates a basic service from a library or village hall via the data signal on a mobile phone.

This is potentially a risky business at the best of times, but the Connollys' main branch was closer to the Irish town of Donegal than any town in the North. Paramilitary organisations still operate in the area, and when Deirdre was the Killeter Postmaster there had been a number of "tiger" kidnappings. Deirdre was often travelling on her own to and from remote outreach locations at advertised times carrying thousands of pounds in cash in her car. Mobile phone reception in this part of the world is intermittent and without it, Deirdre's panic button wouldn't work. Deirdre regularly changed her route to and from her outreach offices, but she was essentially a sitting duck.

"I was scared. I was waiting on someone to jump out in front of me on the wee roads. I had to contact a local sergeant at one stage because I thought I was being followed."

Despite this hairy situation, Deirdre diligently incorporated her outreach activities into the working week and the Post Office seemed perfectly content to have her travel round County Tyrone carrying large amounts of cash without any proper protection.

"Step out. You're finished."

On 2 June 2010, the Connollys' happy family life and successful business was ripped away from them in a matter of hours.

A Post Office auditor arrived and started going through the Horizon accounting logs with Deirdre. He found a £16,592 discrepancy with exactly £11,500 out of whack on the outreach terminal. The auditor suspended Deirdre on the spot.

Darius was there. "He said: "Hand me your keys. Step out. You're finished.""

The auditor changed the time locks, the combination on the safe and took the single key to the post office "fortress" area away with him. The Connollys were left reeling.

The branch remained closed for a week, causing all sorts of problems. The retail side took an immediate hit as customers were diverted to other branches and the Connollys tried to come to terms with what had happened.
Deirdre with Darius

The same auditor returned a week later, let himself into the fortress and did another audit, during which he found £1000 in cash in the safe which he had missed the previous week. The discrepancy was now £15,592.

One moment the Connollys were a hard-working, successful, respectable couple, known to everyone in their village and the surrounding area. Within days they'd lost their livelihoods and Deirdre was under suspicion of theft.

A week later Deirdre was summoned to Belfast to meet with Post Office investigators. Darius accompanied her, but on arrival he was ordered to wait outside.

Deirdre was allowed to have a member of the National Federation of Subpostmasters present. "He was a 'yes' man", she says, and remembers him sitting there saying "you've done this... ", agreeing the Post Office approach to her suspension was correct. The Post Office investigator told Deirdre she was the only person having problems with Horizon, and no one could explain to her what she had done wrong or how the discrepancy had supposedly arisen.

Eight days later Deirdre was summoned to another interview in Belfast. Again Darius was not allowed to attend, but on this occasion Deirdre had her solicitor present. Nonetheless, she remembers this being closer to an interrogation, with the investigators asking why she had stolen the money and what she had done with it. Deirdre says afterwards her solicitor advised her to make good the discrepancy.

Worried for their future and unaware there were dozens of Postmasters throughout the UK having similar problems, the Connollys borrowed money from their families and handed a cheque to the Post Office for £15,592.

The Post Office responded by terminating Deirdre's contract.

The aftermath

The shock of what happened to the Connollys, particularly Deirdre, is something the family are still living with today.

On 4 August 2010 Deirdre received a letter from the Post Office informing her that she was not going to be prosecuted. The realisation that this could have happened to her was a hammer blow. "I didn't even think of it. Maybe I was naïve, but I'd done nothing wrong, so why would I even think of it?" Deirdre considered ending it all. "Darius would've been coaching soccer... I was here on my own. And I got myself in a real, real tizzy. I could've topped myself that evening if a friend of mine hadn't come round. That was a close call, but I came out on the other side. I'm here to tell the story."

As Subpostmaster, Deirdre had been earning around £1800 a month from the Post Office. This now went to a temporary Subpostmaster who the Post Office installed in the Killeter branch. The Connollys received a small amount of rent under this arrangement, but the hit to their finances and the disruption to their business was significant. The shop was no longer the happy place it used to be. Retail earnings suffered. "People stopped coming in because they thought I stole the money." Deirdre told me. "No smoke without fire, you know...?"

The Connollys struggled on, but it wasn't working out. They had a mortgage on the shop lease, a mortgage on their home and owed money to their family and suppliers. In 2013 they were declared bankrupt. Shortly afterwards, Deirdre developed epilepsy, which she says her consultant believes was directly due to the stress she was under.

"It's been hell," she says "a living hell... We were doing so well. We were having a good craic in the shop and everybody used to come in in the morning and be standing chatting in the shop and there was banter... but no... it all changed."

Deirdre was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Sean, Deirdre's teenage son, was a promising footballer. He had had trials in England, and was keen to see what level he could reach. As he watched what his mum was going through, he became withdrawn and developed anxiety and suicidal thoughts. He stopped going to training and once found himself walking into a river, ready to dip his head under and give it all up. Sean has recovered to a degree, but his parents say he is a changed man.

Mediation scheme and court

Although Darius and Deirdre's marriage was put under severe strain, they came through stronger. "I have to say our families were so supportive." says Deirdre. "I was ashamed it happened because I felt as if I'd let them down. I don't know why but I did. I didn't know where the money went, but it was costing family, costing us."

The Killeter Post Office in later years
I asked Deirdre if she dwelt on how the discrepancy could have arisen. "Every day! Every day until we got out of that shop, I was trying to work out ways that would let me look for it, where it could've gone wrong."

Deirdre and Darius had no idea their situation was not unique until August 2013, when Darius's sister saw an article in the Daily Mirror about a Subpostmaster wrongly accused of stealing £85,000. The piece quoted the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance. They contacted Alan Bates, the founder of the JFSA, just in time to get on the mediation scheme.

Unfortunately, the mediation scheme collapsed in acrimony before Deirdre got a chance to sit in a room with the Post Office, however her case report, compiled by Second Sight, an independent forensic accountancy firm, makes for interesting reading.

Second Sight's job was to investigate each applicant and decide whether or not they were suitable cases for mediation. Here is what they have to say about the Post Office's efforts to uncover the cause of the discrepancies at Deirdre's branch:
"We have drawn the conclusion that no contemporaneous investigations were carried out into the cause of the shortfalls identified by the Audit. Post Office rejects this by stating: "Investigations were carried out by Post Office. The lack of contemporaneous notes does not logically lead to the conclusion that there was no investigation, particularly in light of all the other information presented in [our submissions to Second Sight]"... we are unable to verify the validity of Post Office's statement on this subject and, in any event, we note Post Office's acknowledgement that an undocumented investigation may have been carried out, which would clearly not be sound investigative practice."
So, according to Second Sight, either the Post Office team:

- didn't bother investigating the causes of Deirdre's £15K discrepancy,
- did a thorough investigation and weren't handing the results of that investigation over,
- did a slipshod, half-arsed job.


Second Sight's report concludes:
"We... find the Applicant's remarks regarding her training to be rather compelling and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are inclined to believe that she really was inadequately trained and supported. We have concluded, therefore, that Post Office bears some responsibility for this branch's losses."
By this stage the Post Office Horizon story was generating a reasonable amount of media interest. In May 2015 Deirdre felt well enough to go on Stephen Nolan's BBC Northern Ireland radio show to talk about what had happened to her. The Connollys were still trying to piece together their lives, and Deirdre, as an innocent woman, wanted the cloud of suspicion around her lifted. She describes going public as "a weight off my shoulders".

When the Bates and others v Post Office group litigation began, Deirdre became a claimant.

To mark the first trial, in December 2018, Kevin Magee, a BBC Northern Ireland television journalist, made a piece about Deirdre. Her former employer, Eamon McCay at Frylite, saw it.

Eamon had no idea what Deirdre had been going through. He made contact, and within weeks Deirdre was back, doing her old job at her old company, working for the first time in nine years. She's thrilled.

"It's great. I'm enjoying it. Walking in the first day, it was really scary, but for Eamon to have the confidence in me, to take me back... it means I'm not worthless. For a long time, I thought I was worthless."

Uncertain futures
Tight knit: Deirdre, Sean, Gemma and Darius Connolly
This, though, is not a happy ending. It has taken the Connollys years to get anywhere close to being over their experience. "We've been married 28 years now," says Darius, "You've never seen anybody go from being so outgoing... when we were married the parish priest said DD [Deirdre] was "vivacious" - full of life and full of joy - and that's how she always was. But after what happened she became very introverted."

For a long time Deirdre was clinically depressed, taking medication and living on benefits. She's going to be on epilepsy pills for the rest of her life. Deirdre used to be a confident person. "Now I second guess everything I do." she says.

Financially, the Connollys have lost what should have been the most productive years of their lives. When they should have been building their nest egg, they were paying off debts. Deirdre was unable to work. Today, they have their heads above water, but they have no pension, no investments and still have a long way to go before they pay off the mortgage on their house.

The Connollys have been following Bates and others v Post Office, and have scraped the money together to travel over to London to sit in court and bear witness for at least one day of both trials. "It makes me feel sick," says Deirdre, "when I was told I was the only one, to hear they knew about all these problems."

Deirdre is unequivocal about what she wants from this court case. "An apology. I want my name cleared."

"They lie to you," says Darius, "they tell you nobody else is having any bother and then... you look at what they're doing and you look at how they're conducting themselves and the more you learn about them the more sickened you are really. The people in government have to know how crazy this whole thing is."

I asked the Post Office for their thoughts on Deirdre's situation. They replied "it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual case. The litigation is continuing."

My thanks to the Connollys for their patience as I put this piece together and the numerous interviews which took place over the phone. If you want to read more stories of the people caught up in this scandal, click on Victim testimony at the top of this page.

* Deirdre had signed an "Acknowledgement of Appointment letter", about which forensic investigators Second Sight later said:
"We are surprised to see that Post Office is still referring to such Acknowledgement of Appointment letters as "the contract", when they most obviously are not the contract itself... In stating that there exists no evidence to show that the full 114-page contract was not supplied, Post Office has omitted to say that it has been unable to present any evidence to show that it was supplied."


Addendum: One of the recurring themes in the nine years I've been following this story is the number of Subpostmasters who claim they were told by Post Office contract managers and investigators that they were the only ones who were having problems with Horizon. Time and again Subpostmasters bring it up as a prominent and memorable feature of their trauma. The effect of being told this lie was obvious - isolation, self-doubt and a sense of helplessness.

It seems to have been a Post Office investigation strategy, yet over the course of two trials it has not been addressed in the High Court. Jo Hamilton, a Subpostmaster who was convicted of false accounting, alleges a Post Office contracts advisor called Elaine Ridge told her she was the only person having problems with Horizon. Elaine Ridge gave evidence in the first trial in this litigation. It would have been simple to ask her on oath if she had ever said this to anyone. Yet it was not a feature of any line of inquiry with any Post Office or claimant witness, despite the fact Second Sight picked up on this during their investigations for the mediation scheme.

Maybe it could be argued it's a legitimate investigation strategy for people suspected of serious offences (it doesn't feel like one), maybe proving it would be tricky, but it is concerning there was a golden opportunity to expose what seems like some serious mendacity, yet it was passed up. Perhaps this is for another blog post.

If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts. Click here to see how and where your money is being spent. Click here to find out more about the story.

Choose an amount

Friday 23 August 2019

All the Judgments

A page dedicated to bringing you all the judgments made by Mr Justice Fraser in the Bates and others v Post Office group litigation and those from the Court of Appeal made by Lord Justice Coulson in chronological order.

A pretty thorough bollocking issued to both parties.

Write up (with link to judgment)

The Post Office attempts to selectively tailor the evidence the court is to consider by asking the judge to strike out witness statements it doesn't like. Judge refuses.

Write up (with link to judgment)

180,000 word judgment handed down on 15 March 2019 in the light of the first (Common Issues) trial. Massive win for claimants. Post Office spanked.

Write up: "He did it" (with link to judgment)
Actual judgment.
Judgment cheat sheet. (with link to judgment)

Oh the drama. Judge gives reasons as to why he is rejecting the Post Office's recusal application.

Write up (with link to judgment)
Actual judgment.

Permission refused: Recusal judgment appeal application fails

In which the Court of Appeal refuses the application to appeal the recusal judgment. 

Write-up: "Fraser J is going nowhere"
Actual order

Reasons for refusing the Post Office's attempt to appeal Judgment No 3

Sir Peter Fraser patiently explains why he will not be allowing the above.

Write up (with link to reasons): "There will be at least three more trials"
Actual reasons.

Court of Appeal: Common Issues appeal application pt 1 (fail)

The Court of Appeal rejects the initial application to appeal the Common Issues judgment. 

Write-up - "Court of Appeal invites Post Office lawyers to have another go"

In which the judge reveals both parties have managed to spend more than £25m between them on this litigation so far.

No write up.
Actual judgment.

Court of Appeal: Common Issues appeal application pt 2 (fail)

The Post Office's second application to appeal the Common Issues judgment at the Court of Appeal fails as Lord Justice Coulson notes the Post Office seems to want to treat its Subpostmasters like a "mid-Victorian factory owner."

Write-up (with link to judgment): "Subpostmasters' stunning victory confirmed by Court of Appeal"
Actual judgement.

The settlement agreement

Five days before the Horizon judgment was handed down, the parties settled. The Post Office apologised and handed over £57.75m to the claimants.

Write up: "It's all over"
Settlement agreement joint statement

Judgment No 6: Horizon Issues

The second trial judgment. Another monster. This time weighing in at 178,000 words. The main body is therefore slightly smaller than judgment number three, but it came with a 60,000 word technical appendix making it by some distance, the biggest judgment in this litigation. As above, massive win for the claimants, Post Office spanked.

Write up: "They did it."
Actual judgment.

And that's your lot.

The collecting, collating and posting of the above documents has only been possible by the crowdfunders who have kindly supported this blog.

If you would like to put a small amount of money in the crowdfunding tip jar, please click here. You will be taken to another page on this blog which has more information and a payment portal (operated by PayPal) which will ask for your card details.

Contributors who donate £20 or more will be added to the secret email list, which continues to update subscribers with all the developments of this extraordinary story as it continues.

Judgment No 1: Laying down the Law

I hadn't read the first judgment in Bates and others v Post Office' judgment until recently. I thought it was about disclosure. It's not. It's a boll*cking.

By the time it appeared on 10 November 2017 both parties had managed to annoy the litigation's managing judge Sir Peter Fraser to a considerable degree. In the judgment he lists exactly how:

- "failing to respond to proposed directions for two months";
- "failing even to consider e-disclosure questionnaires";
- "failing to lodge required documents with the court";
- "failing to lodge documents in good time";
- "refusing to disclose obviously relevant documents";
- "resisting any extension to the "cut-off" date for entries of new claimants on the Group Register";
- "threatening pointless interlocutory skirmishes".

The formal order which created the Bates and others v Post Office group litigation (GLO) was made on 22 March 2017.  The rules of the GLO stated that the first case management conference (CMC)  had to be held on the first available date after 18 October 2017. Sir Peter Fraser was appointed managing judge and on 25 April ordered that the first CMC would take place on 19 October.

Unfortunately, that date didn't work for the claimants' lawyers. Inadvisedly, they told the judge they'd get back to him when they'd agreed a date which suited both parties. Bad move. As Sir Peter says:
"This... appeared to be a clear case of the tail wagging the dog. It is notable that judicial availability, and the dates ordered both in the GLO and in Directions Order No.1, were considered such a secondary consideration to counsels' diaries."
The judge told the parties a witness statement would be required before he would consider shifting the date of the first CMC. Astoundingly: "this particular direction was then wholly ignored."

Another bad move. Sir Peter ordered the first CMC would take place on 19 October 2017.

Somehow the Post Office failed to take note of how thin Fraser J's patience was wearing. Shortly before 19 October came round the Post Office's lawyers suggested there didn't need to be any trial in the litigation until 2019 at the earliest. His Lordship was not amused:
"To describe this approach as leisurely, dilatory and unacceptable in the modern judicial system would be a considerable understatement."
The Post Office came into line and the first trial was fixed for November 2018. The day after this was agreed, the Post Office's leading counsel (Anthony de Garr Robinson QC) told the court he was not available, and could the first trial be punted into 2019 anyway?

Interestingly, this was not opposed by the claimants. However, Sir Peter "declined" this application for a further delay, and said he would hand down his written reasons. Hence judgment no 1 in this litigation - both a boll*cking and a reminder to our well-remunerated learned friends that time, for the claimants and the defendant, is very much an issue.
"Fixing hearings in this group litigation around the diaries of busy counsel, rather than their fixing their diaries around this case, is in my judgment fundamentally the wrong approach... On the face of it, a delay in the first round of substantive hearings from November 2018 into early 2019 could be viewed as modest. However, in this case it would mean that the first substantive hearing would commence almost two years after the making of the GLO. That is simply far too long in my judgment. The delay until November 2018 is more than enough as it is... All of the many claimants, and the defendant, need resolution of the matters in issue."
The judge concludes by stating:

"A fundamental change of attitude by the legal advisers involved in this group litigation is required. A failure to heed this warning will result in draconian costs orders."

The parties were on notice.

Click here for the full judgment - it's only 21 paragraphs long and definitely worth a look.

If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts. Click here to see how and where your money is being spent. Click here to find out more about the story.
Choose an amount

Saturday 10 August 2019

What's this all about?

Your 400 word answer follows:

Over many years Subpostmasters (the people who run local post office branches) have been held legally responsible for their branch accounts. These are held on a networked point-of-sale and accounting IT system called Horizon.

However, Subpostmasters are not in control of that system. It is operated Fujitsu on behalf of the Post Office.

Subpostmasters are unable to dispute the accounts presented to them and are held contractually liable by the Post Office for any discrepancies. Until a High Court judgment in March 2019, if Horizon says you should have £80,000 worth of cash and stock in your branch and you only have £50,000, the Post Office would go after you for the £30,000 difference.

The Post Office is not contractually obliged to investigate the cause of a Horizon discrepancy. Many Subpostmasters were certain computer glitches or other uninvestigated causes outside their control were behind discrepancies appearing in their accounts.

In the past, Subpostmasters who refused to make good discrepancies were sacked, losing everything they'd invested in their branches.

Potential miscarriages of justice

Some Subpostmasters, mystified by continual or large scale losses and scared of being sacked and losing their businesses, signed off accounts they knew were not an accurate reflection of their stock and cash. They say they did this to avoid being held liable for discrepancies which were out of their control, which they could not afford to make good, and to keep trading. The Post Office called this false accounting.

Subpostmasters unwilling or unable to make good large discrepancies were sometimes prosecuted (by the Post Office's in-house prosecution team) for theft, false accounting and/or fraud. This was done on IT evidence alone, without proof of criminal intent. Despite this, some Subpostmasters were successfully persuaded by their own solicitors to plead guilty to false accounting, on being told the Post Office would drop theft charges.

Once the Post Office had a criminal conviction, it would occasionally attempt to secure a Proceeds of Crime Act Order against convicted Subpostmasters, allowing it to seize their assets and bankrupt them.

This abuse of process and has been confirmed by the court of appeal as one of the most widespread miscarriages of justice in British history. The Post Office has apologised and is functionally bankrupt.

If you would like to read in forensic detail the level of legal and governmental culpability in this, do read the barrister Paul Marshall's speech to the University of Law on Thursday 3 June 2021. It spells the scandal out in forensic detail.

For more info, please have a look at the "Start here" page, which divides the story up into categories and includes links to pieces I have written on aspects of each category.


This website is crowdfunded. I am also currently writing a book called The Great Post Office Scandal which will be published by Bath Publishing this autumn. If you would like to buy a pre-sale copy, I would be very grateful. For more information, please click here.

Court of Appeal Menu

If either party in Bates and others v Post Office takes issue with aspects of any judgment made during this litigation, they have the option of approaching the Court of Appeal.

So far only the Post Office has attempted to appeal any judgments. The first application to appeal came after the judge, Sir Peter Fraser, refused to recuse himself as managing judge of the litigation. The Court of Appeal refused the application to appeal that judgment.

The second attempt came after Sir Peter refused the Post Office permission to appeal the Common Issues trial judgment.

The application to appeal was filed and immediately rejected by the Court of Appeal on grounds of length. A shortened application was submitted in June 2019. The Court of Appeal is considering that application and is expected to make a decision in autumn 2019.

I have laid out the pieces and relevant documents below.

The Court of Appeal

Recusal judgment appeal application

The Court of Appeal refuses the application to appeal the recusal judgment. Write-up: "Fraser J is going nowhere"
Court of Appeal refusal decision document

Common Issues appeal application

The Court of Appeal rejects the initial application to appeal the Common Issues judgment. Write-up - "Court of Appeal invites Post Office lawyers to have another go"

The Post Office's second application to appeal the Common Issues judgment at the Court of Appeal. Write-up: "Post Office's application to appeal common issues judgment"
Second application grounds of appeal and skeleton argument.
Respondents' Statement of Objection.
Choose an amount