tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37296439425226335582024-03-06T07:31:33.566+00:00Post Office TrialReporting the Post Office Horizon scandalNick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comBlogger378125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-13431842313797529242022-02-23T16:13:00.004+00:002022-03-28T08:37:56.237+01:00New website - please go to postofficescandal.uk<p>Hello! This website is now archived. Please go to the new one - <a href="http://www.postofficescandal.uk">www.postofficescandal.uk</a> - which picks up where this left off.</p><p>Post Office Trial was set up to cover the two trials of the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2018/11/day-9-write-up-best-of-avdb-part-3.html" target="_blank"><i>Bates v Post Office</i> group litigation</a>, which took place in 2018 and 2019. </p><p>I then used it to cover the various court hearings in 2020 and 2021 which saw <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/court-of-appeal-quashed-further-39.html" target="_blank">dozens of Postmasters have their convictions quashed</a>.</p><p>In September 2021 I switched to a new website called <a href="https://www.postofficescandal.uk" target="_blank">Post Office Scandal</a>, which continues to document areas of interest. Both this website and the <a href="https://www.postofficescandal.uk" target="_blank">new one</a> have been crowdfunded.</p><p>This site will remain live for as long as Google wants it to be live. It will no longer be updated. It is an important archive and has been cited in various parliamentary publications (<a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/365/business-energy-and-industrial-strategy-committee/news/161072/post-office-and-horizon-it-scandal-government-and-post-office-must-take-urgent-action-on-compensation-for-subpostmasters/" target="_blank">like this one</a>). Please click around to find the information you want. If you want to send me a message you can still reach me by using the messaging facility in the right hand navigation bar.</p><p>If you would like to <a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/the-great-post-office-scandal-first" target="_blank">buy my book</a> about the Post Office Scandal (as seen below), I would be most grateful. 10% of the proceeds will be given to the <a href="https://www.horizonscandalfund.org" target="_blank">Horizon Scandal Fund</a>, which exists to help Subpostmasters, managers, assistants and their families, past and present, who suffered at the hands of the Post Office.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/the-great-post-office-scandal-first" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="479" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUBlsbLTePkVIAih0wKYqZvDLWxX5XNLxwBNKex7bJZqRdaAs45EtKNa5ZJ8ZvQgDBNuGl8Gw_LemoTDQ3AQRYp4MFPNxwR3h-q9Zh7SI1YL1saNUO7IE-BACqoL4OPvUG4OTF5IYQguZ62B3ZYZ6H42UcM8JeIpb7HRSbEQrN-VgqRzjCEUsaF6_BPQ=w438-h640" width="438" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-35006197553984510262021-09-14T08:33:00.004+01:002021-09-14T08:37:53.197+01:00The UnProsecution Machine<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimlWXbn9Rc9NbzWY2_rE7s5mTG2cAv9454Cno_BSqMak3lg6erYHAuf9ojnUHDFFKDxl5tsSOwKE3t0isH1MrTJ9IdKjT_9_1Byz9oQ8TPIUPWOMckSuw2WOth_RoNaVw8RyIRstMPdTi9/s339/Screenshot+2018-12-01+18.28.38.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="95" data-original-width="339" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimlWXbn9Rc9NbzWY2_rE7s5mTG2cAv9454Cno_BSqMak3lg6erYHAuf9ojnUHDFFKDxl5tsSOwKE3t0isH1MrTJ9IdKjT_9_1Byz9oQ8TPIUPWOMckSuw2WOth_RoNaVw8RyIRstMPdTi9/w640-h180/Screenshot+2018-12-01+18.28.38.png" width="640" /></a></div><p>The Criminal Cases Review Commission has announced it has <a href="https://ccrc.gov.uk/ccrc-refers-six-more-post-office-cases/" target="_blank">referred the cases of six more former Postmasters</a> back to the courts, saying it thinks their prosecutions were an abuse of process.</p><p>Mohammed Aslam, Amanda Barber, Norman Barber, Anthony Gant, Balbir Grewal and David Hughes were all prosecuted at a magistrates' court, which means their appeals will be heard at Southwark Crown Court at a date yet to be confirmed.</p><p>The CCRC says: "All six applicants had pleaded guilty to offences in the magistrates’ court and as a result were prevented, by Statute, from appealing to the Crown Court in the usual way. The CCRC has decided that this amounts to “exceptional circumstances” that allow it to refer the cases despite the lack of earlier appeals."</p><p>Usually the CCRC will only deal with people who have already lodged a formal appeal, and it is relatively rare for someone who has pleaded guilty to get anywhere in the appeals process, either via the CCRC or direct through the courts. It is the extraordinary and "exceptional" nature of the Post Office's dodgy prosecution set-up which created the current environment, allowing those who both pleaded guilty and who did not appeal to make use of the CCRC's services.</p><p>This takes the total number of Post Office referrals made by the CCRC to 57, with the number of those 57 quashed so far being 47. One further referral to the Court of Appeal has yet to be heard and the CCRC currently has around 30 further Post Office cases under review. </p><p>Taking into account the number of people who have gone to the Court of Appeal directly, there have now been 59 convictions quashed:</p><p><a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/12/first-subpostmaster-convictions-quashed.html" target="_blank">6 at Southwark Crown Court</a> on 11 December 2020</p><p><a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/court-of-appeal-quashed-further-39.html" target="_blank">39 at the Court of Appeal</a> on 23 April </p><p><a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/two-more-convictions-quashed-total-now.html" target="_blank">2 at Southwark Crown Court</a> on 14 May</p><p><a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/07/12-more-convictions-quashed-total-now-59.html" target="_blank">12 at the Court of Appeal</a> on 19 July</p><p>A further 4 appellants will not have their appeals opposed but they have yet to be formally overturned.</p><p>24 appellants' cases are currently being opposed by the Post Office and the CPS (acting on behalf of the DWP, who prosecuted at least four of the cases using Horizon evidence). 18 of those cases were discussed at the Court of Appeal on 19 July - the remaining six were part of a separate cohort who have yet to be discussed in an open hearing. </p><p>The Post Office has requested further information on two outstanding cases before making a decision on whether or not to oppose their appeals.</p><p>It is expected that the 24 opposed appellants' cases (which may, on receipt of that further information become 26) will be heard by the Court of Appeal before Christmas. As the CCRC are looking at more applications and the Court of Appeal are receiving applicants directly, the number of appellants' cases examined at the forthcoming hearing could rise.</p><p>There is no hearing date for those who have been most recently referred. Their circumstances are as follows:</p><p>• Mohammed Aslam pleaded guilty to false accounting at Newport Magistrates’ Court on 23rd January 2007 and was sentenced to 60 hours of unpaid work and a £300 fine. </p><p>• Amanda Barber pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation at Warrington Magistrates’ Court on 6th June 2012 and was sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid work.</p><p>• Norman Barber also pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation at Warrington Magistrates’ Court on 6th June 2012 and was sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid work.</p><p>• Anthony Gant pleaded guilty to false accounting at Shrewsbury and North Shropshire Magistrates’ Court on 29th October 2007 and was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months and 100 hours of unpaid work.</p><p>• Balbir Grewal pleaded guilty to false accounting at Luton Magistrates’ Court on 13th August 2001 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence and a community order.</p><p>• David Hughes pleaded guilty to making a false instrument at Workington Magistrates’ Court and was sentence to a community order of 12 months and 100 hours of unpaid work.</p><p><b>Interim payments are landing - some are being refused</b></p><p>The Post Office says it has made 13 interim payments to those whose convictions have been quashed, ahead of a full settlement. The settlement scheme was <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/07/government-to-make-interim-payments-of.html" target="_blank">announced by the government in July</a>. The thirteen payments have all been for the maximum amount of £100,000, however the Post Office is already refusing to make any interim payments to some Subpostmasters (the majority of whom had their convictions overturned at Southwark Crown Court). This suggests the Post Office still believe some of the people who had their names cleared were, at the very least, not prosecuted maliciously.</p><p>Those whose payments have been refused are appealing the decision, and are therefore reluctant to go public just yet, but I suspect this is something campaigners in the House of Commons and House of Lords will wish to raise at the first opportunity. </p><p><b>Historical Shortfall Scheme update</b></p><p>Another tranche of "small claims" applied for under last year's Historical Shortfall Scheme has landed. I am in touch with two serving Subpostmasters who lost similar sums to Horizon, both under £10,000. The Post Office as agreed to repay them, plus interest. </p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">**********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a>, which will be published by Bath Publishing in October 2021. If you would like to put a few quid in the tip jar (and join the "secret" email newsletter mailing list) and/or would like to buy a copy of the book, <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a> for more information.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-52106960268565675482021-08-27T06:58:00.005+01:002021-08-27T07:12:53.586+01:00Post Office Horizon Inquiry to consider "redress" for Subpostmasters<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvAzGSpuhtkZRpMQJxayhTw_ipJ8Vdc23r5_Jsx5Nw1txRPSLJ9EY96Z85FpWAGPi0QFKgZ77gEz-1wJP1SgOWIUfNsP4uWR52vEOdGtvB2WbHleyF0RxaIDcO1GNyG70GzPAhL7CsewMw/s328/Screenshot+2021-08-27+at+06.56.28.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="326" data-original-width="328" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvAzGSpuhtkZRpMQJxayhTw_ipJ8Vdc23r5_Jsx5Nw1txRPSLJ9EY96Z85FpWAGPi0QFKgZ77gEz-1wJP1SgOWIUfNsP4uWR52vEOdGtvB2WbHleyF0RxaIDcO1GNyG70GzPAhL7CsewMw/s320/Screenshot+2021-08-27+at+06.56.28.png" width="320" /></a></div>The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, chaired by <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/09/inquiry-branded-cynical-cop-out-by.html" target="_blank">Sir Wyn Williams</a>, has published its first "<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-office-horizon-it-inquiry-2020/provisional-list-of-issues#support-representation-and-redress-for-spms" target="_blank">Provisional list of issues</a>" since being put on a statutory footing. One of the areas it is proposing to examine is the issue of "redress" for Subpostmasters who have fallen foul of the Post Office and its Horizon IT system.<p></p><p>The <a href="https://www.jfsa.org.uk" target="_blank">Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance</a> has <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/jfsa-encourages-members-to-sign-up-with.html" target="_blank">so far refused to participate in the inquiry</a> unless the government allows it to consider proper compensation for the 555 Subpostmasters who took the Post Office to court. </p><p>The 555 <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/its-all-over-parties-agree-resolution.html" target="_blank">settled with the Post Office in December 2019</a> for £57.75m, but only around £12m reached the claimants - most of the money went on fees.</p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-office-horizon-it-inquiry-2020/provisional-list-of-issues#support-representation-and-redress-for-spms" target="_blank">Section 142 - 152</a> of the inquiry's provisional list of issues deals with "Support, representation and redress for SPMs" [SPMs is a common abbreviation for Subpostmasters], with paragraph 152 asking:</p><p></p><blockquote>"To what extent (if at all) has the creation and implementation of the Historic Shortfall Group Scheme and the Interim Compensation Scheme provided an adequate means for affected SPMs, managers and assistants to obtain redress for the wrongs which they have suffered?"</blockquote><p></p><p>The 555 Subpostmasters who settled at the High Court have specifically been excluded from the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/05/historical-shortfall-scheme-announced.html" target="_blank">Historical Shortfall Scheme</a>, and only those whose convictions have been quashed qualify for the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/07/government-to-make-interim-payments-of.html" target="_blank">Interim Compensation Scheme</a>.</p><p>A straightforward answer to par 152 from the litigants' perspective would be that the Historical Shortfall Scheme and the Interim Compensation Scheme have not provided an adequate means for (all) affected SPMs, managers and assistants to obtain redress for the wrongs which they have suffered, because there is a group of people who are specifically excluded from both schemes (the 555 minus those who have had their convictions quashed) who have only received partial redress.</p><p>Whether the phrasing of par 152 and the wider list of issues is enough to satisfy Alan Bates, the leader of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, should become clear in the next few days. I've asked for a response.</p><p><b>Interim lack of Compensation Scheme</b></p><p>I am starting to hear worrying news that the Post Office is refusing to make interim payments to Subpostmasters whose convictions were overturned at Southwark Crown Court. Last month the government announced the above-mentioned Interim Compensation Scheme <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/07/government-to-make-interim-payments-of.html" target="_blank">would make interim payments of up to £100,000</a> to Subpostmasters whose convictions have been quashed. One Subpostmaster (who wishes to remain anonymous) has already been told he will receive the full £100,000. His conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal because his original convictions was at a crown court.</p><p>Subpostmasters who were convicted in magistrates' courts have to have their convictions overturned at a crown court. So far, eight Subpostmasters have had their convictions overturned at Southwark Crown Court. I am told that at least one of these Subpostmasters has been refused any interim payment and more than one source has told me this may have something to do with the way the convictions were overturned. I have asked the Post Office for more information.</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">**********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a>, which will be published by Bath Publishing in October 2021. If you would like to put a few quid in the tip jar (and join the "secret" email newsletter mailing list) and/or would like to buy a copy of the book, <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a> for more information.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-45895156347703583212021-08-05T06:02:00.004+01:002021-08-05T08:03:15.658+01:00Police interview two people on suspicion of perjury<p>The Metropolitan Police has confirmed that a man and a woman have been interviewed under caution on suspicion of perjury.</p><p>On 16 December 2019, at the conclusion of the <i>Bates v Post Office</i> litigation, the managing judge, Mr Justice Fraser, told the court he was so concerned about the evidence given in previous civil and criminal trials by a number of Fujitsu employees, he was passing confidential a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill.</p><p>On 20 January 2020, Mr Hill, who runs the Crown Prosecution Service, forwarded a letter from Mr Justice Fraser to the Metropolitan Police and an investigation was launched. The detective put in charge of the case was Detective Sergeant Hayley Broom from the Major Inquiries/Special Enquiry Team.</p><p>On 13 November last year it was confirmed DS Broom's investigation had become a criminal investigation.</p><p>On 18 November last year, the names of two the former Fujitsu engineers under investigation were revealed in open court and reported on this website and widely in the media.</p><p>Now two people have been questioned.</p><p>Earlier this month, the journalist Tony Collins, who commissioned the very first investigation into the Post Office Horizon scandal for Computer Weekly, <a href="https://ukcampaign4change.com/2021/08/02/post-office-it-scandal-police-interview-two-people-under-caution-on-suspicion-of-perjury/" target="_blank">credited a Sunday Mirror piece</a> which reported this latest development.</p><p>Yesterday, when I asked the Met press office if the Sunday Mirror piece (which does not appear to be available online) and Tony Collins' reporting of it was correct, I was told that "a man and a woman have been interviewed under caution on suspicion of perjury". </p><p>The press office added:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Being given this statement is not a confirmation of any name or profession media may attribute, or wish to attribute. It is given on the basis of being asked for information on the incident, on the date stated and at the location stated."</blockquote><p></p><p>The police investigation, prompted by Mr Justice Fraser's letter has now taken 17 months. No one has yet been charged. </p><p>Previous mistakes by the police and the media, privacy rules and contempt laws around live cases make it difficult to put hard information in the public domain. The closer the police get to charging anyone, the less I am allowed to report. The priority (perhaps ironically, given the nature of this scandal) is ensuring that if anyone <i>is</i> charged they have the opportunity of a fair trial.</p><p><b>JFSA meet the police</b></p><p>On 26 July this year, Alan Bates said the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and a legal team from Howe and Co had met with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Met Police. Bates told his members the police would not tell him what is going on:</p><p></p><blockquote>"as it is an open case, but we did receive assurances about how seriously they are taking matters and how, despite the Judge only referring two names to them, they will go where the evidence takes them."</blockquote><p></p><p>Last year, in a letter to Darren Jones MP, the former chief executive of the Post Office, Paula Vennells, told Mr Jones she was:</p><p></p><blockquote>"aware that there have been calls for criminal proceedings against Post Office and against institutions and individuals who were responsible for or involved with the investigation and prosecution of sub-postmasters who were affected by the defects in Horizon. I wish to state for the record that I do not accept any personal criminal misconduct."</blockquote><p></p><p><b>Review into Vennells' CBE</b></p><p>Paula Vennells was given a CBE for her services to the Post Office shortly before she left the organisation in early 2019. She had spent seven years as chief executive, during which time the average Subpostmaster pay had plummeted to unsustainable levels, the Post Office was in total institutional denial about (and, the evidence suggests, covered-up) its responsibility for dozens of miscarriages of justice, and she also authorised a litigation strategy which would see the organisation cease to be <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/07/full-value-of-claims-to-historical.html" target="_blank">capable of operating as a going concern</a>. </p><p>There have been calls by MPs and the Communications Workers Union for the Reverend Vennells to be stripped of her CBE. Now, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/24/former-post-office-chief-executive-could-stripped-cbe-official/" target="_blank">according to the Daily Telegraph</a>, the former Chairman of the Post Office, Alice Perkins is also in the frame.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/24/former-post-office-chief-executive-could-stripped-cbe-official/" target="_blank">report</a> (which is paywalled), reports government "sources" describing "plans to launch a review into honours awarded to people embroiled in the Horizon subpostmasters scandal."</p><p>This review "is expected to involve a list of names of figures involved being compiled, along with an assessment of the level of their involvement."</p><p>Vennells is named, as is Perkins: "the former chairman of the Post Office, who is married to Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary. She was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath in 2002."</p><p>Alwen "<a href="https://www.onepostoffice.co.uk/secure/latest-news/our-people/i-have-lived-and-breathed-the-business-my-whole-life/" target="_blank">I have lived and breathed the business my whole life</a>" Lyons, the Post Office's former company secretary, <a href="https://www.onepostoffice.co.uk/secure/latest-news/our-people/alwen-lyons-to-be-honoured/" target="_blank">who was made an OBE in 2017</a>, is not mentioned. She has a significant role in this scandal, according to information I hope to put in my forthcoming book.</p><p>The Daily Telegraph does not give any details of how this review of Post Office honours is going to function and what relationship it will have with the government's <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/having-honours-taken-away-forfeiture" target="_blank">forfeiture committee</a>. The forfeiture committee is the only body which has the power to recommend Her Majesty annul an honour, but it is not an investigative body, which means it relies on a complaint, and information supplied to it. It also, weirdly, is not obliged to publish its decisions.</p><p>The sort of information the forfeiture committee will consider is limited. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/having-honours-taken-away-forfeiture" target="_blank">According to its website</a>, the committee: "reflects the findings of official investigations and makes a recommendation of whether or not the honours system has been brought into disrepute."</p><p>It seems as if this government "review", reported by the Daily Telegraph, could be classed as an "official investigation", though on what legal basis it is founded, what level of "review" will be carried out and what relationship the review is going to have to the statutory inquiry into the Post Office scandal has yet to be explained.</p><p>The Daily Telegraph's sources state the impetus for this review is coming from the Prime Minister and Robert Buckland, the Justice Secretary who are both apparently "very exercised" about the scandal.</p><p>I have asked the government for more information.</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">**********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">This blog is crowdfunded. I am also writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a>, which will be published by Bath Publishing in October 2021. If you would like to put a few quid in the tip jar (and join the "secret" email newsletter mailing list) or would like to buy a copy of the book, <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-54093750616002511002021-07-22T21:57:00.005+01:002021-08-05T08:31:13.168+01:00Government to make interim payments of up to £100,000 to "unconvicted" Subpostmasters<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwfeYIg6DJfhxHGqvIFE8TLrzYo_CFMR7oOHp3s5OLyDEmzxE0O9guB4eEZjWCJ9YhA5AJqRIU28sCkqfP4V8p2gOdaEhRnFdzHEzLOwC8ZUvyozD1bS7Qy1LSGQEJDTpanyg95EfzRfh5/s1024/Sian+Thomas+Noel+Tracy+Janet+Wendy+and+Jo.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwfeYIg6DJfhxHGqvIFE8TLrzYo_CFMR7oOHp3s5OLyDEmzxE0O9guB4eEZjWCJ9YhA5AJqRIU28sCkqfP4V8p2gOdaEhRnFdzHEzLOwC8ZUvyozD1bS7Qy1LSGQEJDTpanyg95EfzRfh5/w640-h480/Sian+Thomas+Noel+Tracy+Janet+Wendy+and+Jo.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Postmasters celebrating the quashing of their convictions in April this year</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />At last, a proper bit of cold, hard cash will finally be making its way into campaigning Subpostmasters' pockets, and soon.<p></p><p>Today the Business Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng <a href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-07-22/hcws246" target="_blank">told parliament</a>:</p><p></p><blockquote>"interim payments of up to £100,000 promptly to individual postmasters whose criminal convictions relied on Horizon data and have been quashed, ahead of final compensation settlements being agreed with them."</blockquote><p></p><p>Paul Scully, the minister for Postal Affairs said:</p><p></p><blockquote>"The suffering and distress these postmasters and their families have gone through cannot be overstated. While nothing will make up for the years of pain they faced after this appalling injustice, I hope this initial step provides a measure of comfort."</blockquote><p></p><p>The government has chosen to ignore the majority of civil claimants, led by Alan Bates, the founder of the <a href="https://www.jfsa.org.uk" target="_blank">Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance</a>, who won a <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/they-did-it.html" target="_blank">stunning series of victories</a> against the Post Office <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/01/articles.html" target="_blank">at the High Court</a>. </p><p><b>Nothing yet for civil claimants</b></p><p>The 555 claimants in that case won £57.75m in compensation from the Post Office, but <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/further-questions.html" target="_blank">£46m went on lawyers' and litigation funders' fees</a>, as the Post Office <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000wl4b" target="_blank">allegedly pursued a deliberate strategy to try to outspend the claimants in court</a>.</p><p>Bates' has been <a href="https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252492923/Government-covers-its-ears-as-complaint-by-victims-of-Post-Office-abuse-heads-to-ombudsman" target="_blank">demanding the £46m</a> from the government ever since. His claims have so far been ignored, despite the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/nick-reads-speech-to-troops.html" target="_blank">Post Office supporting his argument</a>.</p><p>I spoke to a delighted Seema Misra today. Vindication is one thing, and for her it was the single most important thing, but it doesn't pay the mortgage. </p><p>Seema was sent to prison in 2010 on her son's tenth birthday whilst she was pregnant with her second child. She very nearly lost her baby (who I am delighted to say is now a delightful young man). I made <a href="http://becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwallis.blogspot.com/2011/02/whats-up-at-post-office.html" target="_blank">this film</a> with Seema's husband, Davinder, whilst his wife was still in prison.</p><p><b>Immense anguish</b></p><p>There are people who have been earning a pittance or not working at all for years as a result of the convictions. The nest eggs they should have been building don't exist, they have debts and difficulties that were visited on them by a state-owned prosecution machine which did not have anything like the competence to wield its power properly.</p><p>Janet Skinner, who was <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gpbv" target="_blank">sent to prison in 2007</a>, and whose conviction was quashed in April this year, alongside Seema's, issued a statement today saying:</p><p></p><blockquote>"I had to wait 14 years to have my wrongful conviction by the Post Office overturned by the Court of Appeal. I welcome today's announcement. The government, as the Post Office's owner and sole shareholder, was behind the Post Office's ruthless and unjustified defence of the civil litigation in which I was one of the claimants. That litigation caused immense anguish to those who like me - and my family - who had already suffered so much by wrongful imprisonment."</blockquote><p></p><p>Tracy Felstead, who was <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/06/post-office-v-mental-health-they-didnt.html" target="_blank">sent to prison aged 19</a> in 2002 told me: </p><p></p><blockquote>"I’m happy and I’m glad the government and the Post Office are trying to sort this terrible miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately for some it’s too late, but I am grateful that they are trying to put an end to this."</blockquote><p></p><p>Tracy has spent almost her entire adult life a convicted criminal, and knowing she had been wrongfully convicted caused her all sorts of mental health problems. I spoke to her this morning (before we knew the government was going to make this announcement) and she told me of the flashbacks, sleeplessness paranoia and trust issues which have plagued her life. </p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggE4ihOCx_oEOoDPVYZTWqfCscu1gqiI8VNvnNMINpq5E2J8jKlWNS9gFyhUy91__wrFT_VdQzQIX4jHsQA_wSr5vC2LcAhGakBsUQanj1mcXA-OhUpT52ttQktfjozM5I2m8SJNztAnD3/s2016/20210423_124920_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="980" data-original-width="2016" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggE4ihOCx_oEOoDPVYZTWqfCscu1gqiI8VNvnNMINpq5E2J8jKlWNS9gFyhUy91__wrFT_VdQzQIX4jHsQA_wSr5vC2LcAhGakBsUQanj1mcXA-OhUpT52ttQktfjozM5I2m8SJNztAnD3/w640-h312/20210423_124920_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">l-r Seema, Janet and Tracy, on the day their convictions were quashed</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Tracy also said that despite her conviction being quashed she still thinks everything is going to be taken away from her, because when she was a young woman the state took everything away from her and gave her no coherent reason for doing so. What's to stop that happening again?<p></p><p>Neil Hudgell, the solicitor representing the vast majority of the Subpostmasters whose convictions have been overturned at the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court in the last few months said:</p><p></p><blockquote>“The dialogue we have been having with legal representatives instructed by the Post Office has been very positive to this date and there appears to be good intentions. This cautiously positive step is to be welcomed and suggests, hopefully, that the Post Office is now intending to do right by the many people it has harmed so badly. This cannot be a delaying gesture though. This is money to which these clients are entitled. With regards to how final settlements are agreed, we want them to come to the table and be meaningful in what they put forward."</blockquote><p></p><p>The Postmasters will have to apply for their interim payment, but it will not prevent them from suing the Post Office for malicious prosecution. The Post Office has said it hopes the total sums of compensation due to individual Subpostmasters can be resolved by Alternative Dispute Resolution, often seen as a quicker and cheaper route to justice.</p><p>Paul Marshall, the barrister who worked with Seema Misra, Tracy Felstead and Janet Skinner said today:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Interim payments of up to £100,000 to be made by the government (given that the Post Office has been rendered technically insolvent by the scale of the claims against it) to those whose convictions were quashed on appeal will no doubt make a very considerable difference to many of those afflicted by the Post Office’s mendacity in its prosecutions and its subsequent ill-conceived defence of the civil claims made against it. It is also a very sensible commercial decision that may well protect the Post Office from a sizeable number of modest claims for malicious prosecution." </blockquote><p></p><p>Marshall wonders: </p><p></p><blockquote>"whether the government’s change of heart may be informed by considerations as to how things may play out in the Williams’ Inquiry, and that no harm will be done to the government by being seen to do ‘the decent thing’"</blockquote><p></p><p>The Post Office CEO, Nick Read, said:</p><p></p><blockquote>“Ensuring compensation is made as quickly as possible is a priority for Post Office. I welcome the Government’s support to enable these interim payments that begin to provide some redress to people who were badly failed. Whilst we cannot change the past, this is an important step towards meaningful compensation for victims and we will offer payments as soon as possible.”</blockquote><p></p><p>Last word to <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/07/31-news-subpostmaster-appeals-10.html" target="_blank">Tim Brentall</a>, a Hudgells client, whose conviction was quashed on Monday. He simply said: "It's a decent start."</p><p>Oh, and if you want to know what scandal is in Turkish, it's "skandalinda" - this <a href="https://www.eurovizyon.co.uk/ingiltere/horizon-skandalinda-100-bin-sterlin-tazminat-karari-h72120.html" target="_blank">story is spreading</a>...*</p><p>*****************</p><p>UPDATE: * I am indebted to <a href="https://twitter.com/Barristerblog" target="_blank">Matthew Scott</a>, author of the excellent <a href="http://www.barristerblogger.com" target="_blank">Barrister Blog</a>, who kindly pointed out to me (within hours of the above piece being posted) that the Turkish for scandal is, rather prosaically, "skandal". </p><p>He writes: "Skandalı can mean "the scandal" (it's more complicated than that though), and skandalında means "in the scandal"."</p><p>If I ever try to teach you Turkish again, suggest we do something else.</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">**********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">This blog is crowdfunded. I am also writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a>, which will be published by Bath Publishing in October 2021. If you would like to put a few quid in the tip jar (and join the "secret" email newsletter mailing list) or would like to buy a copy of the book, <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-72236769073898610142021-07-19T15:50:00.005+01:002021-07-19T16:33:44.252+01:0012 more convictions quashed - total now 59<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw6Xx3BocwRRI2NEQjlHVeqhR5V3SencStgotg2HJTmMizUm_qHMZJNgVqFzuflU4mKv6WfJqICYkYYM6g0pZCfjymb1AqaHKmUjcCOuC8KTzpHSu9tkxowPNLd3iKgLcaiX5HH6ZlPw37/s1008/20210719_121832_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw6Xx3BocwRRI2NEQjlHVeqhR5V3SencStgotg2HJTmMizUm_qHMZJNgVqFzuflU4mKv6WfJqICYkYYM6g0pZCfjymb1AqaHKmUjcCOuC8KTzpHSu9tkxowPNLd3iKgLcaiX5HH6ZlPw37/w640-h312/20210719_121832_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(l-r) Sami Sabet, Carina Price, Harmukh Shingadia, Jerry Hosi, Tim Brentnall</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>Twelve more Subpostmasters have had their convictions quashed at the Court of Appeal today. </p><p>They were part of a group of 31 appeals under consideration. All of the twelve whose convictions were quashed were prosecuted by the Post Office, with Horizon IT evidence central to their prosecutions. The Post Office chose not to oppose the appeals, which allowed the courts to overturn them at the earliest possible opportunity - today.</p><p>The first person I introduced myself to outside court was Jerry Hosi, who you can see with his thumbs up in the picture above. Jerry ran the Porters Avenue Post Office in Dagenham. He found himself with an £82,000 discrepancy. He said all along it was Horizon causing problems and his case went to trial. In 2010 he was found guilty of theft, false accounting and fraud and sentenced to nearly two years in Pentonville Prison. Today he just said: "I feel very proud and I feel very happy because justice has finally been done.”</p><p>Tim Bentnall, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/07/31-news-subpostmaster-appeals-10.html" target="_blank">who I recently interviewed</a>, came down from Pembrokeshire with his partner Steph. He said he was feeling:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Up in the clouds. Amazing. I still have this burning anger at the Post Office inside me but at the moment we’re up at the top."</blockquote><blockquote><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA2D06RJW7OoRyVDdiA1pzVUSb1CC9KckoUHZ5X42NeJuYWtqjrB9GJna2Qn3Bhm8Un72Xvmhs3OniU3CdoYjAeGTsZ40Eji1L5Fa5e62vP2vpvLPXdD6zwiNAgsZ6lyl7c8VTVPOv11ki/s1008/20210719_125936_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA2D06RJW7OoRyVDdiA1pzVUSb1CC9KckoUHZ5X42NeJuYWtqjrB9GJna2Qn3Bhm8Un72Xvmhs3OniU3CdoYjAeGTsZ40Eji1L5Fa5e62vP2vpvLPXdD6zwiNAgsZ6lyl7c8VTVPOv11ki/w640-h312/20210719_125936_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Tim 'n Steph</span></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><p></p><p>Tim was convicted in 2010 after pleading guilty to false accounting. I asked him how he'd slept ahead of today's hearing. He gave a revealing answer:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Not last night, no, I haven’t slept well… When I had the email from Hudgells to say my appeal wasn’t being opposed - I slept so well for the next three nights it made me realise how I haven’t slept for the last ten years. If you’d asked me three months ago I’d have said yeah I’m fine, I’ve dealt with it really well, I’m really stoic but now knowing that I’ve been vindicated you realise how low… and how it has affected you over this decade.”</blockquote><p></p><p>I asked what were his feelings towards the Post Office over the way it had behaved. He replied:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Disgust and anger. There’s hundreds of us now, and one of the main points was they convinced nearly every one of us that it was only a singular occurance - that we were only having our own individual problem. When I was prosecuted in 2010, there was a huge number of prosecutions going on."</blockquote><p></p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA63ji-HHlS2gy5Dk1RMjX-54qj0Ew0-sySAfJRFIAZGj3DBEI1kOFsme6nJbT-fq_Iie3tcoJpFb1u8ST8xH3uR-SWbzf-JgpkAlQTTPgR6LYVA33W__u2WjyZ_SJHuisS7xuW-PFaDMT/s1008/20210719_122619_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA63ji-HHlS2gy5Dk1RMjX-54qj0Ew0-sySAfJRFIAZGj3DBEI1kOFsme6nJbT-fq_Iie3tcoJpFb1u8ST8xH3uR-SWbzf-JgpkAlQTTPgR6LYVA33W__u2WjyZ_SJHuisS7xuW-PFaDMT/w640-h312/20210719_122619_resized.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Carina Price, flanked by husband Steve (l) and Neil Hudgell from Hudgell solicitors</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Carina Price was convicted in 2005 after auditors found a £13,000 hole in her accounts at Sopley Post Office, near Ringwood in Dorset. Carina said the the last 16 years have been hard:<p></p><p></p><blockquote>"It broke my marriage up. It was a very bad time. I had a breakdown over it. Before they [the Post Office investigators] came in and everything else I couldn’t understand what was going wrong and i was tearing my hair out over it and I was getting to the point where I was suicidal, because I just couldn’t work out what was going wrong."</blockquote><p></p><p>Carina first found out she wasn't alone by making contact with the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance: </p><p></p><blockquote>"Then I realised I wasn’t the only person. But the problem was, I wasn’t coping very well and I lost touch with them. And I thought the Post Office would win! I thought the JFSA were never going to get anywhere with this. Then I heard about the first court cases going on at the Court of Appeal so I phoned Hudgells.”</blockquote><p></p><p>Carina says her legal team have done "an amazing job. They’ve turned our lives around with all the work they’ve done."</p><p>The 19 remaining cases are all being opposed. They will be heard over five days either towards the end of this year or next year. Fifteen of the cases are Post Office prosecutions and four are being opposed by the Crown Prosecution Service. The reason for the CPS being involved is because the DWP, who prosecuted four of the appellants, had its prosecution function folded into the CPS some time ago.</p><p>Only one of the 19 cases is a direct referral from the Criminal Cases Review Commission. He is an appellant. The other 18 are applicants who applied direct to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has not yet given them leave to appeal and has ordered them to make their case to a single High Court judge in order to get to the appellant state. All are represented by Hudgells.</p><p>In April this year the Court of Appeal upheld the three convictions which were opposed by the Post Office, which argued Horizon data was not essential to their cases. Of the 15 cases the Post Office is opposing this time round, they are taking the same position. The DWP is refusing to comment.</p><p>On today's successful appeals the Post Office said:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>“Post Office is sincerely sorry for past failures and we welcome the Court’s decision today to quash convictions without delay in the appeals we supported.</p><p>“We are making strenuous efforts to fairly address historical miscarriages of justice, including an extensive review of prosecutions since 1999 to identify and disclose all material which might affect the safety of convictions.</p><p>“We are also transforming our organisation to prevent such events ever happening again and to re-set our relationship with postmasters.”</p><div></div></blockquote><div>Neil Hudgell said:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>"Today is another step forward in terms of maintaining the momentum and ensuring we continue to contest every unsafe conviction as a result of the Post Office using its faulty Horizon computer system to pursue prosecutions against decent, honest, law-abiding people. </div><div><br /></div><div>“Once again we have been proud to represent a group of people here who did no wrong, who were bullied into admitting to crimes they had not committed, made to pay back large sums of money they had not taken and who saw their lives irreparably damaged as a result. </div><div><br /></div><div>“This group again includes people who spent time in prison. Sadly, what happened to each individual and their families can never be reversed. That makes it all the more important for it to be recognised by the Post Office and the courts.”</div></blockquote><div></div><p>If you want to read today's live-tweets from inside court, <a href="https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1417054356902457344.html" target="_blank">they are all collated here</a> on one easy-to-read web page.</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"> **********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">This blog is crowdfunded. I am also writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a>, which will be published by Bath Publishing in October 2021. If you would like to put a few quid in the tip jar (and join the "secret" email newsletter mailing list) or would like to buy a copy of the book, <a href="https://store29806256.company.site" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-14841506094721832472021-07-11T12:05:00.006+01:002021-07-13T16:43:20.737+01:00Second Sight were told about remote access in 2012<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qk_P8AHaf24" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div><p>On Monday 7 June 2021 a panel of wise minds gathered remotely at an event hosted by University College London's Faculty of Law to discuss "Justice for Subpostmasters in the Post Office case". The seminar was chaired by Iris Chiu, the director of the centre for Ethics and Law at UCL.</p><p>It was a fascinating two hour event, which <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2021/jun/justice-sub-postmasters-post-office-case" target="_blank">can be watched here</a> or above on the embedded youtube link.</p><p>The participants were: Ian Henderson from Second Sight, Paul Marshall from Cornerstone Barristers, Flora Page from 23 Essex Chambers, Nick Gould from Aria Grace Law, Dineshi Ramesh from Board Intelligence, Anthony Edwards (retired solicitor), Jonathan Rogers from the University of Cambridge, Richard Moorhead from the University of Exeter and Alan Brener from the Centre for Ethics and Law at UCL.</p><p>As Mr Henderson explains below, Second Sight were appointed in 2012 by MPs, campaigners and the Post Office to conducted an independent investigation of the Post Office's Horizon IT system. They were contracted by the Post Office.</p><p>Mr Henderson's brief presentation on 7 June 2021 contained information not yet widely known:</p><p>- The admission by Fujitsu engineer and Horizon Architect Gareth Jenkins <i>in September 2012</i> of routine remote access to branch terminals without the specific consent or knowledge of Subpostmasters</p><p>- Second Sight's concerns about prosecutor misconduct at the Post Office.</p><p>- The "litigation hold" instruction in 2012 which should have preserved all relevant documents at that point and going forward. (Possibly ignored according to the Clarke Advices documents)</p><p>- The existence of "CD1" as a definitive record of prosecution documents including legal advice to Post Office in September 2012. </p><p>Mr Henderson also provided a list of question he feels need to be addressed by the Williams inquiry into the Post Office scandal.</p><p><b>Remote access</b></p><p>Before you read the full transcript of Mr Henderson's contribution, consider this: if Gareth Jenkins was telling the Post Office's independent investigators that remote access to branch terminals without the specific consent or knowledge of Subpostmasters was possible in 2012:</p><p>- what was the chief executive of the Post Office doing <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2018/11/day-9-write-up-best-of-avdb-part-3.html" target="_blank">telling her staff she needed to know it was <i>not</i> possible</a> in January 2015?</p><p>- what were three senior Post Office Executives - Mark Davies, Patrick Bourke and Angela van den Bogerd - doing <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2018/07/about-me.html" target="_blank">telling Panorama</a> later the same year that it was <i>definitely</i> not possible?</p><p>Second Sight issued its final report on 9 April 2015. In it, the authors (of whom Mr Henderson was one) state:</p><p></p><blockquote>“Our current, evidence-based opinion is that Fujitsu/Post Office, did have and may well still have the ability to directly alter branch records without the knowledge of the Subpostmaster.”</blockquote><p></p><div>The Post Office suppressed that report and circulated a rebuttal document, rubbishing everything in it. <a href="http://becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwallis.blogspot.com/2015/04/exclusive-second-sight-final-report-in.html" target="_blank">I published Second Sight's report in full</a> shortly afterwards.</div><p>You can read the full text of Mr Henderson's presentation below:</p><p>"Good afternoon</p><p>Thank you for the opportunity to provide some background to these appalling miscarriages of justice.</p><p>My name is Ian Henderson. I am a director of Second Sight, the forensic accountancy firm appointed in 2012 to conduct an independent investigation into matters of concern relating to the Horizon IT system. I am qualified both as a Chartered Accountant and as an IT Auditor.</p><p>Second Sight was appointed by a small group of Members of Parliament at the request of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (‘JFSA’). Our professional fees were paid directly by Post Office, who also supported our appointment. JFSA had been pressing for some form of independent inquiry for many years and had gained the support of influential MPs representing constituents who had suffered mysterious shortfalls in branch accounts.</p><p>Our appointment was not straightforward. There was much suspicion that we would be a “poodle” for Post Office, or otherwise fail to approach the inquiry from a fiercely independent, professional point of view. </p><p>Our terms of appointment were quite clear. They included:</p><p>• Unrestricted access to documents held by Post Office (including documents subject to confidentiality and legal professional privilege); </p><p>• No limitation in the scope of work determined necessary by Second Sight.</p><p>In the course of our work, over more than 3 years, we investigated approximately 140 individual cases. </p><p>We reviewed the sub-postmasters’ own assertions; the cases put forward on their behalf by their professional advisors together with Post Office’s reports prepared in response. </p><p>We examined thousands of documents and established which were significant. We created a structured, evidential database of over 34,000 individual documents. </p><p>We identified 19 thematic issues that were common features to many of the cases under examination. </p><p>We were then able to cross-reference each case to others having similar characteristics. </p><p>Our work started in the summer of 2012. Initially, Post Office were co-operative and appeared committed to the agreed goal – “to seek the truth, irrespective of the consequences”. </p><p>Within a few days of our appointment, we asked for 2 actions to be taken:</p><p>Issue a Post Office wide “litigation hold” that would prevent any further documents being destroyed; and</p><p>Send all of the prosecution files then held by Post Office to a third-party scanning bureau. This ensured that these vital documents would be preserved and made more readily available. This comprised approximately 4,000 documents and was known as CD1.</p><p>In September 2012 I met with Gareth Jenkins, the lead engineer for Horizon, at the head office of Fujitsu in Bracknell. I was told that approximately 10 members of staff from Post Office were permanently based in Bracknell, dealing with various issues including bugs, errors and defects. </p><p>I was also told that Fujitsu routinely used remote access to branch terminals for various purposes, without the knowledge or specific consent of individual sub-postmasters. </p><p>Within days of being provided with CD1, we realised that we may be looking at a significant number of miscarriages of justice. There was a lack of effective investigation, multiple disclosure failures and conduct by prosecutors that needed to be considered by experts in criminal law and prosecutions.</p><p>At about this time, the attitude of Post Office changed. Requests for further documents and explanations were taking longer and longer to be provided.</p><p>By this stage we were supporting the Complaint and Mediation Scheme set up by Post Office and chaired by Sir Anthony Hooper, a retired Court of Appeal Judge.</p><p>We were getting increasing amounts of push-back from Post Office. Let us look briefly at a clip from the 2015 Select Committee hearing:</p><p><b></b></p><blockquote><p><b>"Ian Henderson: </b>We felt it was necessary for us to review the internal legal files, looking at the depth of any investigation that had happened and possibly even legal advice relating to the prosecution.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi:</b> Paula, why don’t you hand those files over? What is the problem?</p><p><b>Paula Vennells:</b> The point I want to pick up first, if I may—</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi:</b> No, answer my question. Why will you not give Ian Henderson those files?</p><p><b>Paula Vennells:</b> As far as I am aware, Mr Zahawi, we have shared whatever information was appropriate on every single individual.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi:</b> That is not what Ian Henderson is saying.</p><p><b>Paula Vennells:</b> It is the first time, personally, that I have heard that. I am happy to go away and have a look.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>He has said that under no circumstances could he be given those files. That is what you have just told me. Is that right?</p><p><b>Ian Henderson: </b>We have not been given those files.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi:</b> You have been told by Paula’s organisation that under no circumstances could you be given those files. Is that right or wrong?</p><p><b>Paula Vennells: </b>Who told you that, Ian?</p><p><b>Ian Henderson:</b> It came up at one of the working group meetings, at which you and I were present.</p><p><b>Angela van den Bogerd:</b> I do not recall that conversation.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>This sounds like a shambles to me. You came in here and opened by saying the system was working beautifully. You now realise why you are in front of the Committee.</p><p><b>Paula Vennells:</b> Ian said—he is quite right—that the reason we set up this mediation scheme was to get to the truth about this system. The system itself is working very well.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>But you have been obstructive. We are hearing from Ian that your organisation has been obstructive to his independent work. Is that right or wrong?</p><p><b>Paula Vennells: </b>It is wrong. We have provided for every single case detailed, thorough, independent investigation. They run to pages and pages of reports. There are on average 80 pieces of evidence—</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>Let me stop you here. We have just heard from Ian Henderson, who is independent, that you have not provided the prosecution files that they think they should look at. They need your files, not just what is publicly available. They need that information. Will you provide it? Yes or no?</p><p><b>Paula Vennells: </b>Mr Zahawi, you have just heard that it is the first time I have heard that piece of information.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi:</b> I am simply asking for a commitment from you. You are the head of the organisation. Will you provide it? Yes or no? Give me a simple answer.</p><p><b>Paula Vennells: </b>Mr Henderson is a forensic accountant. He is not a qualified legal individual. Neither am I.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>I am simply asking whether you will provide it—yes or no?</p><p><b>Paula Vennells: </b>I am not prepared on behalf of the Post Office to give—</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>Right. I have got my answer. You will not provide it.</p><p><b>Paula Vennells: </b>No, you have not got your answer. You have not heard a yes or a no. I am simply saying that at the moment I am not able to answer your question.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>Why?</p><p><b>Paula Vennells:</b> Because I do not know the details of the situation.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>You used to provide the information and you have stopped providing it. Will you provide it going forward? Yes or no?</p><p><b>Paula Vennells:</b> I am not aware that we stopped what we provided previously. Angela has been involved daily for the last two years. She sits on the working group alongside Ian at Second Sight. If there is a misunderstanding, I am happy to—</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>Angela, will you provide it? If your CEO cannot answer, will you provide the prosecution files as requested by Ian Henderson?</p><p><b>Angela van den Bogerd:</b> Mr Zahawi, as Ian said, we have previously provided them, and we have provided the information necessary for those investigations as a pack. So there are thousands of pieces of information already provided to Second Sight.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi:</b> But we have heard already that he has been obstructed from getting the legal files that you use internally, which he used to get before. That is what I have heard. Will you now commit to providing those files going forward?</p><p><b>Angela van den Bogerd: </b>We provided them to Second Sight early in the investigation.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>Will you provide them?</p><p><b>Angela van den Bogerd: </b>Just let me finish, please. We have been working with Second Sight over the last few weeks to get to an understanding of what we need to provide. We are working through those, and information has been flowing.</p><p><b>Nadhim Zahawi: </b>So you do not understand what you need to provide?</p><p><b>Angela van den Bogerd: </b>We have been providing what we agreed we would provide at the outset."</p></blockquote><p></p><p>In this response, Post Office does not appear to understand the role of an investigator, which is to establish the facts, ask probing questions and to communicate concerns identified to the appropriate people. You do not have to be legally qualified in order to do this. </p><p>At the request of the Parliamentary Select Committee, I provided further evidence justifying our need for access to the full prosecution files. In February 2015 I wrote:</p><p>a) The Prosecution knew that there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of Theft, but proceeded with it, nonetheless. </p><p>b) The offer by the Prosecution to remove the charge of Theft was used to put pressure on the defendant to plead guilty to the False Accounting charges and to make good the alleged losses. </p><p>c) The threat of proceeding with a charge of Theft was primarily to assist in the recovery of losses, and not in the interest of Justice. </p><p>d) The Prosecution insisted that as part of the agreement to drop the charge of Theft, that no mention of alleged problems with the Horizon computer system would be made.</p><p>The new facts that have come to light as a result of examining a single complete legal file, have identified a number of issues that indicate: </p><p>a) Possible misconduct by a Prosecutor on behalf of Post Office; and</p><p>b) A possible miscarriage of justice. </p><p>In my view, this analysis of a single complete legal file, has demonstrated the benefit of doing so; particularly bearing in mind the stated objective of Post Office to thoroughly investigate possible miscarriages of justice.</p><p>Little did I know in 2015, that the defendant referenced (but anonymised) in this sample case, would become the lead appellant in the 23rd of April hearing by the Court of Appeal which resulted in 39 criminal convictions being overturned. </p><p>I would like to close with a few words attributed (possible wrongly) to Edmund Burke:</p><p>“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”</p><p>Second Sight went as far as it could, within the constraints of Non-Disclosure Agreements, to publicise our findings and our concerns. We said very publicly that we were concerned about the possibility of misconduct by prosecutors and miscarriages of justice.</p><p>It is disappointing that it took almost 9 years from when we first started work for these gross miscarriages of justice to be properly addressed.</p><p>There is much more that needs to be done and many questions that still to be answered. For example:</p><p>Was prosecution policy within Post Office and Royal Mail influenced by a desire to maximise value prior to an eventual sale or mutualisation proposal?</p><p>Did Post Office continue to destroy documents after the litigation hold instruction was issued in 2012?</p><p>Why were key documents such as the Clarke Advices and the Detica report not disclosed to Second Sight by Post Office? </p><p>When were these documents disclosed to the Board of Post Office?</p><p>Why did no one take action in 2013 when Second Sight first raised many of our concerns in our Interim Report that was published by Post Office?</p><p>Why was the Select Committee not more effective in following through on their excellent work in 2015?</p><p>Was the failed ICL / Pathway project (Horizon’s predecessor system in 1998) a contributing factor to the bugs, errors and defects now identified?</p><p>Did the Board of Post Office approve the disastrous litigation strategy, including the recusal application in the Group Litigation Order (“GLO”) trial?</p><p>Did the 2 Government nominated directors on the Board of Post Office support or approve the approximately £130 million of legal costs incurred by Post Office in the GLO trial?</p><p>Was this regarded as value for money?</p><p>Was there a cover-up within Post Office and or Government of the disastrous decision making within Post Office?</p><p>I trust that these questions will be addressed in the statutory enquiry by Sir Wyn Williams, which is now underway.</p><p>Thank you very much."</p><p>Flora Page has already published her speaking notes for the same event <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-machines-go-wrong-flora-page/?trackingId=G50jb%2FHLR5yVnLIg42TxQw%3D%3D" target="_blank">here</a> (titled "<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-machines-go-wrong-flora-page/?trackingId=G50jb%2FHLR5yVnLIg42TxQw%3D%3D" target="_blank">When Machines Go Wrong</a>").</p><p>Paul Marshall's presentation contained many of the themes he expanded on in a previous talk to the University of Law on 4 June. I have <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/06/marshall-spells-it-out-speech-to.html" target="_blank">reproduced the text of that talk here</a> - and the page has been updated to include a link to the audio recording of the presentation.</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"> **********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">If you are interested in this story, I would be most grateful if you would buy a pre-sale copy of my forthcoming book, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal: the fight to expose a multimillion pound IT disaster which put innocent people in jail</a>, which will be published by Bath Publishing in October 2021. For more information, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-37422713246402086052021-07-11T09:40:00.003+01:002021-07-12T09:19:52.035+01:00Value of claims to Historical Shortfall Scheme revealed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOwn3fcztWWUiVVnOjfThrdLjd7vSLpXtNWKGd6gsPFqunBdj6P3Erj3TTM_TbdMI5De1r13xNJtwo56_1jmaZYGbVtOCTEHipah29IA5rb8PkHp8gHzT4a5YynCsYoSgHYzwcsN-otgOd/s2048/20180925_111340.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOwn3fcztWWUiVVnOjfThrdLjd7vSLpXtNWKGd6gsPFqunBdj6P3Erj3TTM_TbdMI5De1r13xNJtwo56_1jmaZYGbVtOCTEHipah29IA5rb8PkHp8gHzT4a5YynCsYoSgHYzwcsN-otgOd/w640-h360/20180925_111340.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>The total amount of compensation being claimed by 2,200 applicants to the Post Office's Historical Shortfall Scheme has been revealed as £311m. It was this figure which prompted the CEO of the Post Office <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/nick-reads-speech-to-troops.html" target="_blank">to say in April this year</a> that "The Post Office simply does not have the financial resources to provide meaningful compensation." </p><p>The Historical Shortfall Scheme was set up as a condition of the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/08/bates-v-post-office-settlement.html" target="_blank"><i>Bates v Post Office</i> settlement agreement</a>. It is not open to claimants in <i>Bates v Post Office</i>, nor is it open to those Postmasters who have or had criminal convictions. The application window was only open from May to August 2020. By 2021 the Post Office had confirmed to parliament the final number of claimants accepted onto the scheme was 2,400, which means the final compensation bill could be commensurately higher.</p><p>The £311m figure came to light in a BEIS (the government's business department) Partner Organisation Risk Analysis document from 2020, uncovered thanks to the tireless work of <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/11/the-post-offices-journey-into-disaster.html" target="_blank">Eleanor Shaikh</a>. It is <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/risk_analysis_of_the_costs_of_co?nocache=incoming-1831013#incoming-1831013" target="_blank">now published here</a>. The document also reveals that when announcing the scheme, the Post Office had privately budgeted £35m to cover it. The £311m figure appears to have been a complete surprise. Assessing the sum of claims, the document states: "There is a risk that this would impact POL's ability to operate as a going concern."</p><p>It also suggests the Post Office board still, by 2020, had absolutely no idea what the organisation it was running had been up to over the previous two decades. To get its estimates wrong by a factor of nine suggests the board is either still not being given correct information by its own departments, or the Post Office has not kept proper records. Either reason points to worrying levels of incompetence.</p><p>The government has since stepped in to underwrite the Historical Shortfall Scheme.</p><p>The same <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/746913/response/1831013/attach/3/R%20Annex%20C%20PR%20reports%20POL.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1" target="_blank">document bundle just published by BEIS</a> on the back of Ms Shaikh's request also notes that due to a significant downturn in volumes, the Post Office's operating profit in 2020/2021 is likely to drop from an estimate of £90m to £10m. The Post Office's exposure to litigation has also been moved up from Medium/Possible to High/Possible. </p><p>Given how many now-unconvicted Subpostmasters are in the process of preparing to sue the Post Office for blighting their lives, I would suggest the risk is now High/Probable, rather than High/Possible.</p><p><b>Who is responsible for this mess?</b></p><p>The initial failure lies in a business model which unfairly loaded the Post Office's technical and process risk onto powerless individual Subpostmasters, and then improperly used the criminal courts as a weapon of enforcement and menace. None of the people responsible for this strategy have been required to account for their actions.</p><p>There was also a significant moment in 2013 when the Post Office board, having set up the Complaint and Mediation Scheme, turned it into a legalistic war of attrition, in a manner <a href="http://becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwallis.blogspot.com/2014/12/transcript-of-westminster-hall-debate.html" target="_blank">described in Parliament a year later</a> as "duplicitous."</p><p>We don't know who specifically is responsible for this. It coincided with <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/07/the-post-office-cover-up-part-2-they.html" target="_blank">the arrival of an "interim" General Counsel at the Post Office, Chris Aujard</a>, who left just before the Complaint and Mediation Scheme was wound up. </p><p>Whether he was instructed to run the scheme in the way he did, or whether he came up with the strategy is immaterial. The Post Office board signed it off, with Paula Vennells - chief executive at the time - ultimately responsible. Between 2013 and 2019, the Post Office did what it could to delay justice to the original group of complainants. This strategy failed miserably and incurred tens of millions of pounds in compensation and costs.</p><p>The precious hunt for profitability Vennells and her board were focused on between 2012 and 2019 has been more than cancelled out by the hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation the Post Office is now going to have to hand over via its Historical Shortfall Scheme, and, if the claimants are successful, the malicious prosecution claims.</p><p>It takes quite a special bunch of people to <a href="https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2…" target="_blank">roll out a massive IT network which doesn't work</a>, unfairly prosecute <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/the-final-reckoning.html" target="_blank">dozens, possibly hundreds of people in the criminal courts</a>, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/08/judgments.html" target="_blank">cleave blindly to a ruinous litigation strategy</a>, and then flounder about in a morass of compensation and further litigation without anyone facing any censure whatsoever. In fact, most of the people involved earned very significant sums whilst creating one of the biggest corporate disasters in modern history. Well done, everyone.</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"> **********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">If you are interested in this story, I would be most grateful if you would buy a pre-sale copy of my forthcoming book, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal: the fight to expose a multimillion pound IT disaster which put innocent people in jail</a>, which will be published by Bath Publishing in October 2021. For more information, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-1053147783067542282021-07-04T11:44:00.004+01:002021-07-04T17:09:02.499+01:00Search<p>If you are reading this blog on a mobile device, you cannot access the navigation bar or search box which is available to desktop users, unless you scroll to the bottom and click on "View web version". This page is something of a get around, by putting the search box into a main page. </p><p>The search function within blogger is actually very good, so just type a few key words and you'll hopefully find what you're looking for:</p>
<style type="text/css">
#hbz-searchbox {
background-color: #F5F5F5;
border: 1px solid #EDEDED;
padding: 5px;
border-radius: 10px;
margin: 10px auto;
min-width: 238px;
max-width: 288px;
}
#hbz-input {
background-color: #FEFEFE;
border: medium none;
font: 12px/12px "HelveticaNeue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
margin-right: 2%;
padding: 4%;
box-shadow: 2px 1px 4px #999999 inset;
border-radius: 9px;
width: 60.33%;
}
#hbz-input:focus {
outline: medium none;
box-shadow: 1px 1px 4px #0D76BE inset;
}
#hbz-submit {
background: transparent linear-gradient(to bottom, #34ADEC 0%, #2691DC 100%) repeat;
border-radius: 9px;
border: medium none;
color: #FFF;
cursor: pointer;
font: 13px/13px "HelveticaNeue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
padding: 4%;
width: 28%;
}
#hbz-submit:hover {
background: transparent linear-gradient(to bottom, #2691DC 0%, #34ADEC 100%) repeat;
}
</style>
<form action="/search" id="hbz-searchbox" method="get">
<input id="hbz-input" name="q" type="text" />
<input name="max-results" type="hidden" value="20" />
<input id="hbz-submit" type="submit" value="Search" />
</form>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-10420359496762893472021-07-01T18:41:00.006+01:002021-07-02T06:40:35.307+01:0031 new Subpostmaster appeals - 10 convictions certain to be quashed - Tim Brentnall's tale<p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyDfn34GxljP_q-QocOe8uS6REBedNq57e62xDln9qDicDfSK_QaBrheIiG_cWu_P-qLKYk0bz-ZPPqtKNmzmVqrqaujVlJrtkQiVUFnKeDPoRgiaTaPVc1OIJYWQPEAr8bNLEZMRNPbqm/s2048/image1.jpeg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyDfn34GxljP_q-QocOe8uS6REBedNq57e62xDln9qDicDfSK_QaBrheIiG_cWu_P-qLKYk0bz-ZPPqtKNmzmVqrqaujVlJrtkQiVUFnKeDPoRgiaTaPVc1OIJYWQPEAr8bNLEZMRNPbqm/s320/image1.jpeg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Tim Brentnall</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Ten more Subpostmasters whose cases are being readied for court have been told the Post Office will not be contesting their appeals.<p></p><p>One of those former Subpostmasters is Tim Brentnall (left), a 39 year old who took over the Post Office counter in his parents' shop in Roch in Pembrokeshire, when he was in his early twenties. </p><p>Today Tim told me he was feeling "a huge mixture of emotions. Both elated that I've been vindicated after all these years but so hollow and upset." </p><p>Tim was prosecuted for false accounting in 2010 over a £22,000 discrepancy at his branch. He was told that "no one else has these problems." </p><p>Tim says he was threatened by the Post Office with a theft charge if he didn't "make good" the £22,000. His parents scraped it together from their life savings. As soon as he had given the Post Office the money, they prosecuted him for false accounting.</p><p>It didn't occur to Tim or his legal team to challenge the integrity of the Horizon data - the accounting IT system used by the Post Office. His solicitors and barrister advised him to plead guilty to stay out of jail. He did, and was given an 18 month suspended sentence with 200 hours community service. Tim had no idea that during 2010, the Post Office was prosecuting more than one Subpostmaster a week - they'd convicted 55 by Christmast that year. He thought he was the only one. </p><p>"I'm so angry that they've done it to so many people, and not just myself." he told me "And the fact we've had to fight so hard. They've fought us every step of the way and thrown everything at us that they can. It feels to me they've tried every manoeuvre possible to try to bury this."</p><p><b>A difficult few years</b></p><p>Tim has always maintained his innocence. He was a claimant in the civil litigation, but whilst the case was ongoing, Tim's partner Steph was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Tim has focusing his energies on looking after Steph for most of the last four years (particularly last year, when Steph's cancer was found to have spread) and wasn't particularly engaged with the fallout from civil court case. When he saw his fellow Postmasters' convictions being quashed in April, he put in an application direct to the Court of Appeal. The quashing of his conviction is, as of yesterday, now a formality.</p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQwUdIi4JlGHSrC4b98czOX3OQp1pE2epoZqJJqS5yitWYcSs-nuB02FgMaSSsmRAxnZ1s99hDq7wnNfJbDjMZvfadztuKTaaJolB_125e4I-wG42pqiT5kuN8cNtpSDQeptD8hwyl7Mqr/s2048/image1-1.jpeg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQwUdIi4JlGHSrC4b98czOX3OQp1pE2epoZqJJqS5yitWYcSs-nuB02FgMaSSsmRAxnZ1s99hDq7wnNfJbDjMZvfadztuKTaaJolB_125e4I-wG42pqiT5kuN8cNtpSDQeptD8hwyl7Mqr/s320/image1-1.jpeg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Tim and Steph</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>Tim is one of the "lucky" ones. There are 31 appellants in the latest cohort going through the Court of Appeal. The Post Office is resisting 15 of them on the basis that Horizon data was not essential to each prosecution. It is still deciding about three of them. The remaining three appear to be DWP prosecutions, despite at least one being Horizon-related. </p><p>I asked the DWP for more information about these cases, including how many more Subpostmasters it might have prosecuted. The DWP refused to make any comment on the ongoing cases and told me it had destroyed all records relating to prosecutions more than six years old. </p><p>When I challenged that with a Freedom of Information request it was confirmed. The DWP is adamant it doesn't hold on to information older than six years. </p><p>This is odd because two of the DWP cases are being opposed, with one still uncertain. The evidence available to oppose those appeals must exist somewhere. It is possible the Post Office may be responsible. I have asked them to tell me what, if any, involvement they had in giving DWP prosecutors Horizon data at the time of the convictions, and what historical data might be being used now.</p><p>Neil Hudgell, the solicitor who is representing 30 of the 31 Subpostmasters (including Tim) in the latest round of appeals said:</p><p>"We are obviously very pleased on behalf of the 10 further clients whose names are now set to be cleared at the Court of Appeal. These are all people with very similar stories to those who have already quite rightly had their convictions quashed, and again includes some people who spent time in prison as a result of these wrongful convictions."</p><p>Mr Hudgell says he needs to examine why the Post Office is opposing the remaining 15, but can't do so meaningfully until he has full disclosure. This is expected to take several weeks.</p><p><b>Post Office board directly involved</b></p><p>The Post Office says their decisions were taken "following careful consideration of each case by the Post Office Board, including the Court of Appeal’s findings in their Judgment in April in relation to previous appeals."</p><p>This public, high level ownership of the decision-making process is very interesting. New fault-lines in the appeals process are obviously being drawn. This could lead to another battle royale at the Court of Appeal if Hudgells and their QC, Tim Moloney, believe there is enough evidence to persuade the court all their clients' convictions should be quashed.</p><p>Tim Brentnall spent his 200 hours community service working for Mind, the mental health charity. They were so impressed with how he handled people they employed him for the next six years. He still lives in Roch, which is a tiny village. It means he suffered a whispering campaign for years after his conviction - unable to go to his local pub because people would say he'd ripped off the Post Office. </p><p>"When I think about what I've lost... the dream was I'd still be running the Post Office. We bought it so I could build the business and they just completely soured the whole thing."</p><p>The conviction has obviously affected his career. "After my work at Mind, there have been several jobs that I've applied for in that mental health or social work field that have just been turned down straight away. What the Post Office did to me in 2009 has had a hold on every single thing I've been trying to do since."</p><p>Even this year, when some locals saw he wasn't in the cohort of Subpostmasters whose convictions were overturned in April, they sneered at him, suggesting that because Tim hadn't got his appeal over the line he must have been guilty all along. In fact, he hadn't even applied.</p><p>Tim is still mystified as to how the Post Office investigators and prosecutors were ever allowed to get away with what they did.</p><p>"The more that you hear about these cases, I can't understand why the people in charge, morally, could do it to start with and then the people above them and the government have allowed them to do it."</p><p>Steph is continuing her cancer treatment and responding well, but she's not out of the woods yet. Tim got in touch because he wanted to put on the record his gratitude to his parents for helping him in the way they did and "everyone that stood by me for their support."</p><p>I'm really grateful to Tim and Steph for their time. Tim's never told his story before, having always been concerned that without formal confirmation of his innocence people might continue to cast aspersions. </p><p>He should soon have it confirmed that he is, and always was, innocent of any crime, and should never have been prosecuted.</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"> **********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also currently writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a> 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, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-79684905688375215522021-06-04T08:35:00.013+01:002021-07-11T11:33:43.845+01:00Marshall spells it out: speech to University of Law<p><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIMRG3JBRdh-KRuOQVcMeDhc2th08icssDQu6XkDZKa8rc5GD_Y31uQC9ykJl82eh0y3so-EkXu5muK81Mypmqj4RXsBc_aOyibINPPyPHhfKei-xINthMl9CbRM0Y96Jf2ng2xCxYVe5H/s1024/Paul+Marshall.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: right;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="736" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIMRG3JBRdh-KRuOQVcMeDhc2th08icssDQu6XkDZKa8rc5GD_Y31uQC9ykJl82eh0y3so-EkXu5muK81Mypmqj4RXsBc_aOyibINPPyPHhfKei-xINthMl9CbRM0Y96Jf2ng2xCxYVe5H/s320/Paul+Marshall.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">P. Marshall Esq</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: inherit;">What follows is perhaps the most important speech given on the subject of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal to date. </span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">I watched Mr Marshall deliver it remotely yesterday evening on Zoom to a couple of hundred students at the University of Law in London. He has very kindly given me permission to reprint it below.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The text contains a forensic analysis of the legal, ethical, individual and corporate failures that led the Post Office and the legal profession to do significant harms to hundreds of helpless individuals. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The specific humiliations meted out to Janet Skinner, Seema Misra, Lee Castleton and Tracy Felstead are described in detail. The institutional culpability is laid bare. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">You can <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EoE-LWPn60E-qKJhg3L5l612xUSLM9yE/view" target="_blank">listen to the presentation here</a>. The text is below. </span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px 42.5px; text-align: center; text-indent: -42.5px;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"> THE UNIVERSITY OF LAW </span></b></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px 42.5px; text-align: center; text-indent: -42.5px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>3</i><span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><i><sup>rd</sup></i></span><i> June 2021</i></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">SCANDAL AT THE POST OFFICE</span></b></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">THE INTERSECTION OF LAW, ETHICS AND POLITICS</span></b></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">PAUL MARSHALL</span></b></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">PART I - INTRODUCTION</span></b></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The great historian AJP Taylor in his History of England between 1914 and 1945 observed that, until 1914 the only emanations of the state that most English people would have encountered would have been the policeman and the Post Office. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>By 1999 the Post Office had a network of about 17,000 branches. It is still, I believe, the largest retailer in the UK. A Post Office branch operation is considerably more complicated than those of an ordinary high street bank branch. It sells stamps to insurance and, like banks, deals in foreign currency. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I am talking to you today about the most serious series of miscarriages of justice in recent English history. To put it in tabloid terms, for 20 years the Post Office hijacked the English criminal justice system and used it, essentially as part of the Post Office for its own purposes. In the process, it ruined the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of innocent people. What I shall try and show, if you can follow my thread, is how ethical failure in business, when it feeds into legal failure by lawyers and judges, becomes incredibly damaging. When politicians run for the hills and disclaim responsibility for the Post Office, a wholly-owned creature of government, the problem becomes almost insuperable. If you can’t look to Parliament, what can you do? </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>To understand what I am going to say, you need to know that in 2019 there was a settlement of group litigation brought by 550 claimants against the Post Office. The settlement figure paid by the Post Office was £57 million. Most of that sum was paid out in costs and expenses. Sixty-six of the claimants had criminal convictions. In March 2021 the Court of Appeal heard 42 appeals of convicted postmasters and employees. It quashed 39 of these on grounds that the Post Office had abused the processes of the court: <span style="color: black;"><i>Hamilton and ors. v Post Office Ltd </i>[2021] EWCA Crim 577.</span><span style="color: black; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/577.html"><span style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/577.html</span></a></span><span style="color: black;">.</span> The number of those appeals, arising out of similar facts, is without precedent in English law.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Court of Appeal judgment is remarkable. This is because, in a finding that is comparatively rare, the Court of Appeal concluded that, not only should the convictions of 39 former postmasters and employees be quashed on grounds of abuse of process, because the appellants did not receive a fair trial, but that, additionally, the Post Office had acted in such a way as to subvert the integrity of the criminal justice system and public confidence in it. In legal terms this is known as ‘second category’ abuse of process. It was a devastating finding for the Post Office that it had strenuously resisted. I claim some credit for this conclusion because, until the end of December 2020, every other lawyer in the case, other than my solicitors Aria Grace Law and my junior, Flora Page, had been opposed to advancing that ground of appeal. My clients had received a certain amount of flak for persisting in it, because others believed it would fail, even if the Court of Appeal was willing to entertain it, which others thought it well might not. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The importance of this finding for the appellants was enormous. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s finding, given effect in slightly anachronistic Victorian language - that the Post Office’s conduct “offended the conscience of the court”, is that the appellant should not only not have been convicted, but should not have been prosecuted. That is to say, complete exoneration. My pursuit of that issue, and perception that the Post Office’s conduct was much worse than merely failing to give proper disclosure of problems with Horizon, that it conceded in October 2020, is what eventually enabled me, with Aria Grace, to elicit from the Post Office the “Clarke Advice”, to which I will refer later.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The day after the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Mrs Paula Vennells, the Post Office’s former CEO, resigned from all her corporate directorial appointments and also gave-up her part-time ecclesiastical appointment. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But the many hundreds of miscarriages of justice, now estimated to be around 736 or so, came within a hair’s breadth of not being discovered. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It cost upwards of £150 million for the civil litigation to get close to the truth of only a part of what happened. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Post Office and its management were willing to expend vast sums of money, and to instruct the most expensive lawyers that money can buy, to prevent the truth coming out. They failed, but they easily might not have done. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Elsewhere I have suggested that were the English criminal justice system to be an airline, no one would fly it, such is the repeated incidence of disastrous failure. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Miscarriage of justice sounds a bit abstract, so let me introduce you to my former client, Tracy Felstead, to give you a flavour of what a miscarriage of justice really means. A miscarriage of justice is harm inflicted by the state upon an individual. That is why the judicial oath is both so important and also onerous. It is not a judge’s promise to do their best. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In 2001 Tracy was a recent school-leaver, proud to have secured employment with the Post Office, at that time still a highly respected national institution. There was a Horizon computer record that showed a shortfall of £11,500 at the till she was working on at her Post Office branch. Under caution, interviewed by Post Office investigators at Peckham police station, she was asked: "<i>can you demonstrate how you did not steal the money?</i>" Just reflect on that. She protested her innocence. She was prosecuted by the Post Office. There was no evidence she had ever physically taken any money. The Post Office and Fujitsu objected to the cost of providing the electronic evidence that had been requested by Tracy’s expert witness. In the event the electronic evidence was not provided and her expert, with whom I have spoken and is highly skilled, was not called at her trial. On 26 April 2002 Tracy was convicted of theft. She was 19 years old. She refused to apologise when invited to do so by the trial judge, protesting she had done nothing wrong. She was immediately locked-up in a young offenders’ institution. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In 2020 Tracy received £17,000 compensation out of the eventual settlement of £57 million, most of which went to pay the claimants’ lawyers’ fees and other costs in the group litigation, the largest component of which was funding costs. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Tracy’s conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on 23 April 2021. The court found that the Post Office denied her a fair trial in not providing to her electronic evidence. Prior to an interlocutory hearing in the Court of Appeal, in November 2020, Tracy suffered a nervous collapse, such was the continuing strain on her. The Court of Appeal held that it was an affront to the conscience of the court that Tracy had ever been prosecuted. For 20 years, in every job interview since her conviction, Tracy had to declare that she was a convicted thief. Imagine what that would have done for you. Not one of you would be listening to this talk.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>There are many who bear responsibility for Tracy’s prosecution. Others bear responsibility for it taking 20 years for Tracy, and others like her, to appeal. The Post Office, including its Chairman, its Chief Executives, its Chief Accounting Officers, its Board, and its Compliance Audit and Risk Committee share responsibility for this catastrophe. So do a significant number of lawyers and judges who failed to understand and properly evaluate the evidence. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>One of the features of these miscarriages of justice is that, in almost all cases, the only evidence against the defendant in question was a shortfall shown in the Horizon computer system. If you remember only one thing from this talk, bear in mind that writing on a bit of paper in evidence is only marks on a piece of paper until first, someone explains what it means and, second, if it is a statement of fact, someone proves the truth of that fact. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The simplest explanation for the Post Office scandal is that documents generated by the Horizon computer system were routinely treated by lawyers and judges as though statements of fact that were true, without bothering to consider how their truth should be established. It was taken as given that what a computer record showed was correct. The shallowness of this approach is reprehensible. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>That apart, some Post Office lawyers knew of information that would have provided a defence to defendants. Other lawyers knew of information that would have enabled convicted defendants to launch appeals to the Court of Appeal long, long before March 2021. I hope that some of them may end up in prison for perverting the course of justice. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>At the outset of your careers you will think you will never do this. Some of those lawyers would have imagined the same thing in their 20s. You may ask what is it that caused them to lose their way. I hope to give you some hints as to where the answer lies.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>To start with I need to explain a few dry facts about the Post Office. Their relevance will become clear.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Post Office, though it is a private company limited by shares, is in truth a creature of the government. Its entire shareholding is owned by a company called UK Government Investments Limited. UKGI is owned directly by HM Treasury. The duty of the Board of the Post Office under the Companies Act 2006 is to act in the interests of its shareholder, the government. There is a government appointed representative on the Board. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The accounting officer for the Post Office reports to the accounting officer of the Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy or BEIS. It was previously called the Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS). </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Enterprises such as the Post Office are private enterprises through which the government delivers services. Sometimes these are called “Arm’s Length Bodies” or more voguishly “Partner Organisations”. In 2012 the Post Office was separated from the Royal Mail. A key government objective for the Post Office was to make it profitable, because for a long time its activities had been loss-making. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Twenty-two years ago, in 1999, the then labour government had brought to an end a PPI procurement project. That project had been to run the state benefits system through the Benefits Agency in collaboration with the Post Office. It was proposed to run the benefits scheme on a grand computer system called Horizon. Horizon became the largest non-military computer system in Europe. The project did not go happily and incurred wasted cost to the taxpayer of about £700 million. It was a fairly conventional failed government IT project. At a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1999 several government ministers, including the future Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, explained to Members of Parliament that the Horizon computer system was insufficiently tested. It was said that it exposed the government to the prospect of a catastrophe.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The government decided that a whizzo way of dealing with the problem was to offload Horizon on to the Post Office. This was in the name of modernisation, and to salvage something from the failed procurement project. Fujitsu, the Japanese technology company, that earns billions from government contracts, took over the Horizon computer system and supplied it under a service contract to the Post Office. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Some thinkers</span></b></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I thought it convenient to mention a couple of thinkers whose thoughts shine a good deal of light upon the Post Office scandal. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Carl von Clausewitz was one of the great thinkers on warfare. He cut his teeth as a staff officer in the Prussian Army in the Napoleonic wars. He wrote down his reflections. Some of these can readily be transferred to other forms of adversarial activity, including litigation. One of Clausewitz’s insights is that warfare naturally tends towards an extreme, because of ever-greater effort to overcome your adversary. He thought that the impediments to the tendency to “absolute war” were what he called “frictional” constraints. Two of the most important were, first, constraint upon the material resources allocated to the contest – in effect, cost; a second constraint is moral – if you like, the stomach for a fight. These constraints are themselves affected by the stakes that are in dispute. The greater the importance of the subject of the contest, the greater will be the resources likely to be expended. If core values are in issue and the dispute is existential, there will be a tendency to extreme conflict. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>These principles can be seen in operation in the Post Office scandal. By 2019 the Post Office was willing to deploy more than a hundred million pounds in costs to defending the group litigation brought by 500 postmasters. That is, literally to spare no expense. Part of the explicit thinking (that the journalist Nick Wallis has recorded) was to wear out the claimants in costs. The Post Office had effectively unlimited funds, being backed by the government. The prospect of the postmasters succeeding in their claims constituted an existential threat to the entire Post Office business and its brand. The Post Office, in effect, bet the farm on defeating the 550 group claimants. It lost that bet. The result is the insolvency of the Post Office. This is because, without government support, it cannot meet the claims of some 2,400 others who have claimed under a Historic Shortfall compensation scheme set up last year.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The second thinker I shall refer to is the medieval theologian St Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas postulated a moral dilemma in a commercial situation. A merchant in a sailing vessel arrived at an island with a cargo that the islanders had not received for many months. The cargo was accordingly very valuable in the market. What, however, if the merchant knew that coming behind them was a large number of ships laden with similar cargo? Were they morally obliged to tell the islanders or could they exploit their ignorance by maintaining a high price? I will leave that to you to decide, but what the dilemma illustrates is that ignorance has commercial value. In law there are a large number of circumstances where the imperative to take advantage of ignorance is powerful. There is a line that can be crossed. Ethics can be expensive. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>This problem lies at the heart of an ethical conundrum and a conflict of interest. A lawyer owes a duty to their client, but they owe a prior duty to the court. The problem is that these duties may, and sometimes do, collide. The higher the stakes the greater will be the temptation to ask, not what course of action is right, but ‘what can I get away with?’ </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>As I shall explain, the Post Office scandal, at a high level of abstraction, is explained by the exploitation by the Post Office of ignorance. The first kind of ignorance exploited was that the Post Office, for 20 years, failed to give proper disclosure of the many known problems with its Horizon system. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The second kind of ignorance exploited by the Post Office was in violation of convicted defendants’ Article 6 rights under the ECHR. Article 6 guarantees a right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. A fair trial includes any appeal. The Post Office concealed from defendants its knowledge, that it acquired in 2013, that would have enabled many appeals long before March 2021. It did so not by accident, but by a deliberate strategy. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">PART II – TWO STREAMS OF FAILURE</span></b></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Post Office scandal defies simple analysis because it resulted from two separate streams of failure that each augmented the other. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Some will have detected that I stand outside the cheerleading for English justice. It is indeed the case that if you wish to engage in litigation where expense is of no consequence and you have unlimited resources, English justice will provide the Rolls Royce for your purpose. For everyone else it provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes that is ludicrously expensive, fraught with procedural hazard and delivers a result that is frequently unjustifiably unprincipled, and as a result unpredictable. It also facilitates and encourages what Clausewitz warned of, in connection with war, the tendency to ever greater extremes. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">First stream of failure - misunderstanding how computers fail</span></b></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The first problem that the Post Office litigation painfully exposes is that English judges and English lawyers commonly do not understand the propensity of computers to fail. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>If you think that’s harsh, in 1997 Lord Hoffmann, universally regarded as a clever judge, loftily declared that no one needs a degree in electronics to know whether a computer is working or not. The <i>Bates</i> group civil litigation incurred colossal cost in exposing the fallacy of Lord Hoffmann’s observation. The law treats computers like machines. But computers are not machines – or at least they are not only machines. Part of the present problem is that technology advances so rapidly that our means of dealing with it cannot keep pace. There is more regulation covering the design of a toaster than there is of someone who writes and sells computer software. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>At a more concrete level, in 2010 at Mrs Seema Misra’s trial, prosecuting counsel opened and closed the case for the Crown by telling the jury that, were there to have been a problem with the Horizon computer system, any such problem would have been manifest and obvious to a Horizon computer terminal operator. That’s, in effect, Lord Hoffmann’s point. It’s wrong.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Law Commission expressed a similar view in two reports to Parliament in 1993 and 1997. The Commission recommended that safeguards for evidence derived from computers in legal proceedings be removed. Until 2000, a person relying on computer evidence at a criminal trial was required to prove that the computer was working properly. The Post Office Horizon scandal tracks exactly the period since the removal of protections previously provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The mischief of the prosecution’s contention was that, by sleight of hand, it put the <i>onus</i> on Mrs Misra to explain to the jury the problems she encountered with Horizon. All she could <i>actually</i> do was point to shortfalls she had experienced at her Horizon branch terminal – that is, all she could show was that the cash that she had received didn’t match the balancing figure on the Horizon computer screen. In leaps it had escalated to £75,000. She called the police and suspected her colleagues of theft. The transcript of her trial shows that she was close to taunted by the prosecution for her being unable to point to identifiable problems: ‘<i>Mrs Misra says that there must be a fault with Horizon, but she can’t point to any problem she actually had</i>’. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The jury was invited to infer that the only cause of the discrepancy must be theft. That should never have happened. Had her trial been conducted properly, the Post Office should have been required to prove that the Horizon system was working at the time she experienced shortfalls. As we now know from Mr Justice Fraser’s 2019 ‘<i>Horizon Issues’</i> judgment (<span style="color: black;"><i>Bates and ors. v Post Office Ltd (‘Horizon Issues’</i>) <i>Rev 1</i> [2019] EWHC 3408 QB.</span><span style="color: black; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html"><span style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html</span></a></span><span style="color: black;">)</span>, the Post Office could not have done so. Mrs Misra went to prison. She was 8 weeks’ pregnant and it was her son’s 10<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><sup>th</sup></span> birthday. On being sentenced she collapsed. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">The importance of computer disclosure</span></b></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The problem with the Post Office’s litigation and prosecution of its postmasters is that, for 20 years, the Post Office gave wholly inadequate disclosure of known problems with its computer system. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The most astonishing aspect of this to anyone technically half-literate is that, until 2019, the Post Office declined to disclose the Fujitsu Horizon Known Error Log. In the massive group litigation, reported as <i>Bates and Ors. v Post Office Ltd</i> <i>(Horizon Issues) </i>[2019] EWHC 3408, it had three lines of objection to disclosing the Known Error Log (KEL) – a central log maintained to record, as its name suggests, errors in a computer system, their impact, and fixes undertaken to correct them. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>To start with, the Post Office’s solicitors, in correspondence questioned whether the Known Error Log existed at all. Mr Justice Fraser concluded that it did.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Once the existence of the Known Error Log was established, the Post Office’s leading counsel submitted to the court that the KEL was irrelevant and the claimants’ demand for its disclosure was “a red-herring”. Mr Justice Fraser concluded that the KEL was likely relevant to the claimants’ claims. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Once established as existing and likely to be of relevance, the Post Office’s final contention was that, however relevant it might be, very regrettably it could not disclose it because it was not the Post Office’s Known Error Log, but rather Fujitsu’s. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Mr Justice Fraser’s response to this, was to point out that, in fact, as a matter of contract between the Post Office and Fujitsu, the Post Office was entitled to the Known Error Log. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The importance of the KEL is impossible to overstate. The judge found it not to be a red-herring, but, on the contrary, fundamental in revealing the true and full extent of Horizon’s unreliability over time, the bugs identified in the system, their effects on branch Horizon accounts, and the fixes that were implemented. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In case you are not already disconcerted, Mrs Misra, on no less than <i>four</i> separate occasions in the course of her prosecution, requested that the court order disclosure by the Post Office of Horizon error records. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Three different judges dismissed each of Mrs Misra’s applications. In the last application, at the end of her trial, her defence counsel submitted that she couldn’t have a fair trial without further disclosure. The trial judge disagreed and said she could have a fair trial without it. 10 years later the Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded that Mrs Misra didn’t receive a fair trial. Why? Because she was not given proper disclosure by the Post Office. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>This ought to be a matter of acute concern to the judiciary, to the legal profession and also to the public. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In November 2020 at the personal invitation of the Under Secretary of State, I submitted a paper to the Ministry of Justice contributed to or endorsed by 8 experts, six of whom are, or have been, university professors. I understand that our recommendations have been submitted for consideration by the Attorney General and by the Chair of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, the Lord Chief Justice.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Second stream of failure - Post Office mendacity</span></b></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>What I have called the second complicating stream is Post Office mendacity – institutional ethical failure, if you will. I will give three examples.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It may come as a surprise to you to know that in September 2010, a month before Mrs Misra’s trial, a significant number of senior employees of Fujitsu and senior employees of the Post Office held a high level meeting at which a bug was discussed called the “Receipts and Payments mismatch” bug. This bug, it was acknowledged, would cause a postmaster’s receipts and payments to appear to balance at the terminal but not do so on the Post Office’s main servers. In short, an error caused by this bug would <i>not be apparent or obvious</i> to an operator. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It was recorded in writing that this might present a problem for the Post Office in its “ongoing legal cases”. A senior Fujitsu employee and computer engineer who was present at that meeting gave evidence a few weeks later at Mrs Misra’s trial. He said nothing about it. If you are not deeply shocked by that you ought to be. Mr Justice Fraser described the bug as having been kept “secret”. If you have been following me, disclosure of that bug would have undermined statements made by the prosecution, both in opening and closing its case against Seema Misra. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I want to tell you briefly about Lee Castleton. Lee Castleton invested his life savings in acquiring a branch Post Office in in Yorkshire in 2003. As explained, Fujitsu acquired the Horizon system and provided it to the Post Office. It was known to have problems with its reliability.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Recognising the systemic risk that it was shouldering, the Post Office with its lawyers devised an extremely adverse contract that shifted the risk in the system to postmasters. This was achieved by a contractual term that provided that a Horizon account balance stated by a postmaster to the Post Office was an “account” in law. An “account” is analogous to acknowledgement of a debt due. The legal effect is that once stated, the burden is on the paying party, if they want to dispute the account for any reason, to show why the account is wrong. The postmaster was contractually required to make up, out of their own funds, any shortfall. If a postmaster’s account was wrong, not by any fault of theirs but because the system had failed, as a matter of <i>contract</i> it was down to the postmaster concerned to show and explain why.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>That presented the hapless postmaster with an insuperable evidential and legal problem. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The first occasion on which the Post Office was required to positively prove that the Horizon system worked properly was in 2019. It then failed dismally. The trial judge described the Post Office’s contentions that Horizon was robust and reliable as the 21<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"><sup>st</sup></span> century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In 2006 Lee Castleton was sued for a shortfall shown at his Horizon terminal of about £26,000. He was careful and knew he had not made mistakes. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Mr Castleton was unrepresented by lawyers at his 6-day trial in 2006. He had run out of money to pay for legal representation. He had called the Horizon helpline many, many times, complaining that he had problems balancing his accounts. That cut no ice with either the Post Office or with the judge. Mr Castleton was persuaded to accept that the balance that he had provided to the Post Office was in law “an account”. He accepted that at the outset of the trial. He was doomed from the word go.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In law, the essential feature of an account is that it is the result of <i>agreement</i>. It took 13 years for Mr Castleton’s concession to be shown by Mr Justice Fraser in 2019 to have been wrongly made. That is because there was no agreement of the account. There was no contractual mechanism for disputing the Horizon computer figure. The contractual term was, in effect ‘agree the Horizon figure or stop operating your Post Office’. Neat, but utterly unreasonable and oppressive. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The contractual provision had the purported legal effect of transferring the risk of Horizon failure to hapless postmasters. It is unsatisfactory that for 20 years it went unexamined. Most postmasters could never have afforded to instruct a barrister of sufficient experience to challenge the Post Office. Lee went like a lamb to the slaughter.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The trial judge, without hearing any expert evidence, rejected Mr Castleton’s defence that the Horizon system might not have been working properly. The judge concluded that it was working properly. You may ask yourself how he arrived at that conclusion. You will remain mystified if you take the trouble to read the judge’s judgment: <span style="color: black;"><i>Post Office Ltd v Castleton</i> [2007] EWHC 5 QB.</span></span></p><p style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: arial;">(<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/5.html"><span style="color: blue;">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/5.html</span></a>.)</span></span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Post Office obtained a costs order against Mr Castleton for £321,000. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The costs order made against him caused Lee Castleton to become bankrupt. For several years he and his family were rendered almost destitute. They lived in accommodation without a hot water boiler because he could not afford one. Ask yourself how many postmasters the Post Office’s solicitors will have shown that hopelessly flawed reported High Court judgment to, to make them think twice before taking on the Post Office. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The judgment in Mr Castleton’s case is now shown to be wrong in virtually every respect, both as to the law and as to its facts. I have written about that decision in an article entitled ‘<i>The Harm that judges do</i>’. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The third aspect of ethical failure by the Post Office is what can be called, “the cover-up”.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In October 2020, in one document amongst the many thousands I had looked at, I noticed a remarkable couple of lines that referred to the Post Office main Board, in August 2013, having been told by external solicitors, about concerns about the Fujitsu computer engineer who had given evidence at Mrs Misra’s trial. I could not for the life of me understand why the Board of the Post Office was receiving notice about one of its expert witnesses. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>My solicitors Aria Grace Law asked a large number of questions about this. These elicited from the Post Office in November 2020 the now famous “Clarke Advice”. That document revealed that, as long ago as <i>in 2013,</i> the Post Office knew that its principal expert witness had repeatedly given incomplete and misleading evidence to the court. He had thereby put the Post Office in breach of its obligations to the court as prosecutor. It was suggested he should not be used as a witness again. It is the single most explosive document I have encountered in 30 years’ practice at the Bar. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>One of the extraordinary aspects of the Clarke Advice, is that it revealed a curious difference. If you read the judgments of Mr Justice Fraser, you will see that he devotes a good deal of space to the remarkable fact that a Fujitsu expert computer engineer, Mr Jenkins, was the source of much of the Post Office’s evidence in 2019. But he was not called as a witness. In their written submissions at the close of the <i>Horizon Issues</i> trial the Post Office gave an explanation for Mr Jenkins not being called as a witness. The remarkable thing is, that the reason given to Mr Justice Fraser in 2019 by the Post Office is rather different from, and does not sit easily with, an alternative explanation, as suggested by the Clarke Advice. If you are interested you can pursue this by considering the Court of Appeal’s judgment of April 2021 and the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser of December 2019.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The main point, however, is that in my view, any reasonably competent and conscientious lawyer in 2013, in possession of that information – that is to say the known incompleteness of evidence given to the court by their expert - would immediately have grasped that it could potentially render the conviction of a person, convicted on the basis of evidence given by that Fujitsu employee, unsafe. A prosecutor in the possession of such information has an unqualified duty in law to disclose it to a convicted defendant. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I had been puzzled, until November 2020, as to why, from 2014, the Post Office had not undertaken any prosecutions of postmasters, when in 2012 it had undertaken more than 40. The Clarke Advice provided my answer. The Post Office in 2013-2014 undertook a major change in its policy. But it was keeping quiet about the reason.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">A question to whet your appetite</span></b></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I will leave you with a question. The key is timing, so keep in mind the dates.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>On 17 December 2014 there was an adjournment debate in Westminster Hall moved by Mr James Arbuthnot MP, now Lord Arbuthnot. (An adjournment debate is a debate without a vote. Such debates are usually on subjects of general public importance.) Second Sight Ltd, a specialist firm of forensic accountants, in response to pressure from Members of Parliament, had two years previously been appointed by the Post Office to look into the Post Office’s treatment of its postmasters. Sir Anthony Hooper, a former Court of Appeal judge, had been appointed to oversee a mediation process.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>At the December 2014 debate, Jo Swinson MP, then the government minister for Postal Services, having heard from MPs a series of shocking stories of the treatment by the Post Office of its postmasters, said this to Parliament:</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px 36px; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: arial;">“…in such a situation what I would normally propose doing is to get a team of forensic accountants to go through every scenario and to have the report looked at by someone independent, such as a former Court of Appeal judge. We have a system in place to look at cases … If any information comes to light during the course of the mediation or the investigations, that suggests that any of the convictions that have taken place are unsafe, there is a legal duty for that information to be disclosed…. I fail to see how action can be taken without properly looking in detail at every single one of the cases through exactly the kind of scheme that we have set up... . We have to look at the details and the facts, and that has to be done forensically. That is why Second Sight, the team of forensic accountants, has been employed and why we have someone of the calibre of Sir Anthony Hooper to oversee the process.”</span></i></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In 2015, the Post Office told Parliament that it had received no evidence that the conviction of any applicant to the mediation scheme was unsafe. Lord Arbuthnot is on record in 2020 as stating that the Post Office lied to Parliament. To my knowledge he has not been contradicted.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Be that as it may, less than 6 weeks’ after the minister’s statement to Parliament, on <b>3 February 2015,</b> Ian Henderson of Second Sight gave this evidence to the Business Innovation and Skills Parliamentary Select Committee:</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px 36px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Ian Henderson </b> “<i>we have seen no evidence that the Post Office’s own investigators were ever trained or prepared to consider that Horizon was at fault. That was never a factor that was taken into account in any of the investigations by Post Office that we have looked at.”</i></span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px 36px; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: arial;">“That is a matter of huge concern, and that is why we are determined to get to the bottom of this matter, because we think that there have been prosecutions brought by the Post Office where there has been inadequate investigation and inadequate evidence to support some of the charges brought against defendants … this … is why we need to see the full prosecution files.”</span></i></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px 36px; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: arial;">“When we have looked at the evidence made available to us… I have not been satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to support a charge for theft. You can imagine the consequences that flow from that. That is why we, Second Sight, are determined to get to the bottom of this matter, which we regard as extremely serious.” </span></i></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>So Ian Henderson in February 2015 said that Second Sight wanted to do exactly what Jo Swinson MP, the government minister, in December 2014 had said the government saw to be necessary. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Within a month of Mr Henderson’s evidence to the Select Committee, in March 2015 the Post Office summarily terminated the engagement of Second Sight and abruptly withdrew from the mediation process. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I raise this question for you to reflect upon. Given what the minister had told Parliament on 17 December 2014, is it plausible that the Post Office sacked Second Sight without briefing the government, as its owner, on the reason for it doing so? I think it inconceivable that it did not. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Assuming the Post Office <i>did</i> brief the government on those reasons, the Post Office either gave a truthful account of the reason for sacking Second Sight and withdrawing from mediation, or else it gave an incomplete and misleading explanation. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>If the Post Office gave a truthful explanation to the government, that would make the government complicit in a 6 year cover-up. On the other hand, if the Post Office gave a misleading explanation to government, why has there not been the slightest suggestion of this from the government, given the seismic shocks represented by Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment of December 2019 and, even more so, the Court of Appeal’s devastating judgment of 23 April 2021? </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>These are very big and important questions. Until now, I do not believe that they have been raised.</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>These questions are not academic. The Post Office’s behaviour has destroyed peoples’ lives. I have provided the links to two podcasts by <i>The Guardian</i> newspaper on my former client Janet Skinner’s experience. That her story reduced the journalist interviewing her to tears says enough. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 12px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>You might weep too, but weep for English justice. </span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;">© Paul Marshall June 2021</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Cornerstone Barristers</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;">2-3 Gray’s Inn Square</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Gray’s Inn, London</span></p><p style="color: #2d2a2a; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; min-height: 13px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Further reading: </span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Hamilton and ors. v Post Office Ltd </i>[2021] EWCA Crim 577.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/577.html"><span style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/577.html</span></a></span></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Bates and ors. v Post Office Ltd (‘Horizon Issues’</i>) <i>Rev 1</i> [2019] EWHC 3408 QB.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html"><span style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html</span></a></span></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Bates and ors. v Post Office Ltd</i> <i>(‘Common Issues’</i>) [2019] EWHC 606 QB.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/606.html"><span style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/606.html</span></a></span></span></p><p style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Post Office Ltd v Castleton</i> [2007] EWHC 5 QB. <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/5.html"><span style="color: blue;">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/5.html</span></a></span></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>The harm that judges do – misunderstanding computer evidence: Mr Castleton’s story</i>, Paul Marshall, <i>Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review</i> 17 (2020) 25.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> <a href="https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5172/5037"><span style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5172/5037</span></a></span></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>English law’s presumption that computer systems are reliable: time for a rethink? </i>Paul Marshall, <i>Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law</i>, 7 (2020) 433.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Recommendations for the probity of computer evidence,</i> Marshall, Christie, Ladkin, Littlewood, Mason, Newby, Rogers, Thimbleby, Thomas, <i>Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review</i> 18 (2021) 18.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> <a href="https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240/5083"><span style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240/5083</span></a></span></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>The Law Commission presumption concerning the dependability of computer evidence, </i>Ladkin, Littlewood, Thimbleby, Thomas,<i> Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review</i> 17 (2020) 1. <a href="https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5143"><span style="color: blue;">https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5143</span></a></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Stephen Mason and Daniel Seng (Eds.) <i>Electronic Evidence</i> 4th Edition, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for the SAS Humanities Digital Library, School of Advanced Study University of London 2017, <a href="https://humanities-digital-library.org/index.php/hdl/catalog/book/electronicevidence"><span style="color: blue;">https://humanities-digital-library.org/index.php/hdl/catalog/book/electronicevidence</span></a> (5th edition forthcoming 2021).</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;">‘<i>Robustness of software</i>’, Peter Ladkin, <i>Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review</i> 17 (2020) 15. <a href="https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5171"><span style="color: blue;">https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5171</span></a>.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>The Hearsay Rule in Civil Proceedings</i> 1993 Law Com. No. 245.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Hearsay and Related Topics </i>1997 Law Com. No. 216.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>The Guardian</i> Podcasts on Janet Skinner’s experience, by Anushka Asthana and Richard Brooks.</span></p><p style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2021/may/10/exposing-the-great-post-office-scandal-part-1"><span style="font-family: arial;">https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2021/may/10/exposing-the-great-post-office-scandal-part-1</span></a></span></p><p style="color: blue; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2021/may/11/the-post-office-scandal-part-2"><span style="font-family: arial;">https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2021/may/11/the-post-office-scandal-part-2</span></a></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px 36px;"><span style="font-family: arial;">BBC Radio 4, 11-part Podcast by Nick Wallis, <i>The Great Post Office trial</i> <span style="color: blue;"><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jf7j/episodes/downloads">https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jf7j/episodes/downloads</a></span></span></p><div><br /></div>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-6639929370793959432021-05-31T15:51:00.004+01:002021-06-03T05:26:32.811+01:00JFSA encourages members to sign up with solicitors ahead of inquiry decision<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGI_1sANJlDUiqYcmOXOAPPmkRzzY4oI10KgvOoMYFATc8pLd5iIsqV1lnJqbf62DeT6AVqkq1YSJ4KAWJ5SjTxcpVvAP_2ax25VFB15U6RxPUfbTKfIHl4YpHMh3NKKLq0rJl3__S_eMt/s1258/Alan+Bates+and+Wyn+WIlliams+composite.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="556" data-original-width="1258" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGI_1sANJlDUiqYcmOXOAPPmkRzzY4oI10KgvOoMYFATc8pLd5iIsqV1lnJqbf62DeT6AVqkq1YSJ4KAWJ5SjTxcpVvAP_2ax25VFB15U6RxPUfbTKfIHl4YpHMh3NKKLq0rJl3__S_eMt/w640-h282/Alan+Bates+and+Wyn+WIlliams+composite.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Alan Bates from the JFSA (l) and Sir Wyn Williams (r)</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The <a href="https://www.jfsa.org.uk" target="_blank">Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance</a> may have inched closer to participating in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/the-post-office-horizon-it-inquiry" target="_blank">Post Office Horizon Inquiry</a> - but there's still one big red line stopping them from getting involved.</p><p>Over the weekend, Alan Bates, founder of the JFSA, sent a note to his mailing list, telling members about his "introductory" meeting on Thursday last week with <a href="https://www.39essex.com/barrister/sir-wyn-williams/" target="_blank">Sir Wyn Williams</a>, the former High Court judge who is chairing the inquiry. The (remote) meeting was also attended by <a href="http://www.klca.co.uk/index.php/kll/2013-07-18-16-57-10/2013-07-18-17-00-01/kay-linnell" target="_blank">Kay Linnell</a>, a forensic accountant who has advised the JFSA for more than a decade, <a href="https://www.howe.co.uk/david-enright.html" target="_blank">David Enright, a partner at Howe and Co solicitors</a> and <a href="http://www.nexuschambers.com/our-members/barristers/sam-stein-qc" target="_blank">Sam Stein QC</a>, who we recently saw in action representing <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/03/post-office-shredded-documents-and.html" target="_blank">a number of Subpostmasters at the Court of Appeal</a>.</p><p>Mr Bates says the JFSA's participation in the inquiry remains dependent on the issue of compensation, telling members:</p><p></p><blockquote>"If, as with the original review, the issue of compensation is specifically excluded then it is pointless us taking part, every other issue is secondary to what we are rightfully owed and which has been taken from us."</blockquote><p></p><p>Sir Wyn apparently made no promises. According to Mr Bates, Sir Wyn:</p><p></p><blockquote>"stated that he would be preparing a Statement of Approach No 4 which will probably be available in 14 days once key participants have made submissions to him regarding their view of what path the Inquiry should follow. Be assured our legal team will be making a submission, as no doubt will those of POL [Post Office Ltd] and BEIS [the government Business ministry which technically "owns" the Post Office on our behalf]."</blockquote><p></p><p>Remember last year a senior government source told me civil servants within government <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/07/the-post-office-cover-up-part-2-they.html" target="_blank">didn't want any sort of review</a> or inquiry at all - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/07/the-post-office-cover-up-part-2-they.html" target="_blank">they wanted it all to go away</a>".</p><p>According to Mr Bates' reading of the inquiry's new powers, Sir Wyn can address at any issue surrounding the scandal he deems important. Mr Bates told his members: "one comment I do recall from the meeting with him is that he hopes to do so ‘Reasonably, Sensibly and Proportionally’."</p><p>Whilst the JFSA's position has not formally changed, it seems as if last Thursday's whites-of-their-eyes meeting at least persuaded Mr Bates and his advisors to keep talking, for now.</p><p>And if Statement of Approach Number 4 delivers the goods, the JFSA could well be in. In fact, in his note, Mr Bates suggests his members might want to contact Howe and Co in order to be ready to apply for core participant status to the inquiry. </p><p>To help them do that, added to the JFSA note is an FAQ from Howe and Co. It is also immensely helpful for any lay person wondering exactly how statutory inquiries operate. </p><p>I have reprinted the FAQ below and included the email address for Howe and Co at the bottom of this post, should anyone reading this think they might want Howe and Co to look after their application to be a core participant. As with everything of this nature, this website does not recommend one course of action over another, it just reports it. Other law firms are available.</p><p>Howe and Co's FAQ, via a recent JFSA newsletter:</p><p><b>• What is a Statutory Inquiry?</b></p><p>A Statutory Inquiry, simply, is a powerful form of public inquiry, established under the Inquiries Act 2005, and operates under the rules set out in that Act.</p><p>A Public Inquiry is a way of independently assessing the facts, events and circumstances which gave rise to a particular failure or problem. They also examine the background of that failure, and make recommendations about how bodies or organisations can improve their performance or prevent a failure or problem from reoccurring. A public inquiry will investigate key issues, taking into account evidence from the documents and witnesses to the facts.</p><p>A statutory public inquiry, as opposed to a government review or non-statutory inquiry, is a more formal process (with set legal rules about evidence and witnesses, for example).</p><p><b>• What are core participants?</b></p><p>A core participant is an individual, organisation or institution that has a specific interest in the topics to which the Inquiry relates. They have specific rights and roles as set out in law. Core participants have special rights in the Inquiry process.</p><p>Core participants' special rights include receiving early disclosure of documentation, including documents not made public, being legally represented and making legal submissions to the Chair, suggesting lines of questions to witnesses, suggesting evidence to be obtained, and receiving advance notice of the Inquiry's report(s).</p><p>It is not necessary to be a core participant in order to provide evidence to the Inquiry.</p><p>The Inquiry's Chair will decide who can be designated as a core participant, based on the applications made to him. He makes decisions according to legally-defined rules, but has wide discretion and can take a large number of factors into account.</p><p><b>• What is the role of Sir Wyn Williams?</b></p><p>Sir Wyn Williams is the Chair of the Inquiry. Sir Wyn retired from his role as a High Court judge in 2017 and has undertaken a number of similar judicial and legal roles since his retirement. In conjunction with the Inquiry's dedicated lawyers, he will be the head of the investigation and will be responsible for the procedures of the Inquiry and responsible for drafting its report(s). The Chair's role is comparable to a judge in a legal case, but with a duty to properly and fully investigate the issues to which the inquiry relates.</p><p>The Chair of an inquiry is responsible for making key decisions on the setting up and operation of an inquiry. Those decisions relate to:</p><p>an inquiry's procedural rules; the granting of core participant status to individuals and organisations; which witnesses to call; requiring that documents be disclosed to the inquiry; finance and timetables of the inquiry; and recommendations, and interim recommendations.</p><p>The Chair will also be involved in the selection and appointment of panel members (see below).</p><p><b>• Who are the Chair's panel, and how are they selected?</b></p><p>We do not yet know who may be appointed to the panel. The Inquiries Act 2005 permits an inquiry to sit with a panel. The JFSA can make representations to the Chair as to who panel members should be.</p><p>Whilst the decision on panel members ultimately a decision for the government minister, that minister is under a legal duty to consult with the Chair on panel members' appointment.</p><p>The Prime Minister withdrew a proposal to appoint a panel member to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, after Howe & Co objected on behalf of their core participant clients about the panel member's professional history, Now, the Grenfell Tower inquiry's panel contains an architect and health and safety practitioner, as well as a panel member with experience in social housing and local government.</p><p><b>• What are the powers of the Statutory Inquiry?</b></p><p>One of the most significant advantages of a statutory inquiry over a non-statutory inquiry are the powers that are granted to it.</p><p>A statutory inquiry has the ability to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence, as well as power to require a company, body, individual or institution to provide documents to it. A non-statutory inquiry has no powers to compel anyone unwilling to comply or engage with it.</p><p>A statutory Inquiry can commence criminal action again any person or organisation that refuses to cooperate with it.</p><div><div><b>• What is the aim of the Statutory Inquiry?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The aims of the Statutory Inquiry are set out in its Terms of Reference. Last week the JFSA forced the Department of Business to change and widen the Terms of Reference.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Terms of Reference are ultimately the responsibility of the Minister responsible for the Inquiry, in this case the BEIS Minister. In practice, the Terms of Reference are usually set based on the recommendations of the inquiry's chair or proposed chair.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is usual for the Chair to consult on the contents of the Terms of Reference, including with those who are or who may be core participants (see below for core participants). Once the Chair has considered the representations placed before him by the relevant interested parties, he will make a recommendation to the Minister.</div><div><br /></div><div>The JFSA will be seeking to press Sir Wyn Williams to widen the Terms of Reference further and to interpret the current Terms of Reference so as to ensure that the Objectives of the JFSA are fully and properly investigated.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>• How will it work?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>At this stage, it is too early to say exactly how the Inquiry will operate day to day. It is likely that the Inquiry's business will be conducted through a mixture of written submissions and live, in-person (or remote) hearings.</div><div><br /></div><div>We will be meeting with the Chair to discuss this and the JFSA's concerns shortly.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some inquiries, dependent on their nature, divide and sub-divide their work into separate topics. Core Participants are usually given the chance to make written submissions on a topic, and subsequently make oral submissions at a hearing through their nominated barristers. The Inquiry will call for witness evidence (through witness statements) from the Core Participants, on their general experiences, or more specific questions to direct the evidence sought.</div><div><br /></div><div>The witness evidence will be considered by the Inquiry's legal team, and some witnesses will be called to give live evidence. This means that, for example, we can expect to hear witness evidence from staff from the Post Office and Fujitsu, as well as from relevant government departments. We also can expect that subpostmasters will be asked to provide witness statements, and that the Inquiry will want some subpostmasters to appear live.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lawyers for core participants are given advance access to documents and the witness statements of other core participants. Prior to a witness appearing before the Inquiry, core participants are able to submit specific lines of questioning for each witness based on their role and their witness statement.</div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div><b>• Who can attend?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Public inquiries are just that, public. The manner in which the hearings take place is dependent on how the Chair constitutes the inquiry, but the Inquiry proceedings will be accessible to the public.</div><div><br /></div><div>Whilst COVID restrictions will undoubtedly impact whether public hearings can take place, the Inquiry's business will be publicly accessible. Public inquiries are usually livestreamed on YouTube, and the transcript of each day's proceedings are published online along with any evidence heard.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>• What evidence will the Statutory Inquiry consider?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The evidence considered by the Inquiry will be dependent on the nature of the Terms of Reference set. However, the Inquiry and the Inquiry's chair has broad powers to request documents, and legally demand them if necessary. We can expect a wide range of evidence to be considered by the inquiry, including documents provided by core participants and evidence from experts.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>• Will I have to pay for legal representation?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>No. The Inquiry rules set out that legal representation can be paid for from public funds if certain legal tests are met. Howe + Co are experts at obtaining funding for its clients in Inquiry proceedings, and they will assist the JFSA members in obtaining funding for legal representation.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>• Will I be liable for any costs if I complete the Core Participant form?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>No, you will not be liable for any costs by completing and returning the form.</div><div><br /></div><div>By completing the form, you agree to instruct Howe & Co to represent you before the Inquiry. At the start, that work will include applications for core participant status, and an application for public funding. You will not be liable for the costs any work done as part of the Inquiry process. Howe & Co will not seek to recover any legal costs from you.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>• Will I be able to claim any money, such as expenses, as a core participant?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, subject to your being granted core participant status, the rules do allow the Chair to reimburse expenses incurred in Inquiry business. That is subject to a number of legal tests, with which we are able to assist you.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Inquiries, generally, reimburse the costs incurred by core participants as part of their participation in the Inquiry, for example if they are called to give evidence.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>• Can evidence presented to the Inquiry be challenged, and if so how?</b></div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Yes. One of the most important roles of core participants, and their legal team, is to consider and challenge evidence presented to the inquiry by institutions such as the Post Office, Department of Business and Fujitsu. </div><div><br /></div><div>Where a witness appears to give evidence to the Inquiry, core participants are given advance disclosure of their evidence. Core participants are then able to suggest questions to be asked of the witness or to have their own advocate ask questions of the witness.</div><div><br /></div><div>Where institutions or organisations, such as the Post Office, provide evidence, core participants will be provided it in advance. You will then be entitled to suggest questions of those witnesses, through your legal team.</div><div><br /></div><div>Other than suggested questions and proper consideration of disclosure, along with your legal team, core participants make legal submissions to the Inquiry at various points in the Inquiry's processes. That legal argument is often based on evidence, including disputing evidence provided by other core participants.</div><div><br /></div><div>Additionally, the documents provided to the Inquiry by core participants, including you, can be used to challenge or dispute evidence currently before the Inquiry.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>The more members of the JFSA who agree to be core participants, the stronger our voice.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>• When will the Inquiry report?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>By July, we expect Sir Wyn to publish an interim report, based on the work he and the Inquiry have completed to date.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Inquiry is currently scheduled to deliver its final report in 18 months. However, the JFSA and Howe + Co will be pressing the Inquiry to deal with important issues and issue interim reports as the Inquiry progresses, rather than waiting to give all of its findings and recommendations in its single final report.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>ENDS</div><div><br /></div><div>The address the JFSA gives for anyone looking for more information about Howe and Co's offer of representation is <a href="mailto:postofficescandal@howe.co.uk">postofficescandal@howe.co.uk</a></div>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-73434513781854211492021-05-28T12:40:00.003+01:002021-05-28T12:40:57.077+01:00Johnson wants accountability AND compensation for Subpostmasters<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg63wPiaUZ8IC2arYTrTF1MJhjv0SkmPH8XAkItn0X9oojN905oE_BbMaO3fLRXInIDlPPac61AV9gNlqafLAsMiJ_wuviMxpKJBm6SUGimTRdErW64w3WQxw79ulnwI3w47GsLXZK7qWls/s1296/Screenshot+2021-05-28+at+12.34.08.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="724" data-original-width="1296" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg63wPiaUZ8IC2arYTrTF1MJhjv0SkmPH8XAkItn0X9oojN905oE_BbMaO3fLRXInIDlPPac61AV9gNlqafLAsMiJ_wuviMxpKJBm6SUGimTRdErW64w3WQxw79ulnwI3w47GsLXZK7qWls/w640-h358/Screenshot+2021-05-28+at+12.34.08.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Boris Johnson</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />This week Boris Johnson <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-05-26/debates/BE811BBD-D662-4121-8823-3A126BD3CE3F/Engagements" target="_blank">appeared to agree</a> with the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/sir-wyns-statutory-super-powers-and.html" target="_blank">evolving position of the Business Minister Paul Scully</a>* to agree during Prime Minister's Questions that all Subpostmasters who have been left out of pocket by the Post Office should be fairly compensated.<br /><p>In response to a question from Seema Misra's MP, Jonathan Lord, the PM said:</p><p></p><blockquote>"we are determined to ensure that postmasters and sub-postmasters are fairly compensated for what happened"</blockquote><p></p><p>It's hardly unequivocal, but when put in the context of the question it reads much better. Here is the exchange in full:</p><p><b>Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)</b></p><p></p><blockquote>"On behalf of my constituent Seema Misra and other wrongly convicted sub-postmasters, I am grateful that the vital inquiry of Sir Wyn Williams into that scandal has now been given more teeth. However, there is widespread concern, shared by Post Office CEO Nick Read, that the compensation received by the sub-postmasters who were party to the <b>civil litigation at the High Court</b> was simply not fair. I urge the Prime Minister to ensure that those civil litigant sub-postmasters will be included in the anticipated Government compensation scheme."</blockquote><p></p><p><b>The Prime Minister </b></p><p></p><blockquote>"I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue—a tragic case of injustice. I have met some of the postmasters and sub-postmasters who have been affected by that miscarriage of justice. As he knows, the Government were not party to the initial litigation, nor the settlement that was agreed, but <b>we are determined to ensure that postmasters and sub-postmasters are fairly compensated</b> for what happened."</blockquote><p></p><p>Emphasis mine.<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWlKJuRI7Azvw1xPN-muJ5n3yC3_eLkMg_q5M8Wd5Kfw_uhImLL1PrAw673fz49bxrrsvLmvNhndHE6Wtytcvslxlht2CiwWXtDIkxOcBUllFfgyDn5HqSx1YJA6ZOnZNnCQxQBCpZ42kW/s1292/Screenshot+2021-05-28+at+12.33.30.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="724" data-original-width="1292" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWlKJuRI7Azvw1xPN-muJ5n3yC3_eLkMg_q5M8Wd5Kfw_uhImLL1PrAw673fz49bxrrsvLmvNhndHE6Wtytcvslxlht2CiwWXtDIkxOcBUllFfgyDn5HqSx1YJA6ZOnZNnCQxQBCpZ42kW/w640-h358/Screenshot+2021-05-28+at+12.33.30.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Jonathan Lord MP</span></td></tr></tbody></table></p><p>Mr Lord is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Post Office, which Paul Scully attended on Wednesday evening. I asked Mr Lord both about the question he asked the PM and what he made of Mr Scully's performance at the APPG:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>“It was a great opportunity to urge the Prime Minister that there should be proper compensation for the Subpostmasters who were civil litigants at the High Court, and I think that the PM’s response was reasonably positive.</p><p>I was also pleased that Paul Scully agreed to be the main guest of the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Post Office on Tuesday evening. It would not be right for me to quote extensively from the private exchanges that took place. However, I have permission from the Chair to report that Minister Scully received frank and robust comments and very searching questions from each of MPs and Peers present on behalf of Subpostmasters and that he listened extremely carefully to all of the points that were made.”</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Mr Lord's question follows on from <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-03-24/debates/B0C48015-CE82-42BF-B2E5-4C5F150914CD/Engagements" target="_blank">Lucy Allan's question to the PM</a> on 24 March to which Boris Johnson agreed the people responsible for the Post Office Horizon IT scandal should be held accountable. The exact exchange was as follows:</p><p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtUpobnJAyETc2SylJGn4HogZAMuW05hA5OzSlCGHtI_2PGpC2s05hMH35mQLRapX546Fc3FXsiyQ0sfSFF8pb_8ItJ3Rpx-WAFWQfPC2a-mxCS-qXswkZs5wBs0xS36qz_J7z4Ckz4Z6f/s1136/Screenshot+2021-05-28+at+12.35.34.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="632" data-original-width="1136" height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtUpobnJAyETc2SylJGn4HogZAMuW05hA5OzSlCGHtI_2PGpC2s05hMH35mQLRapX546Fc3FXsiyQ0sfSFF8pb_8ItJ3Rpx-WAFWQfPC2a-mxCS-qXswkZs5wBs0xS36qz_J7z4Ckz4Z6f/w640-h356/Screenshot+2021-05-28+at+12.35.34.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lucy Allan MP (taken from the British Sign Language replay of the debate on parliamentlive.tv)</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></p><p><b>Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) </b></p><p></p><blockquote>"My constituent Tracy Felstead is at the Court of Appeal today, along with 41 other sub-postmasters. She is seeking to clear her name in a grotesque miscarriage of justice: the Post Office Horizon scandal. The Court has heard about the “institutional imperative” to back a flawed IT system and to convict sub-postmasters, destroying the lives of decent men and women in a ruthless determination to protect the Post Office come what may. Taxpayers will be picking up the bill for this multimillion-pound reckless wrongdoing. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in order for justice to be truly done, those responsible for this failure and its cover-up must be held to account? Does he agree that heads should roll?"</blockquote><p></p><p><b>The Prime Minister</b></p><p></p><blockquote>"I certainly understand my hon. Friend’s strong feelings on this issue, and her campaign is shared by many Members across the House. That is why we launched the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, which has made quite fast progress. Yes, we do want to learn the lessons. <b>Yes, we do want to make sure that the right people are held to account for what happened</b> and that the Post Office never repeats a mistake like this."</blockquote><p></p><p>Again - my emphasis added for clarity.</p><p>Now <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/08/judgments.html" target="_blank">two High Court judgments</a> and a <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/court-of-appeal-quashed-further-39.html" target="_blank">Court of Appeal ruling</a> have put beyond doubt that Very Bad Things happened to a large number of people, the two outstanding issues are accountability and compensation. The Prime Minister has agreed with campaigning backbench MPs he wants to see people held to account, and now, that he wants to see everyone fairly compensated. The only remaining resistance appears to be from the Whitehall officials (the one who a government source told me didn't want any inquiry <i>at all</i>) who have the most to lose by allowing the Prime Minister and the campaigners to get their way. I hope the PM's endorsement of the campaigners' position makes a difference.</p><p>* During a <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/sir-wyns-statutory-super-powers-and.html" target="_blank">debate to announce</a> the new statutory footing of the Post Office Horizon Inquiry, Mr Scully said: </p><p></p><blockquote>"On the group litigation settlement, I have talked about the fact that it was a full and final settlement, but I understand exactly where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from. That is not within the scope of the inquiry, but we will continue to look at what we can do to give a fair settlement of compensation for postmasters in the different tranches of the stages of the civil and criminal cases."</blockquote><p></p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;"> **********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also currently writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a> 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, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-42529373492570726302021-05-19T20:03:00.005+01:002021-05-25T04:11:50.182+01:00Sir Wyn's statutory super powers and scope revealed<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsk2-pqnY3F1a-ZM2gnmahjYuwOX0DNXHfVoc1i9IrGkuCYNIZDB9PvNF_4L4z7F3AWqimiNr2OvzAsmrHo0ZN_ARxC_awtz0LowYaQQZInTDKzZAA8QsrcljMd2W-Owg27CqrUxTDDcaN/s1300/Screenshot+2021-05-19+at+13.43.42.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="722" data-original-width="1300" height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsk2-pqnY3F1a-ZM2gnmahjYuwOX0DNXHfVoc1i9IrGkuCYNIZDB9PvNF_4L4z7F3AWqimiNr2OvzAsmrHo0ZN_ARxC_awtz0LowYaQQZInTDKzZAA8QsrcljMd2W-Owg27CqrUxTDDcaN/w640-h356/Screenshot+2021-05-19+at+13.43.42.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Paul Scully MP</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Sir Wyn Williams' power-pack upgrade to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry was announced in parliament today by the Business Minister Paul Scully, who said it will now: "be able to compel organisations to provide documents and witnesses to give evidence, under oath if necessary."</p><p>He said many more things about it, and I have reprinted the speech Mr Scully gave, and the debate it engendered below. You can also <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-05-19/debates/61d488d2-a1b9-41c7-bd42-04c83819c320/CommonsChamber" target="_blank">read it here on Hansard</a>.</p><p>There have also been changes to the scope of the inquiry, <a href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-05-19/hcws40" target="_blank">which are listed here</a>. The most interesting sentence says it is the inquiry's job to: </p><p></p><blockquote>"Understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to Horizon, leading to the civil proceedings in Bates and others v Post Office Limited and the quashing of criminal convictions"</blockquote><p></p><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5X2WGExvjUU6LXkF0_kB0Ws-24jtHh1w8_-5kfsraMnLbHx0-0y3ifVvnuFtuQfFxo-nwsyh-8CPg8tdZasb2ctiUyD-ac_kV489m38HMT4MVWwvJtyMgzaD19NugLnZBwx01SA2qCtEJ/s2543/20210423+Lord+Arbuthnot+outside+RCJ.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1236" data-original-width="2543" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5X2WGExvjUU6LXkF0_kB0Ws-24jtHh1w8_-5kfsraMnLbHx0-0y3ifVvnuFtuQfFxo-nwsyh-8CPg8tdZasb2ctiUyD-ac_kV489m38HMT4MVWwvJtyMgzaD19NugLnZBwx01SA2qCtEJ/w400-h195/20210423+Lord+Arbuthnot+outside+RCJ.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lord Arbuthnot</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">This covers a multitude of sins. Indeed Lord Arbuthnot, who has campaigned for years to support Subpostmasters, said:</span></div><p></p><blockquote><p>"Clearly this is an improvement, but gaps remain. For example, the inquiry will obtain “<i>all available relevant evidence from Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu, BEIS and UKGI</i>” – but there is no mention of those who used to work for Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu, BEIS or UKGI. </p><p>A case in point is Susan Crichton, who used to be the Post Office’s legal counsel. Is she covered by this, and does she have a non-disclosure agreement with the Post Office which the Post Office could be obliged to waive? That is far from clear. What about Chris Aujard who replaced her, but who no longer works for the Post Office, or Angela van den Bogerd?</p><p>And the huge gap is that of compensation. The Minister may be right to say that an inquiry cannot of itself make legally binding recommendations about compensation, but he is wrong to say that therefore it has to go through the courts. If the government or a government-owned entity behaves badly (let alone as spectacularly badly as both have done in this case), it can and should compensate those whom it has wronged. It doesn’t have to wait to be sued.</p><p>Finally, Paul Scully said that he wants to get the Post Office onto a good footing for the future. Yes, we all want to see that, but he won’t achieve that while this burning injustice, and the absurd distinction between compensating those of the 555 litigants who have had convictions overturned but not compensating those who have not or who may not have been convicted, remains." </p></blockquote><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxoaQ-EV2ipqKQ-JrGdPizLuhFtUch0CmHS6U1EGs9x395gRRFvh36V28VsEoVZwFbSG1ZVTEHmVCgSguOr1RRZfc-U7J6Ic2iX-ehp0uYCTjEHXGpVN9MiIifYcvDW_GnocEK7b2SlPKX/s1008/20210423_124918_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxoaQ-EV2ipqKQ-JrGdPizLuhFtUch0CmHS6U1EGs9x395gRRFvh36V28VsEoVZwFbSG1ZVTEHmVCgSguOr1RRZfc-U7J6Ic2iX-ehp0uYCTjEHXGpVN9MiIifYcvDW_GnocEK7b2SlPKX/w400-h195/20210423_124918_resized.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Seema, Janet and Tracy</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>Paul Scully acknowledged that it was because of the Court of Appeal's recent findings that the inquiry was being upgraded to a statutory footing. Seema Misra, Tracy Felstead and Janet Skinner were three appellants who led the way in requesting the Court of Appeal consider their prosecutions to be an affront to the public conscience, which the court duly did. Today their solicitors, Aria Grace, issued a statement, saying:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"Seema Misra, Janet Skinner and Tracy Felstead listened with interest to the announcement by Minister Paul Scully... and the numerous positive responses and comments of MPs from all parties to that announcement. Between them, our clients waited 44 years for their convictions to be overturned.</p><p>They are pleased that the inquiry under Sir Wyn William will now be a statutory inquiry with power to call witnesses. They feel strongly that no one has yet been held to account or even properly investigated for those massive miscarriage of justice which took place over two decades. They hope very much the Enquiry will remedy that</p><p>They are disappointed that the Horizon Group damages settlement itself is outside the inquiry’s scope, although note that events leading up to the settlement may be investigated.</p><p>Each of them looks forward to giving evidence to Sir Wyn’s enquiry and so helping to ensure nothing like this can ever happen again. The personal damage to each of them and hundreds of others is immense.”</p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYTYmNajT1gUQ2oFQlyomg4bOu15wQXhsfRwh0DLhoqYSL9VGHqNcz61AT2U_Aq3Zd45lGhGXyo3cD7pV0doCVkNBdRQQbPEi1zI-4ovDi4O49936a4QyGrs4woiUjFrH8s3WmfPffRsYa/s600/SirWynWilliams.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYTYmNajT1gUQ2oFQlyomg4bOu15wQXhsfRwh0DLhoqYSL9VGHqNcz61AT2U_Aq3Zd45lGhGXyo3cD7pV0doCVkNBdRQQbPEi1zI-4ovDi4O49936a4QyGrs4woiUjFrH8s3WmfPffRsYa/s320/SirWynWilliams.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sir Wyn Williams</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Sir Wyn Himself posted a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-office-horizon-it-inquiry-2020/statement-from-the-chair-19-may-2021" target="_blank">very interesting response to the minister's announcement on the inquiry website</a> which included the statement:<div><div><blockquote>"There can be no denying that the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Hamilton and others, understood in the context of the judgments of Mr Justice Fraser in the civil litigation between sub-postmasters and Post Office Ltd, has generated important lines of enquiry some of which were previously undisclosed. Against this background, the powers available to a statutory public inquiry are necessary to support a proper assessment of all the relevant facts."</blockquote></div><div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4DPTd_a07LLZKDAc3Z2gZJrswmVTjFCpvMZYt9icntPh1ruh9AMGCGf-d2uExX7xzLu08TxVV5A2HcLucGOK4cB1YXSiZJBnaOeASSMkddQ6j7utiuxFdSB3VSVjNWrEWUczwS1H8jPdg/s1397/2020-03-04+Chris+Head+crop.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1267" data-original-width="1397" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4DPTd_a07LLZKDAc3Z2gZJrswmVTjFCpvMZYt9icntPh1ruh9AMGCGf-d2uExX7xzLu08TxVV5A2HcLucGOK4cB1YXSiZJBnaOeASSMkddQ6j7utiuxFdSB3VSVjNWrEWUczwS1H8jPdg/s320/2020-03-04+Chris+Head+crop.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Chris Head</span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div>Chris Head, a former Subpostmaster and energetic campaigner, also gave the upgraded inquiry a qualified welcome, saying it is a "step in the right direction". He added:<p></p><p></p><blockquote>"I also appreciated the apparent change of tone in the Minister's responses today. He seemed a lot more sympathetic towards affected Subpostmasters than in previous despatch box appearances and we have to give [the government] the benefit of doubt and see what they deliver. It is important we keep their feet to the fire as this should have all started last year and could be well on the way to conclusion already. The terms of reference still do not go far enough."</blockquote><p></p><p>For MPs and campaigners, properly compensating <i>everyone</i> including those who were involved in Bates v Post Office is essential. Chris has a solution:</p><p></p><blockquote>"The minister, after meeting Nick Read could have said that those 555 Sub Postmasters can enter into the scheme and be calculated as though they hadn't been part of the litigation and will receive the difference from what they have already been awarded - all equal and fair! </blockquote><blockquote>The other worry for me is Post Office is controlling this entire scheme without any independent or outside scrutiny and once those in it join and Post Office offers its findings they aren't able to take a legal route. We need an independent oversight by the likes of Second Sight or similar to ensure the Post Office is being fair and above board in its approach (not sure if it has that word in its vocabulary)."</blockquote><p>There is an excellent photo of Chris in <a href="https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/former-post-office-boss-says-114824553.html" target="_blank">this Yahoo finance piece</a> which also carries a statement from Paula Vennells welcoming the inquiry. She says:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"It is beyond doubt there are serious and unanswered questions as to the manner in which subpostmasters were wrongly prosecuted.</p><p>All those involved in any way have a duty to those subpostmasters and their families, who were innocent victims, to ensure that this can never happen again.”</p></blockquote><p></p><p>I can imagine those words will stick in the craw of many people reading this. Current Post Office CEO, Nick Read said:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>“There can only be closure for victims of the Horizon scandal by establishing a comprehensive picture of what went wrong. </p><p>As I have said previously, Post Office will support and co-operate with any inquiry the Government sees fit to convene, and I welcome the announcement that Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry will now move to a statutory footing. Post Office will continue to co-operate fully with Sir Wyn and his team.”</p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj17LMOJZQ9Xn4OeqbUcsioA7FXYy_oj7fJIxZ9P8f0ChBoUf_lhyK7KEjFEyfJ10Ade7rs4ZjKfvRHRwjTFylHp7hqhC8IRlBieyc7MLeEevIyIwCKB-6NrekD1RwdejpV6jZzsfR0CqxE/s2048/20181107+Alan+Bates+7.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj17LMOJZQ9Xn4OeqbUcsioA7FXYy_oj7fJIxZ9P8f0ChBoUf_lhyK7KEjFEyfJ10Ade7rs4ZjKfvRHRwjTFylHp7hqhC8IRlBieyc7MLeEevIyIwCKB-6NrekD1RwdejpV6jZzsfR0CqxE/w400-h225/20181107+Alan+Bates+7.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Alan Bates</span></td></tr></tbody></table>And what of Alan Bates, the founder of the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, who is currently boycotting the inquiry? Yesterday he was <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57162437" target="_blank">quick to take credit for the changes, telling the BBC</a>:<p></p><p></p><blockquote>"The Department of Business repeatedly rejected my calls for a statutory inquiry until I threatened a judicial review."</blockquote><p></p><p>Adding:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Merely announcing a statutory inquiry is not enough. I and hundreds of other sub-postmasters will not tolerate a toothless and hamstrung inquiry. We will be demanding an inquiry with adequate terms of reference that will allow it to get to the truth and to examine all of the injustices suffered by sub-postmasters and their families."</blockquote><p></p><div>Alan has not yet responded to a request for comment, but as one wag said, "now that it is statutory your mate can be called whether he likes it or not." That would certainly be interesting.</div><div><br /></div><div>Kevan Jones MP wants the inquiry taken out of the BEIS ministry's control. He says:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>“I welcome the Government’s announcement that the Post Office Inquiry will now be placed on a statutory footing.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, the terms of reference and scope of the inquiry must be expanded to include the following: Post Office Ltd’s prosecution function, matters of criminal law, the Horizon group damages settlement, the conduct of current or future litigation relating to Horizon and/or the engagement or findings of any other supervisory or complaints mechanisms. Only then does he have a chance of bringing all relevant parties into this review.</div><div><br /></div><div>Moreover, as BEIS owns and directs the activities of Post Office Limited and may be found culpable in many respects, including the conduct of its Ministers who were supposed to be providing oversight, it is it not vital for public confidence that the owner of the Post Office is not also the owner of this Inquiry. It therefore must be passed over to the Ministry of Justice.”</div></blockquote><div></div><div><br /></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt9aeCESDRzwrb2aln44ZfFQL46XvppM_NLrsyNVNZ5w0xOxL6TlHg5PLcwgOgbdLESmxjAwivJQcWLIbpvp193ldk1VccrziGV-RLc0RBmaadvAIOfGLuMwbKmjE95IEx4rvKIwDBQ1qI/s1556/Mark+Baker.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1556" data-original-width="1301" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt9aeCESDRzwrb2aln44ZfFQL46XvppM_NLrsyNVNZ5w0xOxL6TlHg5PLcwgOgbdLESmxjAwivJQcWLIbpvp193ldk1VccrziGV-RLc0RBmaadvAIOfGLuMwbKmjE95IEx4rvKIwDBQ1qI/s320/Mark+Baker.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Mark Baker</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div>Finally, serving Subpostmaster and Communications Workers Union national organiser Mark Baker noted:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>"the language is not overtly explicit about accountability but Sir Wyn has enough to work with within these term of reference, I believe, to establish who the guilty parties are and who knew what and when. I see no reason why he could not make some recommendations to the CPS, as Justice Fraser did, based on some of the things he will extract from his revamped inquiry if he suspects a criminal act has taken place.</div><div><br /></div><div>I think this gives the campaigners what they have been calling for and I hope they all now fully engage with Sir Wyn."</div></blockquote><div></div><p>I am very much looking forward to seeing Alice Perkins, Paula Vennells, Mark Davies, Susan Crichton, Alwen Lyons, John Scott, Jarnail Singh, Simon Clarke, Brian Altman et al give evidence, if that comes to pass. I would also like to see some people further down the food chain being cross-examined, too - eg the Post Office investigators who told Subpostmasters they were the only ones having problems with Horizon.</p><p>Today's <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-05-19/debates/61d488d2-a1b9-41c7-bd42-04c83819c320/CommonsChamber" target="_blank">full parliamentary statement and debate</a> follows:</p><div class="child-debate" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px;"><h2 data-tag="hs_2cStatement" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; font-size: 2.05rem; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 22px; margin-top: 0px; max-width: 100%;">Post Office Update</h2><div class="debate-item debate-item-timestampdebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 25px; margin-top: 25px;"><div class="content-item" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="timestamp" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline; text-decoration: none;"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;">The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy </a></div></div><div class="timestamp" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; display: inline; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Paul Scully)</div></a></div></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="AD31ABE9-F35A-4C3D-A339-50DFA4ACC4A0" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)" id="contribution-AD31ABE9-F35A-4C3D-A339-50DFA4ACC4A0" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on changes to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry. Over a 20-year period, the Post Office Horizon computerised accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash, which were allegedly caused by sub-postmasters, leading to dismissals, recovery of losses and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. I know that Members across the House are aware of the terrible impact that this has had on affected postmasters and their families. The life-altering implications of these accounting errors cannot be overstated.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, led by Sir Wyn Williams, was launched in September 2020 as a major step towards righting the wrongs of the past. The inquiry was established on a non-statutory basis to enable the chair to work quickly to establish a clear account of the implementation and failings of the Horizon computer system over its lifetime. </p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">On 27 April, I made an oral statement to the House following the decision by the Court of Appeal on 23 April to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters who had been convicted for Horizon-related shortfalls. As I said then, the Government recognise the gravity of the court’s judgment and the scale of the miscarriage of justice that it makes clear.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">Sir Wyn and I are both of the view that the context for the inquiry has changed in the light of the judgment by the Court of Appeal and that now is the right moment to convert the inquiry to a statutory footing. Therefore, I can now inform the House that, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, I will convert the inquiry to a statutory footing on 1 June 2021. I have also agreed that Sir Wyn will now have more time to undertake his work. The inquiry is now expected to report in autumn 2022, rather than summer 2021.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">Together, these changes will give Sir Wyn the powers and the time that he needs to conduct an in-depth analysis of the decision-making processes that led to the Horizon scandal. He will be able to compel organisations to provide documents and witnesses to give evidence, under oath if necessary. It is now for Sir Wyn to consider his next steps, and I expect that he will provide more information on his proposed approach soon. In the short term, the inquiry will complete its planned engagements through May, but public hearings that had been expected to take place in June will be delayed.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">I have always said that the inquiry should proceed quickly to get the answers that postmasters and their families are seeking. Sir Wyn has gathered a lot of evidence from key parties and engaged with many affected postmasters; I have therefore asked that he provide a progress update to his original timeline of summer 2021, to make public the progress to date and any initial findings. I hope that still more affected postmasters will choose to engage with Sir Wyn as he continues his work on a statutory footing.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">The inquiry’s overarching aims—to ensure that the right lessons have been learned and to establish what must change—will remain. However, there will be some changes to the terms of reference in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment. I have today notified the House of the updated terms of reference in a written ministerial statement.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank Sir Wyn for his quick progress on the inquiry to date and for taking the time with me in recent weeks to consider the next steps for it. I am pleased to confirm that he has agreed to remain as chair of the inquiry for the next phase.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">Finally, I note that converting the inquiry to a statutory footing and proceeding over a longer period will, of course, have cost implications, but I assure colleagues across the House that they are being fully considered with my colleagues in HM Treasury.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The Horizon saga has wrecked lives and livelihoods. We cannot undo the damage that has been done, but we can establish what went wrong at the Post Office and ensure that nothing like it is ever allowed to happen again. The events surrounding the dispute have long been shrouded in darkness, and this Government are determined to bring them into the light. The landmark Court of Appeal judgment changed the context for the inquiry. Following it, the Government did not hesitate to act to give the inquiry more teeth and equip Sir Wyn with more powers. To affected postmasters and their families, my message is that we are listening and we will get to the bottom of this appalling affair. I commend this statement to the House.<a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4253" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"></a></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br /></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br /></p><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;">Seema Malhotra </div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4253" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; display: inline; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)</div></a></div></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="DBE90F7E-7784-4580-AE69-ADBF50294787" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)" id="contribution-DBE90F7E-7784-4580-AE69-ADBF50294787" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) is not able to attend today but, like me, she welcomes today’s statement, including the much belated conversion of the inquiry to a statutory footing and the extension of its scope, although we believe that it does not yet go far enough.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">This is indeed the largest legal miscarriage of justice in our history. It is estimated that there have been 900 false prosecutions in total—each one its own story of persecution, of fear, of despair, of families destroyed, of reputations smashed, of lives lost and of innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. I thank and congratulate everybody who has campaigned over so many years—for more than a decade—to reveal the truth, including the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and the Communication Workers Union. I also congratulate right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have fought for justice for their constituents; I mention in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has worked tirelessly on the issue.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">The campaign for justice has been long fought, and there is still a long way to go. The Minister’s announcement is a step in the right direction. The Labour party and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance have always said that the inquiry must be statutory, but less than a month ago in this Chamber, four days after the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Minister rejected calls for a statutory inquiry on the grounds that it would take “three, four or five years”<a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/column?VolumeNumber=693&ColumnNumber=254&House=1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151;">—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 254.]</a></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">Can he tell us what has happened to change his mind?</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">The horrific miscarriage of justice did not happen overnight. For a decade, we have known that there were serious problems with the Horizon system, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, pursuing the victims and imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Even after the High Court ruling vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to act. The next step has been delayed and victims’ lives have been disrupted by this Government.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">It is important to remember that having a statutory inquiry is not, of itself, justice. There remain a number of urgent questions for the Minister that he did not answer a few weeks ago. The Government are the Post Office’s only shareholder, yet time and again, the Post Office was allowed to abuse its power over postmasters. That was the finding of the Court, and it is a really important point. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight and due diligence with regard to public money? Will he apologise to the victims and their families today? The postmasters were criminalised for a culture that assumed technology is infallible and workers dishonest. How will the Minister change that, and what are the implications for the management of human teams relying on AI or computer algorithms?</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">We welcome any new powers for Sir Wyn and the review. It was reported—and this seemed to be in the statement—that Sir Wyn will have the power to summon witnesses to give testimony under oath and to force the Post Office to hand over documents. Can the Minister confirm that, and will that power apply to any other entity or organisation from which evidence is sought? While the terms of reference have been updated, they do not seem to reflect the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central previously. For example, compensation still appears to be out of scope of the inquiry—why? Who has been consulted on the revised terms of reference?</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">Fujitsu was the one that provided faulty software. An independent investigator, Second Sight, drew attention to that as far back as 2013, yet the Government do not appear to be doing anything to hold Fujitsu to account. Instead, the Horizon software has been renewed, rewarding Fujitsu with a new £42 million contract. Will ongoing Government contracts with Fujitsu be reviewed? Paula Vennells led the Post Office during this time and was honoured with a CBE, along with a long list of others. Is it right that she and others continue to be honoured?</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">The Minister has referred to a “full and final settlement” for some postmasters with the Post Office. However, he will know that of the £58 million settlement approved in the High Court case, only £12 million will go to the victims, with the rest taken up in legal fees. Does the Minister agree that they should be considered for appropriate compensation?</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">The JFSA and Labour want there to be a public consultation to guarantee that the inquiry will deliver for all the victims and provide conclusive answers. The Post Office is a Government-owned company that has been found to be at fault. It is vital that the Government act to improve the corporate structure of the Post Office, to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again. It should never have been allowed to develop into this scandal, but all we can do now is ensure that we get to the truth, that those wrongly convicted get justice and that lessons are learnt.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Securing this statutory inquiry is a big victory for sub-postmasters, trade unions and justice, but despite the Government’s U-turn, this is only the start. The Government have failed to live up to their responsibility to prevent this scandal from occurring, and they have, until today, stood in the way of justice. I urge the Minister to apologise, to own the Government’s mistakes and to start work to ensure that justice is served and that a scandal of this magnitude can never happen again.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="40185FA5-9402-4ADE-87C6-0740BAF8BD53" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)" id="contribution-40185FA5-9402-4ADE-87C6-0740BAF8BD53" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=36" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Madam Deputy Speaker </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Dame Eleanor Laing)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, but Mr Speaker would be annoyed with me if I did not point out that she has taken a minute longer than she ought to have had, and that is a minute that will not be taken later today by some other Member who wishes to speak.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="E1E12A8A-7BB1-41FF-B83E-87C4D3A9F737" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-E1E12A8A-7BB1-41FF-B83E-87C4D3A9F737" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">I send my best wishes to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah); I understand why she cannot be here. I appreciate the response from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and I will try to answer some of her questions.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">The hon. Lady talked about Ministers’ role in this. Clearly, the role of our Department, Government and Ministers will be included in the inquiry. We do want to learn the lessons, and that will be the case, but as we have seen from the judgment, the Post Office consistently maintained that Horizon was robust and was misguided in its approach to the issue, leading to the decision to prosecute these postmasters. We pressed management on issues regarding complaints brought by postmasters about Horizon and received repeated assurances that the system was reliable. As I say, the inquiry will look into that.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">In terms of the Government’s response, we clearly recognise the impact that convictions have had on individual postmasters and their families. That is why the Prime Minister and I met with a small group of them last month, to hear directly from them. They had some incredibly tragic and terrible stories, and I can understand why they find it difficult to trust anybody in this regard after many, many years of difficulty and the impossible situation that they and their families have been in.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">On Horizon itself, the Post Office is looking into that. It cannot, unfortunately, just switch off a system and change midstream, but clearly it will be looking to work on the successor CRM—customer relationship management—system. Yes, the terms of reference and the statutory footing allow Sir Wyn to compel people to give evidence and documents, and there are sanctions on them if they should fail to do so, under the Inquiries Act 2005. One of the reasons for that, as we move to the second stage and, I hope, engage more sub-postmasters to give their stories, is that we want to give them the confidence that people will be giving their evidence. I must say that, to date still, everybody involved in this whom Sir Wyn has asked to do so has given their full undertaking and worked on it. Nobody has resiled from the inquiry, but it is important that we do this.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">On the terms of reference in relation to compensation, an inquiry, whether statutory or not, cannot determine liability in itself—that still has to be done through the courts—but sub-postmasters clearly can raise, and I would fully expect them to raise, the issue of the losses and difficulties as they outline the difficulties they have had. On Fujitsu, as I have said, clearly the Post Office will be looking at what it does in further compensation, and that will include Fujitsu. There are criminal investigations going ahead, so that is outside the scope of the inquiry, but the GLO—group litigation order—settlement was a full and final settlement. The Government did not have a part in the litigation. It is not part of the inquiry itself, but none the less, this is one part—an important part, but one part—of making sure that we get to the bottom of this and get sufficient justice for the postmasters so badly affected.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="0E79BEF1-DB9D-41AA-84CC-48B9CD346E4B" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)" id="contribution-0E79BEF1-DB9D-41AA-84CC-48B9CD346E4B" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4411" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Lucy Allan </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Telford) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I warmly congratulate the Minister on his statement, and I think it is fantastic news for sub-postmasters. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for meeting sub-postmasters, including my constituent Tracy Felstead, and for understanding the terrible injustice that they have suffered for so long. Can the Minister assure me that compensation will be paid to all those affected, including those who were party to the horrendous struggle that was the group litigation? Does he agree that these sub-postmasters should not be penalised for shining a light on the conduct of the Post Office, and they should not be required to fund the pivotal judgment of Mr Justice Fraser, without which no convictions would have been overturned? Can he please agree with me that compensation must be fair to all sub-postmasters?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="A3A790B3-D8CF-4826-AC0E-4A36B6416FA6" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-A3A790B3-D8CF-4826-AC0E-4A36B6416FA6" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank my hon. Friend, who has been really dogged in her championing of Tracy Felstead and many others who have been affected. I was pleased to meet Tracy—who gave such tragic testimony—alongside the Prime Minister. On compensation, the Post Office is engaging in the compensation process. I will, in my regular meetings with the Post Office, make sure that we keep on top of that, because we want to ensure justice and fair compensation for all who have been affected.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="A2ADAD09-5841-47A3-9C90-1420C858E39A" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)" id="contribution-A2ADAD09-5841-47A3-9C90-1420C858E39A" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4440" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Marion Fellows </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who is a member of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the statement that the inquiry into the Post Office’s Horizon scandal is to be put on a statutory footing—something for which MPs across the Chamber have been calling for months. However, if this is the case, it should have been set out properly by the UK Government in Parliament, not briefed beforehand to the press.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">The Horizon scandal has been a serious miscarriage of justice, potentially carried out knowingly. It is a grave injustice that some, sadly, have taken their own lives and others have been imprisoned. The SNP has repeatedly called for a judge-led statutory inquiry, and the Minister and I have had discussions on this previously. Entire lives have been ruined, and it is critical—critical—that no stone is left unturned in securing real justice for those affected. The UK Government must agree to meet all costs as a result of any compensation due, so that the post office network is not impacted. We must not lose sight of that. We absolutely welcome the statutory inquiry, as I have said, but we must also make certain that those responsible are held to account. This is really important.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I want to thank the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, the Communication Workers Union and the long-standing members of the APPG, who have fought tirelessly for this outcome. I look forward to seeing the Minister next week in my capacity as chair of the APPG, when he comes to talk to us further.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="40C91470-A7F8-45E1-8913-B8075DB3477A" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-40C91470-A7F8-45E1-8913-B8075DB3477A" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I always welcome meeting the hon. Lady, and I congratulate her on her work for the all-party group. I appreciate her support for this change and I absolutely agree with her that we have to make sure that in getting justice and righting the wrongs of the past we do not jeopardise the future of the Post Office, with the social value it gives, as well as the economic value, for so many people across this country. We must make sure that we restore confidence for not only future postmasters within the network but its customers, so that it is there for many years to come.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="98C2125B-FE40-4317-A86C-CC0B3A3D8830" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V] on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]" id="contribution-98C2125B-FE40-4317-A86C-CC0B3A3D8830" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4133" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Andrew Bridgen </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I am delighted that the Minister has announced that we will get the full public inquiry that we have needed for so long, to finally draw a line under this tragic fiasco and get to the truth. Following his and the Prime Minister’s recent meeting with a few of the sub-postmasters caught up in this debacle, including my constituents Mr and Mrs Rudkin, does my hon. Friend agree that the sub-postmasters are ordinary, honest and credible people, who have been caught up in incredible events that were not of their making and not their responsibility, but which have had a massive detrimental effect on their lives and the lives of their families?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="BFAE488D-E087-4109-822A-BD9B5BCBB7E7" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-BFAE488D-E087-4109-822A-BD9B5BCBB7E7" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Let me again thank my hon. Friend for his work in raising the case of Mr and Mrs Rudkin and other postmasters, and he is right. Mr Rudkin was one of the leading witnesses who blew a hole in the evidence and this led to success for those postmasters in various stages of the court case and, unfortunately, Mrs Rudkin was left to carry the can in her experience as postmaster. She is very typical of many postmasters who have been affected: ordinary people who are stalwarts of their villages, towns, communities. That is why we must redouble our efforts to seek justice and fair compensation for them.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="D6307EE4-BCCF-4797-A9BA-56C0FCBA0B13" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V] on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]" id="contribution-D6307EE4-BCCF-4797-A9BA-56C0FCBA0B13" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4621" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Darren Jones </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank the Minister for an advance copy of the statement. My Select Committee and I called for this inquiry to be on a statutory footing from the beginning and so we welcome the statement today. However, if I have understood it correctly, the terms of reference are still being decided by Ministers and not by the independent chair, Sir Wyn Williams—why?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="844C344D-2A65-4878-9927-67C930B4EC8C" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-844C344D-2A65-4878-9927-67C930B4EC8C" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">No, that is incorrect; this is being done in collaboration with Sir Wyn. I spoke to Sir Wyn shortly after the Court of Appeal’s judgment and comments. He asked for more powers—not just statutory ones but to be able to look further back—and that is why we made changes. Although the inquiry would not explore matters of substantive criminal law, which of course should be decided by the criminal courts, he felt that he could look at this better, first, within the statutory footing and, secondly, with some of the changes to the terms of reference that we have expanded today. That was done in collaboration with Sir Wyn.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="280BB7D1-5075-4278-8E3D-75541ABC2017" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)" id="contribution-280BB7D1-5075-4278-8E3D-75541ABC2017" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4784" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Duncan Baker </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(North Norfolk) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Just a few weeks ago, I asked about this at Prime Minister’s questions, so I thank the Government for listening and I welcome the statutory footing. Justice and peace of mind is one thing, but adequate compensation for the victims is another. Fujitsu must not be let off the hook. What assessment has the Minister made to ensure that Fujitsu contributes to the fund to ensure that people who are still hugely at loss are properly compensated?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="235801B4-CBE7-4D81-9E18-259BAF8670BF" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-235801B4-CBE7-4D81-9E18-259BAF8670BF" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank my hon. Friend, a former postmaster himself, for that. He absolutely understands the situation and has been a dogged champion. We did say that if things should change, we would change. Things have clearly changed as a result of the Court of Appeal judgment. He raises a pertinent point about Fujitsu. It is for Post Office Ltd to work out the terms of compensation around this issue, but I am sure it will hear what he said and raise that incredibly pertinent point as redress is sought.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="50AAD9E8-6E4E-489B-B0F3-463511DE1A0F" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)" id="contribution-50AAD9E8-6E4E-489B-B0F3-463511DE1A0F" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=1438" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mr Kevan Jones </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(North Durham) (Lab)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank the Minister for his statement. I also give him credit: in the 10-plus years that I, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and Lord Arbuthnot have been campaigning on this issue, this is the first time that a Minister has admitted that when things go wrong he will change them. </p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">It is right that we get full disclosure of the facts and justice for those who have been wronged. May I ask the Minister about disclosure? Will that include the ministerial submissions from the Post Office throughout this scandal and the role of the Government shareholder on the board of the Post Office? That is key to the reasons why things were not questioned. Also remember that in 2019 the Post Office spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money defending a civil case that was, frankly, completely indefensible. </p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I stress one last thing to the Minister. I know that Ministers like to hide behind the Post Office, saying that this is its fault. It is not: it is a wholly owned company of the Government. The Government have to take responsibility for some of this; they cannot just blame the Post Office.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="0631A4D6-4E5F-4C37-ADD0-5A3FEE3E3D5D" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-0631A4D6-4E5F-4C37-ADD0-5A3FEE3E3D5D" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has rightly been pushing on behalf of postmasters in general for a number of years. </p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Yes, nothing is off the table. We want to get justice and answers for people, and that clearly includes the role of the Government and shareholders. The fact is that, yes, we are the single shareholder through UK Government Investments, but that allows Post Office Ltd to work operationally independently of the Government—otherwise, there would be no point in splitting it that way. None the less, as I say, our representatives on the board have been asking that question. We were assured that Horizon was robust in all these areas. None the less, within the inquiry those questions will no doubt be asked and I expect them to be answered.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="BD789CEF-7455-40BD-AF03-B73ECFA81D17" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)" id="contribution-BD789CEF-7455-40BD-AF03-B73ECFA81D17" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4744" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Simon Fell </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Barrow and Furness) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the work being undertaken by Sir Wyn in what is now a statutory inquiry. It is right that the inquiry should look at how on earth this was allowed to happen in the first place—most pertinently, why the Post Office and Fujitsu completely ignored the red flags being waved by trusted sub-postmasters across the network. </p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Compensation will be key. Sub-postmistress Isabella Wall from Barrow lost her home and business and was left with nothing. Can my hon. Friend guarantee that fair compensation for those who have been completely wronged through this process will be the focus of the Government?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="5190C808-78AA-4651-9895-2EFAAD731976" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-5190C808-78AA-4651-9895-2EFAAD731976" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I pass my best wishes to Isabella Wall; I can only imagine what she and her family have been through. We will continue to talk about these issues over the next year, as the inquiry goes through.</p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Yes, the inquiry looks at what went wrong and goes back historically to give confidence to those affected and in the future network. But clearly we want to make sure that postmasters get fair compensation as well as justice.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="48BF0ACB-3104-4BDC-BCC0-C5F2928D8506" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V] on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]" id="contribution-48BF0ACB-3104-4BDC-BCC0-C5F2928D8506" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4030" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Karl Turner </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank the Minister for finally recognising the need to make this a statutory inquiry. As he knows full well, at every turn the Post Office has done everything it can possibly do to defend the indefensible. The inequality of arms in terms of legal representation has enabled these persecutions of innocent hard-working men and women. What discussions has he had with the Treasury for funds to be put aside to ensure that these innocent victims get fair and equal representation in this now statutory inquiry?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="415F87A9-0307-46D4-A779-28472FB62C2C" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-415F87A9-0307-46D4-A779-28472FB62C2C" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has been persistent in standing up for postmasters. </p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 0px;"></p><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The situation has been going on for 20 years—a long, long time—and it is so important that we get to the bottom of it. Clearly, we have already been speaking to the Treasury, which has supported the Post Office in a historical shortfall scheme, and we will continue to do so. It is so important that people get fair redress and compensation and that we put the Post Office on a good footing for the future. Although this issue has been going for 20 years, I should say that Post Office Ltd now, under chief executive Nick Read, is determined to look positively to the future while standing up and supporting us in getting the answers about those last two decades.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="FD6A5423-9CB9-4D2A-9784-BBB240F52A91" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)" id="contribution-FD6A5423-9CB9-4D2A-9784-BBB240F52A91" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4052" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mark Pawsey </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Rugby) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I was a member of the Select Committee that in March last year heard really distressing accounts from Post Office staff, including constituents of my hon. Friends who were wrongly convicted of discrepancies, and we heard about the devastating effect on their lives. I am really pleased that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have heard about that for themselves, and I really welcome today’s action. I also heard from Binley Wood’s sub-postmaster, Shailesh Patel, who tells me that he has increasing amounts of hours’ work for reducing commissions. What steps can Minister take to ensure that the Post Office properly looks after its staff who perform such a valuable role in our local communities?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="6B65C3B8-0FB6-438F-AEA7-E83C268935BF" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-6B65C3B8-0FB6-438F-AEA7-E83C268935BF" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the role that post offices play in communities, which is all based on postmasters. I speak regularly to the chief executive and other people in Post Office Ltd and fair remuneration for postmasters is absolutely at the heart of our discussions to ensure that they keep adding social value.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="45287309-F798-4753-B854-6C7F63935743" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)" id="contribution-45287309-F798-4753-B854-6C7F63935743" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=1442" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mr Alistair Carmichael </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Orkney and Shetland) (LD)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not the sort of man to stand here and say, “I told you so,” but on 20 June last year I told the Minister that this was exactly what was going to happen. I hope that the work Sir Wyn Williams has done thus far will not be wasted and will not have to be repeated. The Minister also knows that of the £58 million settlement given to sub-postmasters by the Post Office, £46 million went in the payment of legal fees. Those legal fees were only necessary because the Post Office sought to defend a case that it should not have been defending. If the Minister really wants to reset the relationship between the Government, the Post Office and sub-postmasters, he could do no better than to give an undertaking today to give that money back to the postmasters.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="F4B528FE-F8CD-4C43-82D5-CDD79A509E75" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-F4B528FE-F8CD-4C43-82D5-CDD79A509E75" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">First, I can say that the work of Sir Wyn to date will not be wasted. That is exactly why we are converting the inquiry into a statutory inquiry rather than stopping and starting again—to allow him to continue his work until we get to phase two. On the group litigation settlement, I have talked about the fact that it was a full and final settlement, but I understand exactly where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from. That is not within the scope of the inquiry, but we will continue to look at what we can do to give a fair settlement of compensation for postmasters in the different tranches of the stages of the civil and criminal cases.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="03600A2A-D031-47AA-9F74-BBD6898FD12B" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)" id="contribution-03600A2A-D031-47AA-9F74-BBD6898FD12B" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=3996" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Andrew Jones </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome the changes to the Horizon scandal inquiry, and I think it will help those seeking justice and compensation. I think it will also help boost trust in the inquiry. Trust is central to a thriving Post Office and trust is necessary for people to take on the role of sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress with any certainty or security. If people do not take on a Post Office licence, then post offices will disappear from our high streets and the critical role they play in our communities will be lost. How will my hon. Friend work with the Post Office to rebuild that trust to ensure our post office network serves our communities long into the future?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="87A9C6D7-5BE5-47EC-BC62-6B149F9D09C1" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-87A9C6D7-5BE5-47EC-BC62-6B149F9D09C1" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My uncle was a postmaster. I remember him retiring and putting his savings into a post office in Leicestershire many years ago, pre-dating the knowledge of the Horizon situation. I wonder whether he would have done that again years later. That is why it is so important that we get these answers and get that settlement to give former postmasters justice. It is also really important—I know this is happening—that Post Office Ltd recalibrates its relationship with postmasters to ensure they feel a valued part of the company as well as the community, rather than distant stakeholders.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="3D4333A5-0FB0-43F9-8A90-114D203FC96A" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V] on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]" id="contribution-3D4333A5-0FB0-43F9-8A90-114D203FC96A" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4430" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Alison Thewliss </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The last time the Minister came to the House, I asked him if full legal costs would be compensated. He said then that he would lean in on that and ensure everyone was adequately compensated. It may be that his idea of adequate may not be same as those affected, so I ask him again: will full legal costs be included in compensation packages?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="AA76A9CE-2F6E-4223-8277-8EE812962BD1" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-AA76A9CE-2F6E-4223-8277-8EE812962BD1" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">As I say, compensation packages are a matter for Post Office Ltd and we will continue to work with it on that. Post Office Ltd is working with wronged postmasters to determine how that compensation package should look.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="5DD44038-5AC5-4810-AF41-D4DFEAC82A8D" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)" id="contribution-5DD44038-5AC5-4810-AF41-D4DFEAC82A8D" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4793" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Scott Benton </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Blackpool South) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I know my hon. Friend understands the financial and emotional suffering that this process has caused many postmasters and their families, including some of my constituents, and I welcome this statement today. Is he able to reassure the House that the Government will do everything within their power to encourage affected postmasters to come forward and engage with the inquiry so that their voices can be heard?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="E6AFFCA5-00AC-495C-9369-DD355C78B71A" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-E6AFFCA5-00AC-495C-9369-DD355C78B71A" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Absolutely. It is incumbent on us all, and I really hope that we can give confidence to sub-postmasters—not just those who have had their convictions quashed, but wider members of the group litigation. All postmasters should feel some confidence that they can come forward, tell their stories and know that we hat we are determined to get them answers.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="75A741A4-954A-407A-9364-26E1788E2874" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)" id="contribution-75A741A4-954A-407A-9364-26E1788E2874" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4831" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Ian Byrne </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The Post Office scandal is one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in this century. It destroyed many lives and families, and justice must be given to these families in full. While I welcome the premise of a statutory inquiry, will the Government address the limited remit of the inquiry, which does not cover compensation or the accountability of managers in this scandal?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="B43C43D6-57BB-4B78-99CD-3F116E4486AA" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-B43C43D6-57BB-4B78-99CD-3F116E4486AA" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">To be fair, the accountability of managers will absolutely be in the inquiry, because that is part of the expansion of it. Sir Wyn can now look right the way out to the settlement of the group litigation and ensure that it is not just about the wrongs of the 20 years, but the lead-up to that civil case as well. I have answered the question about compensation in as much as an inquiry, statutory or not, cannot determine liability in itself. That needs to go through the courts, but I dare say that postmasters giving evidence will share their experiences of their financial losses, as well as the emotional impact on them and their families.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="EE85EAB0-02DE-4EC1-8930-F3E55B4C4A7B" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)" id="contribution-EE85EAB0-02DE-4EC1-8930-F3E55B4C4A7B" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4384" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Mike Wood </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Dudley South) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The behaviour of the Post Office and the failures of Fujitsu have destroyed the lives of many hard-working and innocent postmasters. The Minister is clearly right to put this inquiry on a statutory footing, but what will he be able to do to ensure that, whatever the inquiry concludes, the Post Office acts on those recommendations and the report is not simply allowed to gather dust in a drawer?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="E24EF95E-4A92-4D7B-A43B-72170430472E" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-E24EF95E-4A92-4D7B-A43B-72170430472E" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Part of the inquiry is to measure whether the Post Office has put into place the things that it has promised to do as a result of the civil litigation and the many, many pages of evidence and comment by Mr Justice Fraser. There are many areas there that should put the Post Office on a firm footing for the future relationship with its postmasters. This part of the inquiry is testing whether they have done so already.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="DEEA81B4-23A4-49FE-8A64-43D8B847BF0D" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)" id="contribution-DEEA81B4-23A4-49FE-8A64-43D8B847BF0D" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=3943" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Jonathan Edwards </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Last week, we received news that Barclays was closing its last branch in Ammanford, the main town in my constituency, leaving only one remaining bank—a fate shared by all the market towns in my constituency, some of which have been left with none. That leaves the Post Office the last remaining financial provider of everyday vital services for our communities. That fate is, I would imagine, shared across the whole of Wales and the rest of the UK. Is it not time to give sub-postmasters the option of being recognised as employed workers, as opposed to independent contractors, so that they are remunerated properly for the vital role they play in our communities and as a means of righting the wrongs served upon them by the Horizon scandal?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="28D49D06-FC76-44E5-B9A7-BEF933499257" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-28D49D06-FC76-44E5-B9A7-BEF933499257" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The Post Office speaks regularly to the unions and to postmasters in general. Two postmasters have been elected to serve on the board, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about access to cash. The Post Office has good plans to pilot new ways of access to cash to replace the last bank in town, an issue that he rightly articulates.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="466FEAE5-A9E8-4E7A-ADEE-3781EE5F05C5" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)" id="contribution-466FEAE5-A9E8-4E7A-ADEE-3781EE5F05C5" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=3990" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Richard Graham </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Gloucester) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">As a former chair of the all-party group on post offices, I welcome the Minister’s announcement that this inquiry into the absolute disaster of the Post Office-Horizon IT issue will be put on a statutory footing. This issue has already damaged the lives of many people and shaken confidence not just in our ability to have effective public sector software contracts, but indirectly in our justice system which, because of wrong information, delivered wrong verdicts. The opportunity to provide redress for many of those involved is surely vital for us all. Will the Minister confirm that all possible technical advice will be provided to the inquiry so that some of the technical issues, such as the data library and so on, will be exposed—and, above all, who knew what? Will he also confirm that the role of the National Federation of SubPostmasters will be looked at closely to see what alarm bells it sounded and what communication there was between it and Post Office Ltd?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="555011E8-21BF-4065-9A5B-80F845D43946" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-555011E8-21BF-4065-9A5B-80F845D43946" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sir Wyn will look at both those things—he will look at those alarm bells—because that is so important to learn those lessons. We cannot learn them any other way, so he is right to do that. Clearly, with this being a computer software issue over two decades, Sir Wyn is getting the technical advice that he needs, and he will always have that support from us. We will make sure that he gets whatever he is asking for in terms of technical support.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="4D014F75-F684-4AB9-A38C-15771D9B4171" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V] on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]" id="contribution-4D014F75-F684-4AB9-A38C-15771D9B4171" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=483" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Maria Eagle </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Serious concerns have been expressed about the conduct of many of the private prosecutions that led up to the 900 or so wrongful convictions of innocent sub-postmasters, including some of my constituents, so why have the Government declined to accept the Justice Committee’s recommendation to introduce a binding and enforceable code of standards for private prosecutors and an inspection regime that would have identified these abuses at a much earlier stage? Will the Minister now accept that recommendation?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="D230D11D-56EA-453B-B9EC-1BF78EF5ECC1" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-D230D11D-56EA-453B-B9EC-1BF78EF5ECC1" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The private prosecutions themselves, and the use of private prosecutions, are not within the scope of the inquiry, but clearly the way that the Post Office investigated this absolutely is. The Post Office has not used a private prosecution since, I think, 2013 and has pledged not to use them, but we will always look into the systems of prosecutions. As I said in my last statement, there are clearly wider lessons to be learned for the justice system in general.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="C146DBA4-917E-4D27-8C34-956161C3BAF5" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)" id="contribution-C146DBA4-917E-4D27-8C34-956161C3BAF5" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4859" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Virginia Crosbie </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Ynys Môn) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I thank the Minister for his statement. On behalf of my constituents on Anglesey, I welcome the news that those wrongly accused will not face prosecution. I have many happy memories of spending time as a child at my great-grandfather’s post office, and I have seen at first hand how vital the role is that postmasters play in the community. Will the Minister confirm that the recommendations from the inquiry will be used to be ensure that this travesty, which has torn apart lives, including those of people such as Margery Williams and Noel Thomas, both of Ynys Môn, will never happen again?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="C475096C-377E-40A6-98D6-4A36B16A2F50" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-C475096C-377E-40A6-98D6-4A36B16A2F50" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Yes, I assure my hon. Friend, regarding Noel Thomas and Margery Williams, that we must right the wrongs for these people and for many, many others. I just want to correct her on one thing because, yes, the Post Office will not be prosecuting any more, but we clearly have to get through the judicial process for the many, many people who have been prosecuted and to see exactly how many of them have been prosecuted with Horizon being a significant factor in the prosecution. The Court of Appeal has a lot of work to do following this statement.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="C87EBD37-715C-4101-BD82-55B224F4B5DE" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)" id="contribution-C87EBD37-715C-4101-BD82-55B224F4B5DE" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4572" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Chris Elmore </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Ogmore) (Lab)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I welcome the Minister’s change of heart. It will provide much-needed reassurance, as he mentioned, to sub-postmasters, including my constituent, John Bowman, whom I mentioned to the Minister previously. What will happen now for the sub-postmasters who have lost everything so that they have the financial confidence to get evidence to Sir Wyn’s inquiry? If they cannot afford to give that evidence, if they require legal support, what work is the Minister doing with the Treasury to ensure that those postmasters who have lost everything, including, in some cases, their homes, have the funding available to take part in this now statutory inquiry?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="7F5402E9-5D9A-4BBD-B0C0-BE2C48A0625F" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-7F5402E9-5D9A-4BBD-B0C0-BE2C48A0625F" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">We absolutely want sub-postmasters to give evidence. There is obviously a cost implication in extending the inquiry and making it statutory. I am working through that process with my colleagues in the Treasury, and we want to make sure that everybody and anybody who has been affected can come forward to give that evidence with confidence, no matter what their financial situation is.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="D6D995E8-EA78-47BB-B8D8-18C363527A1C" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)" id="contribution-D6D995E8-EA78-47BB-B8D8-18C363527A1C" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=1500" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Theresa Villiers </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Chipping Barnet) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">My sympathy goes to everyone affected by this appalling scandal. Looking to the future, does the Minister agree that one of the best ways that we can support sub-postmasters and the post office network, which means so much to our constituents, is by using it to deliver more Government services? Up to now that been made difficult by EU procurement rules, which we can now change?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="4D836CBC-F524-4BD0-AD99-47895C958DD8" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-4D836CBC-F524-4BD0-AD99-47895C958DD8" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Those are exactly the things that each Government Department that has traditionally used the Post Office will continue to explore. None the less, the Post Office does not necessarily just need to be limited to Government services. There are plenty more things that it can do to modernise and ensure that it better reflects customer demand. I push the chief executive Nick Read on this point, although he does not need pushing on it because he is very front-footed on the situation himself.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="36B71885-5937-4E5C-A967-3F2052FF9269" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)" id="contribution-36B71885-5937-4E5C-A967-3F2052FF9269" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4618" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Liz Twist </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Blaydon) (Lab)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I welcome the move to a statutory inquiry, but also note the extension of the timescale for the inquiry; it has been extended, I think, by some nine months or so. John and Pat Moir had a post office in Winlaton Mill in my constituency and were caught up in the Horizon scandal. They are now constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who had hoped to ask a question herself. Mr and Mrs Moir have spent more than a decade fighting this case and fighting to clear their name. Clearly they welcome this inquiry, but what assurances can they have that it will work to the timescales, so that they and others can see the outcome before more time passes?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="20E7F54F-3D40-4CFA-B17E-9A4D003D05D5" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-20E7F54F-3D40-4CFA-B17E-9A4D003D05D5" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The hon. Lady is absolutely right to ask that question. One of the key reasons why I originally set it up as a non-statutory inquiry was to ensure that we were not overly burdened with bureaucracy and the need to “lawyer up”, which tends to extend statutory inquiries to three years and beyond. I have said to Sir Wyn that I do want an interim report to the original timescale, so that we can show the public progress, but we are going to have an extra year to ensure that extra evidence is considered. We will hold him to time as best we can, but we do want to ensure that we get the answers.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="E2EB1FD9-20A1-409E-8091-059F21FDA892" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)" id="contribution-E2EB1FD9-20A1-409E-8091-059F21FDA892" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4871" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Christian Wakeford </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Bury South) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The importance of the Post Office has increased in every community across this country, especially as high street banks continue to close, as is the case in Radcliffe in my constituency, where there are now no banks. Does my hon. Friend agree that postmasters truly are the backbone of the Post Office, that it is those postmasters who have delivered such vital services up and down the country, particularly in towns such as Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich, and that we need to strengthen that relationship? Does he therefore share my concern about the way in which many have been treated by the Post Office through this scandal?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="68D6FAC0-FBBE-44F3-BA82-6B64D774D2B4" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-68D6FAC0-FBBE-44F3-BA82-6B64D774D2B4" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what is so galling for the postmasters who had those roles in the past. They were the stalwarts and the backbone of their community; the stigma of being accused of false accounting or fraud must have been so unbearable, as we know from the incredibly tragic testament that we have heard. As well as getting answers on that, we want to reset the relationship with postmasters so that they can go back to being the centre of their community, adding such social value, and bringing and keeping communities together.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="CC3E6D44-543C-4A8A-ACC3-0162C3977B35" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)" id="contribution-CC3E6D44-543C-4A8A-ACC3-0162C3977B35" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4866" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Alexander Stafford </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Rother Valley) (Con)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the fantastic news that the sub-postmasters wrongly accused across the UK will no longer face prosecution, meaning that this hugely difficult time for them is finally at an end. I shall always stand by Rother Valley’s hard-working sub-postmasters and postmasters. It is incredibly important that full and timely justice is served. Will my hon. Friend therefore commit to holding the Post Office’s feet to the fire, ensuring that it studies carefully whatever recommendations may arise from the inquiry to ensure that this can never ever happen again?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="BBC8D09B-A507-44A6-A1DF-2D5F2895C5C3" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-BBC8D09B-A507-44A6-A1DF-2D5F2895C5C3" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">This is the end of the beginning. Clearly, there is a long way to go to ensure that we get the answers, but in holding the Post Office’s feet to the fire, I do not want to add stigma to the Post Office moving forward; for the reasons that we have heard today, post offices are right at the heart of all our communities, so it is important that we have that day zero to reset the Post Office’s future relationship with postmasters and its communities while getting answers, justice and fair compensation for those who have been wronged over the last two decades.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="DEA9B932-DC6E-4518-A927-312FC970ECC4" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)" id="contribution-DEA9B932-DC6E-4518-A927-312FC970ECC4" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4420" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Gavin Newlands </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I do welcome the statement, but it has taken far too long for it to happen. My constituent was held responsible for missing funds, charged, convicted and sentenced to 13 months in prison. It cost her not only her home, which she had to sell to meet these debts, but her marriage. She was left penniless and had to move out of the area, and is understandably concerned that nearly 40% of the compensation awarded is just swallowed up by legal costs. As others have said, that has to be addressed. My constituent has lost everything. What does appropriate compensation look like for people like her?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="224697B1-15EE-4374-94AB-4D10EA00AA7F" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-224697B1-15EE-4374-94AB-4D10EA00AA7F" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent will feel confident in coming forward and outlining her case and those financial losses, exactly as he has described, so that Sir Wyn can take a holistic view. On compensation, as I say, the Post Office now needs to ensure that it works with the postmasters and addresses issues such as Fujitsu, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) talked about earlier, and that it compensates all these wronged postmasters in a fair way.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="3BD3D77C-269D-4012-9478-21A231CE7198" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V] on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]" id="contribution-3BD3D77C-269D-4012-9478-21A231CE7198" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 26px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4005" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bob Blackman </div><div class="secondary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #717171; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 2px;">(Harrow East) (Con) [V]</div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">My hon. Friend will be well aware that the overwhelming majority of men and women who run our post offices are small business owners who work extremely long hours and have to deal with extremely complex and different sets not only of accounts but of transactions. Given the circumstances that have arisen under the Horizon scandal, what actions will he take to ensure that the position is rebalanced between those small business owners and the vast monolith of the Post Office, so that we get justice for everyone running these businesses?</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div><div class="debate-item debate-item-contributiondebateitem" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="contribution" data-contribution-id="9D4A63E3-4288-4DF2-9A1F-0C2AAF4F7434" data-share-text="View the Hansard contribution by Paul Scully on Wednesday 19 May 2021" data-share-title="Contribution by Paul Scully" id="contribution-9D4A63E3-4288-4DF2-9A1F-0C2AAF4F7434" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="header" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(203, 201, 205); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-bottom: 9px;"><div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-lg-10 attributed-to" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 83.33332824707031%; margin-bottom: 0px; max-width: 83.33332824707031%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 674.15625px;"><div class="item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; top: 14px; transform: translateY(-50%);"><a class="attributed-to-details with-link" href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4414" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #373151; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;"><div class="primary-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Paul Scully </div></a></div></div></div></div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p class="hs_Para" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That process is already taking place under the leadership of Nick Read, who comes from an independent supermarket background, where he managed to grow a culture very similar to the relationship that he describes wanting to see in the Post Office. That is why I am confident that, if we can get these answers and get recompense, justice and fair compensation for those who have been wronged, we can recalibrate the relationship between Post Office Ltd and the sub-postmasters—those small business people in their communities that my hon. Friend mentions.</p></div><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign hidden hidden-xs" data-hop-debug-tooltip="" data-placement="bottom" data-toggle="tooltip" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="RLG hs_Para"></span></div></div></div><div class="child-debate" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 30px;"><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;"> **********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also currently writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a> 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, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p></div></div></div>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-72190442611620634652021-05-18T17:02:00.004+01:002021-05-18T19:35:04.789+01:00Government to make Sir Wyn Williams inquiry statutory<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9c7Ff0il4G7i3fAAlOMxSGmt5KEeJrbiy1mNhz0EvS5cDTIj5VxMCxkq2lMMvb4Q_nlwJIhYT16xbK7z7OxF5CHxx-JuKk9WLfujS7AJKaOGXSwq0VZX5CW-ozIq8fUMK3cvNaswF6ghH/s1546/PHOTO-2019-03-12-21-11-43.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1488" data-original-width="1546" height="385" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9c7Ff0il4G7i3fAAlOMxSGmt5KEeJrbiy1mNhz0EvS5cDTIj5VxMCxkq2lMMvb4Q_nlwJIhYT16xbK7z7OxF5CHxx-JuKk9WLfujS7AJKaOGXSwq0VZX5CW-ozIq8fUMK3cvNaswF6ghH/w400-h385/PHOTO-2019-03-12-21-11-43.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p><a href="https://news.sky.com/story/post-office-scandal-inquiry-to-become-statutory-ministers-to-announce-12310008" target="_blank">Someone has told Sky News</a> the government is going to announce the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/the-post-office-horizon-it-inquiry" target="_blank">Wyn Williams inquiry</a> into the Post Office Horizon scandal will be put onto a statutory footing tomorrow. </p><p>Sir Wyn will now be able to compel witnesses to give evidence (and be cross-examined) under oath and order the disclosure of documents to the inquiry.</p><p>There is a catch, though. Unless the<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-office-horizon-it-inquiry-2020/terms-of-reference" target="_blank"> terms of the inquiry</a> are expanded, it will not be able to do what most campaigners want it to do, which is address compensation, and the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/06/fujitsu-tries-to-dodge-blame-bus.html" target="_blank">actions of Fujitsu</a> and the government in this scandal. This was picked up by Chi Onwurah, the shadow minister for business who today said:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"We are pleased that the Government has finally, after dragging their feet, conceded the need for a statutory inquiry following pressure from the postmasters, Labour and just about everyone horrified by the enormity of this miscarriage of justice. </p><p>This is a step forward, but the long delay has caused further suffering to the many victims and their families. </p><p>Crucially the Government must now address the limited remit of the inquiry which does not cover compensation or the accountability of managers in this scandal."</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Chris Head, one of the Subpostmasters who won a stunning victory against the Post Office at the High Court in 2019 and who <a href="https://www.change.org/p/beisgovuk-post-office-scandal-statutory-inquiry-justice-campaign/u/28957472?recruiter=1034779647&utm_source=share_update&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive&recruited_by_id=75df65d0-393b-11ea-8956-efb177e9a8f1" target="_blank">subsequently took a petition to Downing Street demanding a full inquiry</a> in February last year, said:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Todays news is very welcome, it should not have ever come to this. The minister could have announced this last year so these people could be on their way to justice much sooner. We must ensure now that consultation is given on the terms of reference so that no stone is left unturned. It appears the pressure & dialogue with ministers has worked with many thanks to all the MPs, Lords and press that have really upped the anti since the Court of Appeal decisions a few weeks ago."</blockquote><p></p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4DPTd_a07LLZKDAc3Z2gZJrswmVTjFCpvMZYt9icntPh1ruh9AMGCGf-d2uExX7xzLu08TxVV5A2HcLucGOK4cB1YXSiZJBnaOeASSMkddQ6j7utiuxFdSB3VSVjNWrEWUczwS1H8jPdg/s1397/2020-03-04+Chris+Head+crop.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1267" data-original-width="1397" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4DPTd_a07LLZKDAc3Z2gZJrswmVTjFCpvMZYt9icntPh1ruh9AMGCGf-d2uExX7xzLu08TxVV5A2HcLucGOK4cB1YXSiZJBnaOeASSMkddQ6j7utiuxFdSB3VSVjNWrEWUczwS1H8jPdg/s320/2020-03-04+Chris+Head+crop.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Chris Head outside Downing Street</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Lord Arbuthnot, who has been campaigning for Subpostmasters for more than a decade, referenced the relative paucity of compensation which was handed over to the Subpostmasters whose victory at the High Court led directly to this inquiry, commented:<p></p><p></p><blockquote>"Excellent news, but until there is proper compensation and the Government accepts that the settlement agreement was unfairly forced on the subpostmasters, we cannot rest."</blockquote><p></p><p>Kevan Jones MP, whose constituent Tom Brown was prosecuted by the Post Office, spelled out his demands:</p><p></p><blockquote>"If the inquiry is going to be put on a statutory footing then that is welcome, but it should have been done when it was announced months ago. It’s just added to the anguish for the victims. It is a major victory and full credit to the tenacity and determination of the Subpostmasters.”</blockquote><p></p><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYTYmNajT1gUQ2oFQlyomg4bOu15wQXhsfRwh0DLhoqYSL9VGHqNcz61AT2U_Aq3Zd45lGhGXyo3cD7pV0doCVkNBdRQQbPEi1zI-4ovDi4O49936a4QyGrs4woiUjFrH8s3WmfPffRsYa/s600/SirWynWilliams.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYTYmNajT1gUQ2oFQlyomg4bOu15wQXhsfRwh0DLhoqYSL9VGHqNcz61AT2U_Aq3Zd45lGhGXyo3cD7pV0doCVkNBdRQQbPEi1zI-4ovDi4O49936a4QyGrs4woiUjFrH8s3WmfPffRsYa/s320/SirWynWilliams.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sir Wyn Williams</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>He added: </p><p></p><blockquote>“It’s quite clear to me there’s been a deliberate cover-up throughout this and those responsible for it need to be brought to account. Post Office knew back in 2011 what the problem was. Major questions need to be asked not only why the Post Office covered it up, but then spent hundreds of millions of pounds of public money defending the indefensible, when they knew they were in the wrong."</blockquote><p></p><p>Echoing Lord Arbuthnot's call last week for a <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/so-who-did-it-peer-calls-for-police.html" target="_blank">police investigation into the actions of Post Office executives</a>, Mr Jones said:</p><p></p><blockquote>"The key thing now is we’ve got to get all the facts on the table, that’s documents… that’s individuals who took decisions. They’ve got to be able to get the truth out there and then the government have to compensate people and in certain cases consideration of criminal prosecution against people."</blockquote><p></p><p>The Business department (BEIS), which is responsible for the Post Office has just released the following statement:</p><p></p><blockquote>"All parties are committed to cooperating with the independent inquiry underway, which is continuing to make progress under the chairmanship of Sir Wyn Williams. We continue to engage with relevant parties on all options available to ensure we get to the bottom of where mistakes were made, and to ensure something like this cannot happen again. The inquiry will also assess whether lessons have been learned and concrete changes have taken place or are underway at Post Office Ltd.”</blockquote><p></p><p>The Post Office's chief executive Nick Read is currently in a meeting with MPs. The Post Office will not comment until after Paul Scully makes his announcement to Parliament tomorrow afternoon. The Horizon Inquiry Secretariat told me: "Sir Wyn has no comment to make at this time."</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;"> **********************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also currently writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a> 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, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-22162174781211705122021-05-14T14:33:00.010+01:002021-05-18T07:58:29.648+01:00Two more convictions quashed - total now 47<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw8__WuFJzwIGeFduYhz2AMbL89q5VS4HbAcQScdl5sFjfxydkkYs9tNNMsjxOu4-g9AnJzAUC4rin6CSthEHtiSUSJgfIRJcAuKZrrE9_6-QSLh4ONRbsAk3luQtJTbaaisvZatBz16tH/s1008/20210514_113740_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw8__WuFJzwIGeFduYhz2AMbL89q5VS4HbAcQScdl5sFjfxydkkYs9tNNMsjxOu4-g9AnJzAUC4rin6CSthEHtiSUSJgfIRJcAuKZrrE9_6-QSLh4ONRbsAk3luQtJTbaaisvZatBz16tH/w640-h312/20210514_113740_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Neil Hudgell, Jo Hamilton, Tim Moloney QC, Tara Adedayo, Parmod Kalia, Amit Bhanot, Kathleen Donnelly and Ognjen Miletic</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>This morning Teju (Tara) Adedayo and Parmod Kalia had their convictions quashed at Southwark Crown Court. They were not part of the first six Postmasters to clear their names <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/12/first-subpostmaster-convictions-quashed.html" target="_blank">on 11 December last year</a> because the Criminal Cases Review Commission initially decided it was not minded to refer their cases back to the courts. </p><p>This seemed to hinge on the fact that Tara and Parmod offered confessions to go with their guilty pleas. Both Tara and Parmod have always said these confession were procured under duress in order to mitigate their sentences.</p><p>Parmod said he offered his confession on the advice of the National Federation of Subpostmasters (<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/04/common-issues-trial-judgment-nfsp.html" target="_blank">the union supposed to protect him</a>).</p><p>Thanks to the work of their solicitors, Hudgells, the CCRC was set straight on the circumstances around their confessions, and their cases were belatedly dealt with today.</p><p>The hearing was short. The Post Office told the judge:</p><p></p><blockquote>"In its judgment, handed down on 23 April 2021, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division distinguished between ‘Horizon cases’ which, due to the Post Office's failures of investigation and disclosure at the time of the original proceedings, were an abuse of process under both categories of abuse... The Court defined an ‘Horizon case’ as one in which the reliability of Horizon was essential to the prosecution of the appellant, typically where there was no other evidence of the shortfall other than what Horizon showed."</blockquote><p></p><p>Their barrister added:</p><p></p><blockquote>"applying the test in Hamilton & Others v Post Office [the Court of Appeal case which concluded on 23 April] to the circumstances of the case, in particular the full confessions made by each appellant in the original proceedings, the Post Office considers that the reliability of Horizon data was not essential to the original prosecution and conviction of either appellant. Neither does the Post Office accept that their confessions were made as a consequence of anything said or done that was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render them unreliable."</blockquote><p></p><p>Nonetheless:</p><p></p><blockquote>"having considered the High Court judgments, the CCRC’s reasons for referring the case, the judgment in Hamilton & Others v Post Office and the papers available in each individual’s case, POL considered that the Full Code Test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors was not met."</blockquote><p></p><p>The Post Office concluded "a prosecution is not required in the public interest" and it "therefore intends to offer no evidence in relation to each of the appellants."</p><p>Tim Moloney, Parmod and Tara's barrister, stood up and said that neither of his clients accepted the Post Office's characterisation of their cases, but as it was wholly "immaterial" to proceedings, he was not going to make any further comment.</p><p>Without further ado, the judge said she adopted the findings of the Court of Appeal (that their prosecutions were an affront to the public conscience) and:</p><p></p><blockquote>"these appellants join those whose appeals have not been contested, their sentences have been served and we hope they can put this behind them and get on with their lives without the shadow of their convictions hanging over therm. We therefore allow the appeals."</blockquote><p></p><p>The hearing finished, and after the judges had left court the remainder of those in the room (a good number of journalists, lawyers, family and well-wishers) stayed standing as Tara and Parmod slowly walked out in silence, both with tears in their eyes. </p><p><b>Seething</b></p><p>By the time I finished live-tweeting and got out into the corridor Parmod was standing on his own, with his back to the wall, visibly seething. I could guess why. "They had to bring it up again, didn't they?" he said. I let him gather his thoughts and moved outside to join the waiting cameras.</p><p>Tara and Parmod emerged from the court building together. Both were emotional. Tara said:</p><p>"We thank God for everything. I just thank God for today..." She seemed lost for words, but then surprised her solicitor Neil Hudgell by turning round to give him a hug, repeating "This is the guy! This is the guy!"</p><p>Mr Hudgell said: "It's been an incredible journey. It's had its real downs even very recently and we're delighted."</p><p>"It's been so long coming" said Parmod. "I'm so pleased. Thank you to my legal team who've represented me to get me to this position. I've just hidden myself and surfaced today as a result of today's decision. It has been horrendous, but I am very pleased it's come to this now today that I didn't do what they said I did do."</p><p>I asked Mr Hudgell what he made of the Post Office's argument (as outlined above) in court. He replied:</p><p></p><blockquote>"I think today is just about exoneration. I don't think we're bothered about legal argument. We're just bothered about two fabulous people who have been so wronged for so long, having the weight lifted from their shoulders. Legal niceties are for another day."</blockquote><p></p><p><b>Tara's story</b></p><p>Tara Adedayo was a Subpostmaster in Kent. She experienced inexplicable discrepancies on her Post Office Horizon computer system. After handing over £50,000 to the Post Office to "make good" the discrepancy, the Post Office prosecuted her. She was given a 50-week sentence at Maidstone Crown Court, suspended for two years, and ordered to complete 200 hours community service.</p><p>On many occasions, she considered taking her own life, saying in a written statement: "My family have been dragged to hell and back."</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-ntlOIBsILi_c4YFmmbsM53A0oXE48yGCL3r1GLCaYfrpbgPpx-2598fYoPn4_u2n7lsqL5LUaIeEVoc0zzpq06_5xqAlW0xoMEOcztqOfwDE58ZMOsPiHFMKFXjPWl31z4I0VW3Ymwfl/s504/20210514+Parmod+Kalia+Teju+Adedayo.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="286" data-original-width="504" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-ntlOIBsILi_c4YFmmbsM53A0oXE48yGCL3r1GLCaYfrpbgPpx-2598fYoPn4_u2n7lsqL5LUaIeEVoc0zzpq06_5xqAlW0xoMEOcztqOfwDE58ZMOsPiHFMKFXjPWl31z4I0VW3Ymwfl/w640-h364/20210514+Parmod+Kalia+Teju+Adedayo.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Parmod (l) and Teju outside Southwark Crown Court after their convictions were quashed</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p><b>Parmod's story</b></p><p>Parmod Kalia ran a Post Office in Orpington, in the London Borough of Bromley. In 2001 his Post Office had inexplicable discrepancies on the new Horizon system. Parmod was accused by Post Office investigators of stealing £22,000. He was advised by his National Federation of Subpostmasters representative to ‘put things right’ to avoid court proceedings.</p><p>He borrowed £22,000 from his mother to ‘repay’ the missing amount within days, yet despite this, court proceedings were still started against him and he was encouraged to ‘make up a story’ as to where the money had gone.</p><p>Despite pleading guilty, Parmod was sentenced to six months in prison at Croydon Crown Court. </p><p>Parmod's conviction and sentence is something he has kept secret for many years, though he did allow me to tell his story under a different name. We agreed we'd call him "Parminder" <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2018/11/day-1-skeleton-arguments.html" target="_blank">in this piece I wrote in 2018</a> after we met at the High Court, and he has subsequently spoken to Vanessa Feltz on a couple of occasions as "Peter" for BBC London. Parmod told reporters today that the only reason he had any idea he wasn't the only person who had suffered these losses was when he watched Panorama on the BBC back in 2015.</p><p>In a written statement Parmod said:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>“The only reason I ever said I had taken the money is because I was told that was my only option to avoid jail. I was told I needed to repay the money and make up a story as to where the £22,000 had gone,” he said.</p><p>I was in a complete panic and so I made up a story. It was stupid, but I was under such intense pressure and I was desperate to avoid prison. Even then I was sent to jail. The whole experience was just appalling.</p><p>It was something that brought great shame to my family, so much so that I did all I could to keep it from my relatives. At the time of my court appearance I arranged for my mother to visit family in India for a couple of months, so she was never aware that I was sent to prison. I think that would have killed her. She died in 2019 without ever knowing.</p><p>Only my wife and four children knew I spent time in prison, and only now am I prepared to tell others in my family, as I no longer have a conviction by my name.</p><p>My reputation in the community was destroyed. At the time I was a treasurer also for a local charity, and that was a position I lost. My life fell apart, causing many issues in my marriage and undue pressure and stress on my children and my wife. </p><p>This has caused me emotional, mental and physical stress whereby I have attempted suicide on three occasions, and been scarred with physical disabilities, caused by all the stress I have had to endure.</p><p>I wrote a letter addressed to Paula Vennels, who was chief executive of the Post Office at the time of all this, and she didn’t even bother to reply. I think that says it all.</p><p>I’ve always tried to retain the belief that I’d get there in the end but when the CCRC rejected my case last year it was difficult. Thankfully, through persistence and good legal support, that decision was successfully challenged, and when the first convictions were overturned in December it gave me real hope. </p><p>I was then due to hear if the Post Office was opposing my appeal last month, but it was delayed at their request. When I finally got the call to say they were not going to contest my case at court today it did feel like the end of a very long, difficult journey. </p><p>I will never understand why this happened to us and why we have had to fight so long.”</p></blockquote><p></p><div>The Post Office said it is:</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>“extremely sorry for historical failures and the impact these have had on the lives of people affected.</div><div> </div><div>We are taking determined action to fully address the past and have undertaken wholesale reforms to prevent such events ever happening again.”</div></blockquote><p> <span style="font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">**********************</span></p><p style="font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also currently writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a> 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, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p><div></div></div>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-18512825489502470512021-05-07T15:55:00.005+01:002021-05-07T21:34:51.456+01:00So who did it? - Peer calls for police investigation<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEaLe6wdU2_Y80D_XvdGNDT97SPFh7o8sVHmLOl7_fOXZjvJQxQO4cziPXMx0seSSn804BY0TCjVBzlAKeWiVzPwIJnQgPBAGYxEK3mqEhprZl6fUqQ-OvAxSoj_G4C5WbLLgD3KFtUwfg/s2543/20210423+Lord+Arbuthnot+outside+RCJ.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1236" data-original-width="2543" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEaLe6wdU2_Y80D_XvdGNDT97SPFh7o8sVHmLOl7_fOXZjvJQxQO4cziPXMx0seSSn804BY0TCjVBzlAKeWiVzPwIJnQgPBAGYxEK3mqEhprZl6fUqQ-OvAxSoj_G4C5WbLLgD3KFtUwfg/w640-h312/20210423+Lord+Arbuthnot+outside+RCJ.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lord Arbuthnot outside the Royal Courts of Justice on 23 April 2021</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Lord Arbuthnot, the former barrister, has called for a police investigation into the activities of former Post Office executives saying:<p></p><p></p><blockquote>"It is high time the police began to take a serious look at whether the Post Office management have been perverting the course of justice."</blockquote><p></p><p>Arbuthnot was reacting to the Post Office announcement that it was <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/540-more-subpostmaster-convictions.html" target="_blank">contacting more than 500 people</a> it has successfully prosecuted since 1999 using Horizon evidence. The Post Office said:</p><p></p><blockquote>“In addition to full co-operation with the CCRC’s review, Post Office has made strenuous efforts to identify individuals who were historically convicted and an extensive post-conviction disclosure exercise is taking place to identify and disclose all material which might affect the safety of those convictions.”</blockquote><p></p><p>In response - Lord Arbuthnot, who has been helping Subpostmasters fight for justice for more than a decade, said:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>“Am I alone in finding the Post Office’s use of the word “historical” rather nauseating? They are trying, in their unsubtle way, to create the impression that this is all in the past and that their behaviour now is spotless. But it wasn’t until November last year that we discovered, through their late disclosure of the Clarke advice, that they had known for many, many years that their entire prosecution process was riddled with deception, something they then tried to cover up with their shredding of documents. It is all very well for the Post Office now to say that “Disclosure relevant to their cases will be provided” – but given their track record, who will believe them?</p><p>Then, in the Common Issues Trial [one of the trials in the Bates v Post Office High Court litigation], the Post Office continued to assert that the subpostmasters were dishonest, though they knew that it was their own systems that weren’t working. The intervention of the CCRC establishes that the course of justice was perverted – so who did it?"</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Paul Marshall, the barrister acting for Seema Misra, Tracy Felstead and Janet Skinner said:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"The Post Office knew from not later than 2013 that its systems were unreliable and that the Horizon system had the propensity to cause shortfalls not apparent to a Post Office branch terminal operator and that accordingly its evidence to the court in many cases was incomplete and misleading. That being so, why did the Post Office adopt the policy of denial that it pursued until Fraser J called time in December 2019? Who devised that policy of denial and who implemented it?</p><p>Once those questions are addressed and truthfully answered by the Post Office, as eventually, one way or another they will be, it may be time to close this chapter, but not before. One gets the impression that the person for whom the Post Office feels regret and sorrow is itself, and that its stonewalling has so dismally and expensively failed. That is no consolation to those who have died."</p></blockquote><p></p><p>For more on this developing story, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/540-more-subpostmaster-convictions.html" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-500769663579809726" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 13.199999809265137px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 720px;"><p>**********************</p><p>This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also currently writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a> 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, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p></div>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-5007696635798097262021-05-07T15:37:00.005+01:002021-05-07T21:09:17.938+01:00540 MORE Subpostmaster convictions could be unsafe<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicCMNHE-KmuMpuYZrw-JZlMta14anTJOvq4WBN8kpwHlsiABlgM-amIe-JAYLhdTJMCwZKkZWbVWkij3hjnYxqO-YQaJ9GpRMwEyrA-5BxDcmbGA_iCJHjy4CqcdRAdDqYqxG9mGZtGt9t/s2048/Subpostmasters+celebrate+historic+victory+as+convictions+are+overturned+at+the+Court+of+Appeal.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicCMNHE-KmuMpuYZrw-JZlMta14anTJOvq4WBN8kpwHlsiABlgM-amIe-JAYLhdTJMCwZKkZWbVWkij3hjnYxqO-YQaJ9GpRMwEyrA-5BxDcmbGA_iCJHjy4CqcdRAdDqYqxG9mGZtGt9t/w640-h426/Subpostmasters+celebrate+historic+victory+as+convictions+are+overturned+at+the+Court+of+Appeal.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Pic: Hudgells Solicitors</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The 45 Subpostmasters and Post Office workers who <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/court-of-appeal-quashed-further-39.html" target="_blank">had their criminal convictions overturned</a> two weeks ago today may only be the tip of the iceberg. Today the Post Office announced it is contacting 540 people who it prosecuted through the criminal courts to assist them with information which may lead to a successful appeal. A further 100 cases are still being reviewed. </p><p>The Post Office <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/the-final-reckoning.html" target="_blank">successfully prosecuted 736 people</a> between 2000 and 2014. This suggests there are now concerns the vast majority of these prosecutions, made using evidence from the Post Office's <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/03/horizon-trial-menu.html" target="_blank">Horizon IT system</a>, could be unsafe. A Post Office spokesperson said: </p><p></p><blockquote>“In addition to full co-operation with the CCRC’s review, Post Office has made strenuous efforts to identify individuals who were historically convicted and an extensive post-conviction disclosure exercise is taking place to identify and disclose all material which might affect the safety of those convictions.”</blockquote><p></p><p>The Post Office's massive post-conviction disclosure exercise started almost immediately after the settlement of the Bates v Post Office group litigation, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/they-did-it.html" target="_blank">which ended in December 2019</a>. It has, according to the Post Office, involved 60 barristers, 50 law firms, Fujitsu, Royal Mail, the Courts and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It has cost, as you might expect, millions of pounds.</p><p>In 2013, a barrister working for a firm instructed by the Post Office <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/11/whats-in-2013-simon-clark-document.html" target="_blank">wrote what has become known as the Clarke Advice</a>, which suggested there may be serious problems with the Post Office's prosecutions of Subpostmasters. The Post Office secretly commissioned a review of its prosecutions between 2010 and 2013 and <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/12/oral-submission-to-support-application.html" target="_blank">found 26 were potentially unsafe</a>. It deliberately kept this information from MPs and campaigners, potentially denying hundreds of people important information about the safety of their convictions. The Post Office's Head of Security also <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/03/day-2-empire-strikes-back.html" target="_blank">ordered the shredding of documents</a> relating to Horizon problems. The 45 convictions which have already been quashed were referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission which stated it was only able to do so <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/03/ccrc-refer-39-post-office-cases-to.html" target="_blank">because of the civil case fought by Subpostmasters between 2017 - 2019</a>.</p><p>Today, Lord Arbuthnot, who has been helping the campaigners in the fight for justice for more than a decade, said:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>“Am I alone in finding the Post Office’s use of the word “historical” rather nauseating? They are trying, in their unsubtle way, to create the impression that this is all in the past and that their behaviour now is spotless. But it wasn’t until November last year that we discovered, through their late disclosure of the Clarke advice, that they had known for many, many years that their entire prosecution process was riddled with deception, something they then tried to cover up with their shredding of documents. It is all very well for the Post Office now to say that “Disclosure relevant to their cases will be provided” – but given their track record, who will believe them?</p><p>Then, in the Common Issues Trial [one of the trials in the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/they-did-it.html" target="_blank">High Court litigation</a>], the Post Office continued to assert that the subpostmasters were dishonest, though they knew that it was their own systems that weren’t working. The intervention of the CCRC establishes that the course of justice was perverted – so who did it? It is high time the police began to take a serious look at whether the Post Office management have been perverting the course of justice."</p></blockquote><p></p><p><b>No accountability</b></p><p>As yet, the government still doesn't think anyone should be held responsible for the scandal. <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/06/the-house-of-lords-following-commons.html" target="_blank">On 11 June last year in the House of Lords</a>, Lord Browne of Ladyton said to the business minister:</p><p></p><blockquote>"For more than a decade, while covering up the truth, the Post Office spent in excess of £100 million maintaining the convictions and the impoverishment of hundreds of innocent sub-postmasters. Not one director or senior executive has been held to account. What do the Government, who own the Post Office, plan to do about this shocking failure of corporate governance?"</blockquote><p></p><p>Lord Callanan, for the government replied:</p><p></p><blockquote>"The Horizon IT system was put in place in 1999, with the first issues being raised by sub-postmasters in the early 2000s. Mr Justice Fraser has considered what happened over this period and has set out his findings in considerable detail in the court case. Of course, the senior directors responsible at the time of the prosecutions against sub-postmasters are no longer at the Post Office. Any further proceedings against such individuals is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, and the courts and the justice system."</blockquote><p></p><p>ie it was all a long time ago so we are not going to hold anyone to account.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/05/chances-of-inquiry-into-post-office.html" target="_blank">business ministry on 2 April last year said</a>:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Given the major programme of work the Post Office is implementing, the Government will not be taking further action at this time. The Horizon IT system was put in place in 1999, with the first issues being raised by postmasters in the early 2000s. Over an almost 20-year period decisions were made by many people, including in relation to the prosecution of postmasters. There is therefore no single person accountable for what has taken place."</blockquote><p></p><p>ie too many people were responsible, so we're not going to do anything.</p><p>The Post Office is now urging anybody any person who was prosecuted by Post Office or Royal Mail Group after July 1999 and who believes the prosecution case relied on Horizon evidence, to email <a href="mailto:disclosure@postoffice.co.uk">disclosure@postoffice.co.uk</a> </p><p>My advice would be to speak to a lawyer first.</p><p>**********************</p><p>This blog is <a href="https://store29806256.company.site" target="_blank">crowdfunded</a>. I am also currently writing a book called <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal</a> 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, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/05/the-great-post-office-scandal-buy-it.html" target="_blank">please click here</a>.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-4575360168194932862021-05-01T21:07:00.003+01:002021-05-01T21:07:56.922+01:00The Great Post Office Scandal - buy it here!<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/the-great-post-office-scandal-first" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1382" data-original-width="921" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnfV1KleA1UjNSoyCBPZKp55uY7WGzmJoHonh_9l7dW8AFZvnG8c7XC7iFCv3MChA6BwZ0bUgAFOFsL1iLTBSr0LCxuq_jL6DllzDlLaP-_GwLY6EbkwrSFzQr0fRv7MmP-7qaUaQ8Jekk/s320/20210429+Final+book+cover.jpg" /></a></div>My forthcoming book - <b><a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/the-great-post-office-scandal-first" target="_blank">The Great Post Office Scandal: the fight to expose a multimillion pound IT disaster which put innocent people in jail</a></b> - is now available on pre-sale from Bath Publishing. It will soon be available via Amazon and Waterstones and your usual independent bookseller.<p></p><p>If you would like to buy a copy, <a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/the-great-post-office-scandal-first" target="_blank">please click here</a>. It will be shipped to you by the end of October 2021.</p><p>This website - if you've never been here before - was paid for by crowdfunding. </p><p>It is a document of nearly everything that has been happening in the Post Office Horizon story since 2018, when Alan Bates and his 554 fellow claimants took the Post Office to court and won. Please have a click around. </p><p>And please do <a href="https://bathpublishing.com/products/the-great-post-office-scandal-first" target="_blank">buy my book</a>!</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-51802884631728415742021-04-30T11:29:00.001+01:002021-04-30T11:29:01.632+01:00Major new ITV drama on the Post Office Horizon IT scandal<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj3YCt0Wv4tgrzMXR-7VyEyqha9Ag0c267Mz3WfRc8__eth40Mp_TM1DIMOBoQRNSDD8AbG39Q8yO8NiNe_uD_eZsMl81zpR8_DaLwlouzgNFiZaJrPMrqmRPrRSOeyda1XIbV9mn5OVF7/s266/Screenshot+2021-04-30+at+11.28.05.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="144" data-original-width="266" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj3YCt0Wv4tgrzMXR-7VyEyqha9Ag0c267Mz3WfRc8__eth40Mp_TM1DIMOBoQRNSDD8AbG39Q8yO8NiNe_uD_eZsMl81zpR8_DaLwlouzgNFiZaJrPMrqmRPrRSOeyda1XIbV9mn5OVF7/w640-h346/Screenshot+2021-04-30+at+11.28.05.png" width="640" /></a></div><p style="text-align: center;"> <span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; text-align: center;">ITV COMMISSIONS POST OFFICE SCANDAL DRAMA,</span><i style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; text-align: center;">PEOPLE vs. POST OFFICE</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; text-align: center;">, WRITTEN BY GWYNETH HUGHES AND PRODUCED BY ITV STUDIOS, PATRICK SPENCE,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; text-align: center;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; text-align: center;">AND LITTLE GEM</span></p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">One of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British legal history, affecting dozens of innocent sub-postmasters and postmistresses, wrongly accused of theft, fraud and false accounting due to a defective IT system, will be brought to the screen by Patrick Spence, ITV Studios and co-produced by Little Gem. </p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The 4 x 60’ drama, entitled <i>People vs. Post Office</i>, will be written by acclaimed screenwriter Gwyneth Hughes (<i>Honour, Vanity Fair, Dark Angel</i>) and executive produced by Patrick Spence (<i>Adult Material, Marvellous</i>), ITV Studios, Gwyneth Hughes, and Natasha Bondy and Ben Gale (<i>Surviving the Virus, This is our Family</i>) on behalf of Little Gem.</p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Many of the wronged workers who were prosecuted, some of whom were imprisoned for crimes they never committed, are already working with the producers to document how their lives were irreparably ruined by the scandal. </p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Commented Natasha Bondy, Little Gem’s Creative Director and Executive Producer, and Patrick Spence, ITV Studios: </p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Being trusted with telling this story is a huge honour for the whole production team. We are going to ensure the biggest possible audience get to hear how much the subpostmasters suffered, how hard they had to fight for justice and how determined they are that the fight is not yet over.”</span></p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;">Following the landmark Court of Appeal decision to overturn their criminal convictions, dozens of former sub postmasters and postmistresses have been exonerated on all counts as they battled to finally clear their names. </span>They fought for ten years finally proving their innocence and sealing a resounding victory, but all involved believe<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;">the fight is not over yet, not by a long way.</span></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"> </p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Commented Gwyneth Hughes: </p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">“I’ve been talking for a while now to some of the people whose lives were turned upside down by this appalling business. I find it just astonishing, and deeply troubling, that this could have happened in my country, and I confess it’s shaken my confidence in British justice. The sub postmasters at the heart of the fightback are such a lively, interesting and indomitable bunch. They never gave up, and I’m honoured to be telling their stories.”</p>
<p style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Between 2000 and 2018, the Post Office held thousands of its own sub postmasters and postmistresses liable for financial discrepancies thrown up by Horizon, its hugely expensive but unreliable computerised accounting system. </p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Despite warnings that the system was flawed, the Post Office relentlessly pursued the sub postmasters and postmistresses, telling many of them they were the only ones having problems with Horizon. </p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Of those affected by the faulty IT system, 736 were prosecuted, hundreds more lost livelihoods, homes and life savings because they paid back money the Post Office claimed was missing. </p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Several went to prison, some whilst pregnant or with young children and many were shunned by their communities. Some have since died before they could find any justice. </p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The drama will narrate how in 2009, a group of sub postmasters from across the UK, decided enough was enough and formed the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance. </p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><i>People vs. Post Office</i> has been commissioned by ITV’s Head of Drama, Polly Hill, who will oversee production on behalf of the channel. </p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Commented Polly Hill:</p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">“</span>This is the story of how the sub postmasters fought back against seemingly insurmountable odds. Having followed their fight for justice and the landmark decision by the Court of Appeal, I’m delighted we can now tell their story.”</p>
<p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Filming of the drama will take place in early 2022 with transmission expected later that year. </p>
<p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><br /></p>
<p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">ITV Studios will be responsible for the international distribution of the drama. </p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-22598325968802084852021-04-28T21:21:00.018+01:002021-05-02T12:16:02.595+01:00Page and Marshall in the clear<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA3MtMfqQbI2yw0deK4IJXgMpwuas5VGmDeBJJAt7rfxy5PdI50Dx4aSFXl83IYnn60W-AWwagkodz2T3Enq3EwfZbrpmvI0YpKbbA5WE21brJ4dl5ZNtbGx-Nex_Nn9jdumXKw4oozKoY/s1280/IMG_9410+2.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA3MtMfqQbI2yw0deK4IJXgMpwuas5VGmDeBJJAt7rfxy5PdI50Dx4aSFXl83IYnn60W-AWwagkodz2T3Enq3EwfZbrpmvI0YpKbbA5WE21brJ4dl5ZNtbGx-Nex_Nn9jdumXKw4oozKoY/w640-h480/IMG_9410+2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Flora Page with her legal team (posing like seasoned Eurovision entrants) outside court</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />One of the most extraordinary sideshows to the recent Court of Appeal proceedings came to a close yesterday with Lord Justice Fulford deciding that barristers Paul Marshall and Flora Page had no case to answer on the issue of contempt of court, which had been raised, but then not pursued, by the Post Office.<p></p><p>On 18 November last year, the Post Office barrister, Brian Altman QC, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/11/whats-in-2013-simon-clark-document.html" target="_blank">implicated both Page and Marshall in a possible contempt</a>, due to the leaking of the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/12/oral-submission-to-support-application.html" target="_blank">now infamous Clarke Advice</a> to a journalist. Flora Page 'fessed immediately, saying she had handed the document to her brother Lewis, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/17/next-chapter-post-office-scandal-horizon-convictions-rests-three/" target="_blank">a freelance hack</a>. Ms Page apologised, referred herself to the Bar Standards Board and resigned her brief.</p><p>Mr Marshall, who was embroiled in a separate leaking of the Clarke Advice to the Metropolitan Police, walked soon after the Court of Appeal decided both he and Ms Page had a potential contempt case to answer. As he departed, Mr Marshall <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/12/paul-marshalls-resignation-letter-to.html" target="_blank">fired off a strongly-worded salvo</a>. </p><p></p><p>The pair had been representing Tracy Felstead, Seema Misra and Janet Skinner, and were early, at times lone proponents of asking the Court of Appeal to consider limb 2 of the CCRC's referral. </p><p>Limb 2 argued that not only was the prosecution of several dozen Subpostmasters an abuse of process (through failure to properly investigate and/or disclose material) it was also an affront to the conscience of the court and therefore justice itself. </p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifQJjWLxyDjMupp-uhbuU7ATLkNX1hzjIwHCCPMzJQEnP9_v58ywdCfzTwujm-VWRaR8JxmeQ0pfGl5bdmTHpKtE-lwlXpXGPLfZxHr9n4StTyceY9zspYHdD-OeRYJxiVAAkKIqB1U_0y/s1138/Flora+Page.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1082" data-original-width="1138" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifQJjWLxyDjMupp-uhbuU7ATLkNX1hzjIwHCCPMzJQEnP9_v58ywdCfzTwujm-VWRaR8JxmeQ0pfGl5bdmTHpKtE-lwlXpXGPLfZxHr9n4StTyceY9zspYHdD-OeRYJxiVAAkKIqB1U_0y/w200-h190/Flora+Page.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Flora Page</td></tr></tbody></table>As everyone now knows, the Court of Appeal decided, in the case of 39 appellants before it last Friday, the Post Office's prosecutions <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/court-of-appeal-quashed-further-39.html" target="_blank"><i>were</i> an affront to the public conscience</a>. This decision almost certainly led to the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/vennells-career-ends-in-ignomy.html">immediate departure from public life</a> by former Post Office CEO, Paula Vennells. <p></p><p>Reacting to the Court of Appeal's decision that she had no case to answer, Flora Page said: </p><p></p><blockquote>"I welcome today’s decision. Had I been given the opportunity, I would have given the same explanation and apology to the Post Office legal team as I gave to the Court: I provided the Clarke Advice to my brother, a responsible member of the press, with Paul’s agreement, because we expected it to be dealt with in court the following day, having appended it in full to our skeleton argument for that hearing. There was no question of Lewis or the Telegraph publishing anything from the document unless and until it was in the public domain. The Court ultimately found that I had been acting honourably. </blockquote><blockquote>This was a diversion from the main issue. The fight for justice for up to 900 sub-postmasters wrongly convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting continues. It is vital that the Post Office is held to account for the devastation it has brought on so many people’s lives and livelihoods and does not do anything else to hinder any future investigations into what went so horribly wrong."</blockquote><p></p><p>Shortly afterwards, Ms Page revealed that the Bar Standards Board "decided to close my self referral file in February. No further action."</p><p>Paul Marshall gave a lengthier, juicier, statement, laying into the Post Office's tactics:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"I remain troubled by the way that counsel for the Post Office raised the issue of contempt before the court of appeal on 18 November 2020 without giving reasonable notice to me of the intention to do so.</p><p>The Court of Appeal elicited acceptance that the provision of the Clarke Advice was an ‘error of judgment’ and that being done it was determined no further action was to be taken.</p><p>As is now clear the ‘Clarke Advice’ was pivotal in the Court of Appeal’s finding that for almost 15 years’ the Post Office was engaged in conduct that constituted an abuse of the process of the court and calculated to subvert the integrity of the criminal justice system or undermine public confidence in it. Its disclosure resulted in the much later disclosure of the “shredding” Clarke advice.</p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIOcD9r6A4vKpJIYHSEDCIDsj9z7Pd-CmrK2AYu4f2RR6h0nJYbMflc4VaPmYR8p5tyOKeWVkz6YdOwm2ztsAYDaJSTmtu0Sm-OZPeOzW2yPUCTPSMEYuhisI5DNZhh1dZUkssq2fIHZW2/s1024/Paul+Marshall.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="736" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIOcD9r6A4vKpJIYHSEDCIDsj9z7Pd-CmrK2AYu4f2RR6h0nJYbMflc4VaPmYR8p5tyOKeWVkz6YdOwm2ztsAYDaJSTmtu0Sm-OZPeOzW2yPUCTPSMEYuhisI5DNZhh1dZUkssq2fIHZW2/w144-h200/Paul+Marshall.jpg" width="144" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Paul Marshall</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Between 18 November 2020 and today, no one has identified to me a proposition of law that establishes (or supports) that disclosure of a document that casts serious doubt upon the safety of a convicted defendant’s conviction, which on highest authority it is a prosecutor’s duty to disclose when it comes to their attention even when all legal processes are exhausted, is disclosed subject to any restriction or inhibition upon use by them of such material. <br /><p></p><p>There is in my view a compelling public policy reason for there being no such inhibition or restriction - the public interest in identifying and correcting miscarriages of justice. Documents of this kind are different in kind to ordinary disclosure. </p><p>The way in which this matter was first raised on 18 November 2020 had the effect that Flora Page and I felt unable to continue to represent our clients. That consequence was possibly an outcome not wholly unanticipated by the Post Office. One only needs to look back at the Bates litigation to see that the Post Office had a propensity to play ‘hardball’. Most obviously in its attempt to secure the recusal of the trial judge. But by the time I withdrew in December 2020 I had drafted a skeleton argument on ‘second category’ abuse of process, and reasons why the court should hear it, that my able successor Ms Lisa Busch QC was able to use on the hearing on 17 December 2020. </p><p>The Post Office’s failure to disclose material in the Clarke Advice until 2020 was in violation of my clients’ rights under Article 6 of the ECHR which guarantees to them a trial, that extends to an appeal hearing, within a reasonable time. My three former clients collectively had to wait 44 years to have their convictions quashed. Material in the Clarke Advice ought to have been disclosed in 2013, specifically to Mrs Misra because it was at her trial in 2010 Mr Jenkins gave live oral evidence as an expert for the Post Office.</p><div><div>I am confident that, but for inquiries about circumstances in 2013, that I caused to be made by Aria Grace Law in November 2020 that elicited the Clarke Advice, it would not have <br />been disclosed by the Post Office in 2020. Without Flora Page’s and my efforts none of the 39 appeals would have been quashed on the basis of second category abuse of process. The importance of the Court of Appeal’s decision on second category abuse is that it carries the corollary that the appellant is wholly exonerated and ought never to have been prosecuted. </div><div><br /></div><div>Importantly, the finding also exposes the mendacity of the Post Office prosecution policy, contaminated as it was by its improper defence/protection of its Horizon system. That is a source of considerable satisfaction to me and also testimony to the intellectual capacity, moral courage and public-spirited contribution of Flora Page who was the only lawyer, other than our instructing solicitor Nick Gould at Aria Grace, who prior to my withdrawing from the case in December 2020 concurred with my analysis as later accepted by the Court of Appeal by its 23 April judgment."</div></div></blockquote><div><div></div></div><p>I think he's a bit pissed off.</p><p>The appellants' success on limb 2 will have far-reaching implications - one suspects the CPS might take a closer interest in the activities of Post Office executives, and Professor Richard Moorhead, the legal world's well-regarded ethics guru, <a href="https://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2021/04/27/post-office-ii-contempt-recusal-culture/" target="_blank">has already had a thing or two to say on the activities of the Post Office's internal and external lawyers</a> throughout this scandal. </p><p>The limb 2 success also rather strengthens the hands of now 45 Subpostmasters whose convictions have been quashed, and who will now be seeking some life-changing compensation as a result.</p><p>As an aside, when Mr Altman stood up on 18 November and told the court (out of what he said was his "duty") about the leaking of the Clarke Advice, casually mentioning it might be a criminal offence, a chill went down my spine. When I saw the court's reaction, I felt sick. I can only do this job if people give me documents, and journalists rely on good people attempting to do the right thing. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxoaQ-EV2ipqKQ-JrGdPizLuhFtUch0CmHS6U1EGs9x395gRRFvh36V28VsEoVZwFbSG1ZVTEHmVCgSguOr1RRZfc-U7J6Ic2iX-ehp0uYCTjEHXGpVN9MiIifYcvDW_GnocEK7b2SlPKX/s1008/20210423_124918_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxoaQ-EV2ipqKQ-JrGdPizLuhFtUch0CmHS6U1EGs9x395gRRFvh36V28VsEoVZwFbSG1ZVTEHmVCgSguOr1RRZfc-U7J6Ic2iX-ehp0uYCTjEHXGpVN9MiIifYcvDW_GnocEK7b2SlPKX/w640-h312/20210423_124918_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Seema, Janet and Tracy</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>For just one brief moment, as I saw the government-owned Post Office colluding with the justice system to potentially rub out the careers and livelihoods of two well-meaning individuals, I got the tiniest flavour of what it must have been like to be a helpless Subpostmaster on their way to a criminal conviction and a ruined life, with not even the slightest chance of changing the outcome.</p><p>I am very glad, in this instance, good sense prevailed.</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">*******************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">I am currently running a crowdfunding campaign to ensure I can attend all relevant appeal court, high court and government inquiry hearings related to the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. Reward levels include access to the secret email, and a forthcoming book. Please <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" rel="noopener" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">click here</a> for more information, and if you would like to support my work.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-84001722016765644352021-04-26T13:29:00.013+01:002021-04-27T07:17:24.483+01:00Vennells' career ends in ignominy<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMuVGtt0nM242HILeLEMKo4N_dc6U-z9qqh8NzWch1i147yVZQA3j6yQrv3uNbFV18O9t2h8ZMtHUbTw8-edaOe3M79p84Yaeaepv986SVhTCLpx9lOV0DuYDTanuWer5hd3H8i0hCoybo/s1908/Paula+Vennells+orange.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1146" data-original-width="1908" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMuVGtt0nM242HILeLEMKo4N_dc6U-z9qqh8NzWch1i147yVZQA3j6yQrv3uNbFV18O9t2h8ZMtHUbTw8-edaOe3M79p84Yaeaepv986SVhTCLpx9lOV0DuYDTanuWer5hd3H8i0hCoybo/w640-h384/Paula+Vennells+orange.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The Reverend Paula Vennells</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Having quietly left the Cabinet Office, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/12/vennells-steps-down-from-nhs-trust.html" target="_blank">withdrawn from her role chairing an NHS Trust</a> in March, and last year stopped advising the Church on its ethical investments, Paula Vennells has now stopped working as a priest and departed the board of Dunelm and Morrisons.</p><p>When she left the Cabinet Office, Vennells <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8132739/Former-Post-Office-chief-dragged-staff-court-blunder-scandal-quits-government-job.html" target="_blank">went out of her way that to say</a> that her short, one year tenure was entirely her choice, stressing that other people had left the Cabinet Office at the same time.</p><p>Vennells made no statement about temporarily stepping down from the board of the Church's ethical investment group, although an insider confirmed it was due to the Horizon scandal, saying she had "taken a leave of absence as she engages with the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/06/paula-vennells-breaks-her-silence.html" target="_blank">BEIS Select Committee Review</a>."</p><p>Shortly before she left Imperical College Healthcare NHS Trust, <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/10/it-was-nothing-to-do-with-me-guv.html" target="_blank">in an excruciating video meeting</a>, Vennells deflected a question on her chairmanship to a fellow director who read a prepared statement saying:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Following the Post Office legal ruling and settlement at the end of 2019, and subsequent developments. our board has reviewed the situation carefully and thoroughly. All of the information we have remains in line with what was understood by NHS Improvements at the time of Paula's appointment in April 2019. And the board has no additional insight into the complexities of the Post Office issues over the past 20 years and we are only able to draw on our own direct experience of Paula's conduct and contribution to this Trust, which has been entirely positive."</blockquote><p></p><p>When she <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/12/vennells-steps-down-from-nhs-trust.html" target="_blank">finally announced her departure</a>, no reason was given - just:</p><p></p><blockquote>“By the time I leave, I will have been in the position for two years. While I will be very sad to go, it is a personal decision at the right time."</blockquote><p></p><p>It took the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9028555/Now-disgraced-ex-Post-Office-boss-Paula-Vennells-forced-55k-NHS-job.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail to confirm</a> that, of course it was due to the Horizon scandal.</p><p>When an outraged campaigner wrote last year to Morrisons supermarket wondering why on earth she was still on the board, chairman Andrew Higginson produced a deeply self-satisfied response:</p><p></p><blockquote>"I have learnt to take people as I find them" he opined, ".... It is both my own and my own colleagues' assessment that Paula is an excellent non-executive director, who brings great experience and a strong moral compass to the table."</blockquote><p></p><p>This is the problem. Even at the time Mr Higginson was writing this drivel (Dec 2020), the High Court had decided the organisation Paula Vennells ran for seven years had presented partial and misleading evidence and had a culture of "institutional paranoia" and "excessive secrecy". Did Mr Higginson read those High Court judgments? Did he ask her about them? </p><p>Paula Vennells has also decided to stop preaching in the Bromham Benefice, where she is a non-stipendiary vicar, realising:</p><p></p><blockquote>"my involvement with the Post Office has become a distraction from the good work undertaken in the Diocese of St Albans and in the parishes I serve."</blockquote><p></p><p>Tom Hedges' visible delight at having his conviction <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/court-of-appeal-quashed-further-39.html" target="_blank">quashed on Friday</a> was captured for posterity by a number of press photograpahers outside the Court of Appeal. He is a committed Christian and has been writing to the Bishop of St Albans asking him to do something about Ms Vennells for a while. Last year the bishop released a statement, saying:</p><p></p><blockquote>"there is a difference between allegations made against Post Office Limited and allegations of personal wrongdoing by Ms Vennells... I cannot simply impute to Ms Vennells all of the failures found to have been committed by Post Office Limited."</blockquote><p></p><p>Yesterday the bishop said: "it is right that Ms Vennells stands back from public ministry."</p><p>What changed? The 39 convictions being quashed? What about the six at Southwark Crown Court in December last year? I don't think Mr Hedges wanted Ms Vennells to carry the can for all of the Post Office's failings. Just some of the ones on her watch - <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/07/the-post-office-cover-up-part-1-how-and.html" target="_blank">like the cover-up</a>.</p><p>The Communications Workers Union has called for Paula Vennells to be <a href="https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/04/the-great-post-office-trial-verdict-is-a-vindication-for-workers" target="_blank">stripped of her CBE</a>, and the launch of a <a href="https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/04/the-great-post-office-trial-verdict-is-a-vindication-for-workers" target="_blank">criminal investigation</a>. </p><p>Vennells certainly has serious questions to answer about her role - including why she <a href="https://old.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/inquiries/parliament-2010/post-office-mediation/" target="_blank">chose in 2015 to tell parliament</a> the Post Office had not "surfaced" any miscarriages of justice - but <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/07/the-post-office-cover-up-part-2-they.html" target="_blank">she's not the only one</a>. Not by a long chalk.</p><p>Further reading:</p><p>Feb 2019 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/02/the-ballad-of-paula-vennells.html" target="_blank">The Ballad of Paula Vennells</a>" - thoughts on Vennells' "journey" written in advance of the first High Court trial judgment (ie before anyone in authority said the Post Office had done anything wrong).</p><p>May 2019 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/05/and-with-that-she-was-gone.html" target="_blank">And with that... she was gone</a>" - Paula Vennells ghosts out of the Post Office at the high point of its deepest ever crisis into the warm fuzzy embrace of the establishment.</p><p>Dec 2019 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/is-paula-vennells-fit-and-proper-person.html" target="_blank">Is Paula Vennells a Fit and Proper Person?</a>" - Dr Minh Alexander's letter to the CQC on why having people involved in corporate cover-ups running an NHS Trust might be a bad idea.</p><p>March 2020 - "<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8132739/Former-Post-Office-chief-dragged-staff-court-blunder-scandal-quits-government-job.html" target="_blank">Paula Vennells leaves Cabinet Office</a>" - purely her choice. Purely her choice.</p><p>June 2020 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/06/paula-vennells-breaks-her-silence.html" target="_blank">Paula Vennells breaks her silence</a>" - a revealing letter to the BEIS Select Committee.</p><p>June 2020 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/06/paula-vennells-leaves-ethical.html" target="_blank">Paula Vennells leaves Ethical Investment Advisory Group</a>"</p><p>Oct 2020 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/10/exclusive-business-minister-asks-dept.html" target="_blank">Business minister asks Dept of Health why Paula Vennells is still running an NHS Trust</a>"</p><p>Dec 2020 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/12/vennells-steps-down-from-nhs-trust.html" target="_blank">Vennells steps down from NHS Trust</a>" - purely her choice. Nothing to see here.</p><p>More:</p><p>Nov 2019 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/11/the-post-offices-journey-into-disaster.html" target="_blank">The Post Office's journey into disaster: accountability/oversight</a>" - policy wonks only.</p><p>June 2020 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/06/fujitsu-tries-to-dodge-blame-bus.html" target="_blank">Fujitsu tries to dodge the blame bus</a>" - what about people who operated Horizon?</p><p>June 2020 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/06/nick-reads-selective-awareness.html" target="_blank">Nick Read's selective awareness</a>" - current Post Office CEO is disingenuous.</p><p>July 2020 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/07/the-post-office-cover-up-part-1-how-and.html" target="_blank">The Post Office cover up, part 1: How and when it happened</a>"</p><p>July 2020 - "<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/07/the-post-office-cover-up-part-2-they.html" target="_blank">The Post Office cover up, part 2: They wanted it all to go away</a>" - naming more names.</p><p><a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/01/victims-testimony.html" target="_blank">Victim testimony - what this scandal did to people. In their own words. In all its horrible, evil detail.</a></p><p><span style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">*******************</span></p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">I am currently running a crowdfunding campaign to ensure I can attend all relevant appeal court, high court and government inquiry hearings related to the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. Reward levels include access to the secret email, and a forthcoming book. Please <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" rel="noopener" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">click here</a> for more information, and if you would like to support my work.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-86021377419789814402021-04-23T19:16:00.000+01:002021-04-23T19:16:35.170+01:00Court of Appeal quashed a further 39 convictions - bringing the total to 45<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD9nhd4iRT2Zwrkir4MQsdv8T6pXUbhp7rlYtCQrSOkaOpsSnGse3OilHw82jZZzp5wbFaKNPOYK4McPovuNNxOA1ZFcQ1iRDexNGSLYRzLGOuCCICYEXK4c3YIhw1hRxWM2uvSBHjB4rD/s2543/20210423+Wide+shot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1236" data-original-width="2543" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD9nhd4iRT2Zwrkir4MQsdv8T6pXUbhp7rlYtCQrSOkaOpsSnGse3OilHw82jZZzp5wbFaKNPOYK4McPovuNNxOA1ZFcQ1iRDexNGSLYRzLGOuCCICYEXK4c3YIhw1hRxWM2uvSBHjB4rD/w640-h312/20210423+Wide+shot.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Banners, photographers, camera crews and celebrating Subpostmasters outside the RCJ today</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>There were jubilant scenes outside the Royal Courts of Justice today as 39 Subpostmasters' convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal.</p><p>The panel of three judges said the Post Office had "steamrolled" Subpostmasters, and:</p><p></p><blockquote>"effectively sought to reverse the burden of proof: it treated what was no more than a shortfall shown by an unreliable accounting system as an incontrovertible loss, and proceeded as if it were for the accused to prove that no such loss had occurred."</blockquote><p></p><p>The judges also noted that the interventions of the barrister Simon Clarke, which spelled out to the Post Office that the shredding of documents was not okay, suggests: </p><p></p><blockquote>"there was a culture, amongst at least some in positions of responsibility within POL [Post Office Limited], of seeking to avoid legal obligations when fulfilment of those obligations would be inconvenient and/or costly"</blockquote><p></p><p>Immediately outside court Seema Misra exclaimed: "I'm not a convicted criminal anymore! I'm so grateful and so thankful to everybody - especially to the court - to see justice."</p><p>The 39 convictions were quashed on:</p><p>Ground 1: "that the reliability of Horizon data was essential to the prosecution" and "it was not possible for the trial process to be fair" and</p><p>Ground 2: that the evidence shows "it was an affront to the public conscience for the appellants to face prosecution"</p><p>This now brings the total number of Subpostmaster convictions quashed by the court to 45 - six were overturned at Southwark Crown Court last December.</p><p>Appellants who had travelled many miles and campaigned for many years came together and told the waiting media of their joy, relief and bittersweet satisfaction at the verdict.<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSEdca5y8h2ilH5DEiiFnYMd_BUJewoiLKjrpZWMi0CIRPNnmHRCMCGIIUO_1BXIoMaNeGniyv6VtEBJIHMTEL8GXEOejhliaEizLeLt81pXylSruh_45HLFGEBvA-Xgs5igH6zl61_XZA/s1008/20210423_124918_resized.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSEdca5y8h2ilH5DEiiFnYMd_BUJewoiLKjrpZWMi0CIRPNnmHRCMCGIIUO_1BXIoMaNeGniyv6VtEBJIHMTEL8GXEOejhliaEizLeLt81pXylSruh_45HLFGEBvA-Xgs5igH6zl61_XZA/w640-h312/20210423_124918_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(l-r) Seema Misra, Janet Skinner and Tracy Felstead</span></td></tr></tbody></table></p><p>Janet Skinner, who along with Seema and Tracy Felstead demanded an opportunity for all appellants to have their appeals considered on both the above grounds, explained why she thought it was important:</p><p>"We decided we had to fight it - we needed to prove it was an affront to the public conscience and we did. We smashed it!"</p><p>Rubbina Shaheen, who ended up homeless, living with her husband in a van after being released from prison said: "I'm over the moon and excited. Very very excited." When the judgment was handed down she said she "couldn't believe it at first. I was in tears."</p><p>Mohamed said "Our life was totally destroyed. Rubbina went through more hardship than I did, she is now on kidney dialysis which is all caused through stress. And now we want to more forward, hopefully, and try and recoup our losses."</p><p>Neil Hudgell, the solicitors representing the majority of today's appellants said:</p><p>"We're going to be seeking aggravated and exemplary damages because of the conduct of the Post Office... these are just decent folk going out to earn a living and to have a knock on the door one day and be accused of being dishonest, put in a position where they couldn't mount a defence - there was a calculated crushing of them and their ability to assert their innocence."</p><p>This is the full list of Subpostmasters whose convictions were overturned:</p><p>Jo Hamilton, Hughie Thomas, Allison Henderson, Alison Hall, Gail Ward, Julian Wilson (deceased), Jacqueline McDonald, Tracy Felstead, Janet Skinner, Scott Darlington, Seema Misra, Della Robinson, Khayyam Ishaq, David Hedges, Peter Holmes (deceased), Rubina Shaheen, Damien Owen, Mohammed Rasul, Wendy Buffrey, Kashmir Gill, Barry Capon, Vijay Parekh, Lynette Hutchings, Dawn O’Connell (deceased), Carl Page, Lisa Brennan, William Graham, Siobhan Sayer, Tim Burgess, Pauline Thomson, Nicholas Clark, Margery Williams, Tahir Mahmood, Ian Warren, David Yates, Harjinder Butoy, Gillian Howard, David Blakey and Pamela Lock now have their good reputations restored.</p><p>Three Subpostmasters - Wendy Cousins, Stanley Fell and Neelam Hussain - whose referrals were contested by the Post Office, failed to get their convictions quashed. The reason given was that Horizon IT evidence was deemed as not being central to their case.</p><p>It was an emotional day for everyone involved in the Subpostmasters campaign for justice - a brief moment of celebration in what has been an unlikely and incredible journey. There will be many more stories to come.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-83198082892129242182021-04-23T17:08:00.031+01:002021-04-28T19:41:33.599+01:00Judgment Day - picture gallery<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmV9j7YuvfkT4Lg-msTPtKCYQjGKLZ4pP5TZuC5LqrI8XEpUfWCXcNCl6xvTob9U72AIkX5skuRs3bCGDprTP_fvmB6tgaO5Oz0VzzWvHXJZarO02OuUoyCQrOcLqr8YxAQl1yvCM8UWvj/s1024/6e77ee55-6fc4-4b1b-b706-df895de587e5.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmV9j7YuvfkT4Lg-msTPtKCYQjGKLZ4pP5TZuC5LqrI8XEpUfWCXcNCl6xvTob9U72AIkX5skuRs3bCGDprTP_fvmB6tgaO5Oz0VzzWvHXJZarO02OuUoyCQrOcLqr8YxAQl1yvCM8UWvj/w640-h480/6e77ee55-6fc4-4b1b-b706-df895de587e5.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">At last....</td></tr></tbody></table><p>I asked for anyone who had them to get in touch with photos of the post-judgment celebrations. I am posting them below with thanks to everyone who contributed. Please don't copy and re-use these without permission as the owners have kindly given them to this website to use here only.</p><p>If you have some photos taken outside court, at a pub nearby or from home as your victorious appellant returned, and you don't mind sharing, please get in touch - I'd be delighted to add them to this gallery. </p><p>Also please forgive me if I have missed, or misspelled or got a picture caption wrong - please let me know and I'll correct it!</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghzdzSax6FlV0Qf-Cb2aQZ2FfSkXYcgs0Clgh9YmuLtSGECipDNkCBFFpTZxLv2CLjH__1HwPtB-0nCdNdIUpIuC2FSGD0Ln8vb8yzyO4tMEnu3B-m-rZQWSffCTp_HCc5LrwwarIDYvNS/s2543/20210423+Wide+shot.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1236" data-original-width="2543" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghzdzSax6FlV0Qf-Cb2aQZ2FfSkXYcgs0Clgh9YmuLtSGECipDNkCBFFpTZxLv2CLjH__1HwPtB-0nCdNdIUpIuC2FSGD0Ln8vb8yzyO4tMEnu3B-m-rZQWSffCTp_HCc5LrwwarIDYvNS/w640-h312/20210423+Wide+shot.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The country's media want to hear what Jo, Wendy, Noel, Tracy et al have to say</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw1ZJIS77oZsqoTOigemy_3qY-TUAn3uXE6CGiyL_Q_eLRnyu8vRmD5UhVq2eJQAmLsyuZveIUqbgkbNkYwi4eDa7OThlYTVvBGna3QlrZahCsZuLx5C3nIE4LSOqNAvEpFX_hZlpU0vp8/s1008/20210423_094819_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw1ZJIS77oZsqoTOigemy_3qY-TUAn3uXE6CGiyL_Q_eLRnyu8vRmD5UhVq2eJQAmLsyuZveIUqbgkbNkYwi4eDa7OThlYTVvBGna3QlrZahCsZuLx5C3nIE4LSOqNAvEpFX_hZlpU0vp8/w640-h312/20210423_094819_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Early arrival, Wendy Buffrey</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj28wcVQaGa-RnSTa3QP1YkcwMb3T6DRTqYWZnIeggl4uHQ5AL6Y9WfRMclIySTJ-5iEk_ORM90I50vuJuIUZbqqKhzyDM9P18z3kXV9Gbzyl35xSrTkg5fgQoXqUjS7Oqp1lngv_bPAZYX/s1008/20210423_094858_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj28wcVQaGa-RnSTa3QP1YkcwMb3T6DRTqYWZnIeggl4uHQ5AL6Y9WfRMclIySTJ-5iEk_ORM90I50vuJuIUZbqqKhzyDM9P18z3kXV9Gbzyl35xSrTkg5fgQoXqUjS7Oqp1lngv_bPAZYX/w640-h312/20210423_094858_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Seema and Davinder Misra</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjPbOn11OATRN8MN-uTL_STwf20PEvOemRSUTvwoTTEyiZoLVlTVwhh4jC-RS-XMKXrXKokTNi7mkJbR1oElX8aYrSC8YHo7H4skxTa2xocWYRMf9uiBvpeYwaImi5WBB1RwT9o7shiFkm/s1008/20210423_095147_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjPbOn11OATRN8MN-uTL_STwf20PEvOemRSUTvwoTTEyiZoLVlTVwhh4jC-RS-XMKXrXKokTNi7mkJbR1oElX8aYrSC8YHo7H4skxTa2xocWYRMf9uiBvpeYwaImi5WBB1RwT9o7shiFkm/w640-h312/20210423_095147_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Supa-glam Janet Skinner flanked by equally supa-glam niece and daughter</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9TlvmPXNgryiaXDksjQoz3C-Gij8-d2d8y0ZamZh-wLh7ZAA5Ym9vjX4F7APzDw6-g6Ckynqu5MYKOXlLUoHjNGsdYkuNuN7vdc8jUU4-SmGkYy2szMwhKC-mqufWFsAXyyGX_n1GoriH/s1008/20210423_114212_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9TlvmPXNgryiaXDksjQoz3C-Gij8-d2d8y0ZamZh-wLh7ZAA5Ym9vjX4F7APzDw6-g6Ckynqu5MYKOXlLUoHjNGsdYkuNuN7vdc8jUU4-SmGkYy2szMwhKC-mqufWFsAXyyGX_n1GoriH/w640-h312/20210423_114212_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Harjinder Butoy and family</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtRYjhPtmOPjpTQQGvyQtbQTbBd3PxDpIUvr68Ftqdc2laMsKnG82UF9VsI0TioRmrtBmrKIa5q-GXirduAJM2PBLuO6vNs3Tssjgf7-GC0h0k8foCAvdm8QVrvHFKfycbv5p5fCqZXi25/s1008/20210423_120238_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtRYjhPtmOPjpTQQGvyQtbQTbBd3PxDpIUvr68Ftqdc2laMsKnG82UF9VsI0TioRmrtBmrKIa5q-GXirduAJM2PBLuO6vNs3Tssjgf7-GC0h0k8foCAvdm8QVrvHFKfycbv5p5fCqZXi25/w640-h312/20210423_120238_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Kamran and Siema Ashraf</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk3JsBJzzxnYfRnpZ5pJ4DbeWPvSm5ziRLBjBeu_Ak9by2DD8Qw37YglQY_Hq3fxwyq8_JRXjr-sEQ1mmcqPvHz_IgseS650fsryjzzttD4iwpqR6y6xsjrISixuEmvRy5IqF7_7L6Q06k/s2016/20210423_120304_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="980" data-original-width="2016" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk3JsBJzzxnYfRnpZ5pJ4DbeWPvSm5ziRLBjBeu_Ak9by2DD8Qw37YglQY_Hq3fxwyq8_JRXjr-sEQ1mmcqPvHz_IgseS650fsryjzzttD4iwpqR6y6xsjrISixuEmvRy5IqF7_7L6Q06k/w640-h312/20210423_120304_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A happy Scott Darlington</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgImXO6YC-VlemW3S9uz2IPf8yeZkxrh3n2tCE5uwCJcmTbYirmtlBEeH2nv8Xem0WYiVpar6ScPkvxZNRCTaTUMAY24k4nBZ586bNlVGFFEKqHxlTsw5prGbu-QIQWxHaVhvODjMBvpiEu/s2016/20210423_121942_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="980" data-original-width="2016" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgImXO6YC-VlemW3S9uz2IPf8yeZkxrh3n2tCE5uwCJcmTbYirmtlBEeH2nv8Xem0WYiVpar6ScPkvxZNRCTaTUMAY24k4nBZ586bNlVGFFEKqHxlTsw5prGbu-QIQWxHaVhvODjMBvpiEu/w640-h312/20210423_121942_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The extraordinary Jo Hamilton</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggX5AXImYdRSH3TwOQn6jddx8mc9FvLjzdS2o1pHLmkb7YlzWzDidoS2ALQN_NfCFalbcnCSRIxIHd8oEghCTIjyguzH1MXsmbPZb3l8xF5B2zMFZKmochwm1xzTeTR4NJc1YtUJA3A0g_/s1008/20210423_122524_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggX5AXImYdRSH3TwOQn6jddx8mc9FvLjzdS2o1pHLmkb7YlzWzDidoS2ALQN_NfCFalbcnCSRIxIHd8oEghCTIjyguzH1MXsmbPZb3l8xF5B2zMFZKmochwm1xzTeTR4NJc1YtUJA3A0g_/w640-h312/20210423_122524_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Karen Wilson, holding a picture of Julian Wilson (RIP) with <br />(l-r) David Hill, Emma Jones and Trevor Wilson</td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNnNhUzXLpl8VOCYL_caDZKO3iKhUG-zLI5SXTZoz35fs11gARbNaGWlx4tbjXw8OBsv_leXJFJL87IB7ksg3VVJdaPw79iJ4kRqYkstF65w4d4t7K_bueIg0dLBgDOGbKiOjfbuRu4k4W/s1008/20210423_123139_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="1008" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNnNhUzXLpl8VOCYL_caDZKO3iKhUG-zLI5SXTZoz35fs11gARbNaGWlx4tbjXw8OBsv_leXJFJL87IB7ksg3VVJdaPw79iJ4kRqYkstF65w4d4t7K_bueIg0dLBgDOGbKiOjfbuRu4k4W/w640-h312/20210423_123139_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Richard and Alison Hall with a masked-up Karl Flinders from <br />Computer Weekly lurking in the background</td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi03Oe4BNvF6lrXykHWWmzfpq3Kb9eoy-bGPVpC6Cfq-mrKtx9BFl0fsfa8rfgNV9Y89pxkMpXt0EUnwjmrhyoTn6YtEVN5iN19lMlavQS3E7aNAHZLNB84bmr6ozqEyFjuXYN8cAX0QaPL/s2016/20210423_124920_resized.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="980" data-original-width="2016" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi03Oe4BNvF6lrXykHWWmzfpq3Kb9eoy-bGPVpC6Cfq-mrKtx9BFl0fsfa8rfgNV9Y89pxkMpXt0EUnwjmrhyoTn6YtEVN5iN19lMlavQS3E7aNAHZLNB84bmr6ozqEyFjuXYN8cAX0QaPL/w640-h312/20210423_124920_resized.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Seema Misra, Janet Skinner and Tracy Felstead</td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKypFnEfiRywqZ2BG49jTEvBwAgnOOtnbyyJJNzly6AW5ZrNAXRwixRb84mssn_5MCTpirgG_wEHCbjjTTao3fvyyaBMfFVlvn0-afDMTsANMxIHr59N4ty_Rnpfem5TzKUMPAIOd70Pn3/s1024/Sian+Thomas+fists+in+the+air.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKypFnEfiRywqZ2BG49jTEvBwAgnOOtnbyyJJNzly6AW5ZrNAXRwixRb84mssn_5MCTpirgG_wEHCbjjTTao3fvyyaBMfFVlvn0-afDMTsANMxIHr59N4ty_Rnpfem5TzKUMPAIOd70Pn3/w640-h480/Sian+Thomas+fists+in+the+air.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Let me see those hands in the air!</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn-6VXZdTYSLs2Jkt-uG-pD-1HDysUEoXWn-1BBSfY5o9Umk7wa7O-OxkbyntYVBWW6tsVHapd5AjCvIEoawzpcei94hkDBbYu9FLTidxccVdSsZo3zObqayumHiGuZt5L_AXEOFIfXeRz/s1024/Sian+Thomas+Lord+Arbuthnot+with+Noel+Thomas.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="768" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn-6VXZdTYSLs2Jkt-uG-pD-1HDysUEoXWn-1BBSfY5o9Umk7wa7O-OxkbyntYVBWW6tsVHapd5AjCvIEoawzpcei94hkDBbYu9FLTidxccVdSsZo3zObqayumHiGuZt5L_AXEOFIfXeRz/w480-h640/Sian+Thomas+Lord+Arbuthnot+with+Noel+Thomas.jpeg" width="480" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Lord Arbuthnot congratulates Noel Thomas</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihNpvWPLDaQREjorWESSjcCvqADy61Coda-1YnEfMVVUqngZhZ14rCNHFc7SebJNE4S5IoBIt__v8dPrAV-i20kmJ-T-pRnf5LJyJsoBRe25t9EZ7ViFFJO2eWMUHytuEQzuzZwazzBqvI/s1024/Sian+Thomas+Noel+and+Lee.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihNpvWPLDaQREjorWESSjcCvqADy61Coda-1YnEfMVVUqngZhZ14rCNHFc7SebJNE4S5IoBIt__v8dPrAV-i20kmJ-T-pRnf5LJyJsoBRe25t9EZ7ViFFJO2eWMUHytuEQzuzZwazzBqvI/w640-h480/Sian+Thomas+Noel+and+Lee.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Lee Castleton with Noel Thomas</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihQ5-B5-B7Rxd-CBl-uuwaD9Y1cnKMaCNc5HVCnJoMiD3m2mcmSaKxEW1cZmgY3xEsjPAOupNk-cDDbUIzQ696mHEDvQ1f4cf-UFHK0S9iRR14E9DLmgLA0I7Uj5gSMJ1yNnLaW9_SG5N1/s1024/Sian+Thomas+Noel+Thomas+talking+to+Nick+wallis.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="768" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihQ5-B5-B7Rxd-CBl-uuwaD9Y1cnKMaCNc5HVCnJoMiD3m2mcmSaKxEW1cZmgY3xEsjPAOupNk-cDDbUIzQ696mHEDvQ1f4cf-UFHK0S9iRR14E9DLmgLA0I7Uj5gSMJ1yNnLaW9_SG5N1/w480-h640/Sian+Thomas+Noel+Thomas+talking+to+Nick+wallis.jpeg" width="480" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Some bloke who needs a haircut talking to Noel</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_0wjeWLDYxXgyx8ozeasJN1Nqy4yPzfFAW1-5IMoYfeSixjZdf-IKQAu1z9oQ49RwpbMo2UfXnelFmuuc-gRCIHFE9i51rm8nd5yS4tmu1OBQ5MolTHmP_qY7VXzLthG4GF6pjh5NX4VG/s1024/Sian+Thomas+Noel+Tracy+Janet+Wendy+and+Jo.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_0wjeWLDYxXgyx8ozeasJN1Nqy4yPzfFAW1-5IMoYfeSixjZdf-IKQAu1z9oQ49RwpbMo2UfXnelFmuuc-gRCIHFE9i51rm8nd5yS4tmu1OBQ5MolTHmP_qY7VXzLthG4GF6pjh5NX4VG/w640-h480/Sian+Thomas+Noel+Tracy+Janet+Wendy+and+Jo.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Now what do we do....?</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEievwSGuUVxqRD0E1IdO6a8IWwgOdaWanXZrr66zxYz2gHlPdPhPr0NEXa_0laGc01kR1fzuGGMVDfxjhp1kt9-5HzguIUblC-caa3vbxulKn7ilk7KuaJXMdZEcj9Ggag7-KKCcEVhtV6f/s640/IMG_0992-1.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="480" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEievwSGuUVxqRD0E1IdO6a8IWwgOdaWanXZrr66zxYz2gHlPdPhPr0NEXa_0laGc01kR1fzuGGMVDfxjhp1kt9-5HzguIUblC-caa3vbxulKn7ilk7KuaJXMdZEcj9Ggag7-KKCcEVhtV6f/w480-h640/IMG_0992-1.JPG" width="480" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Barrister Flora Page with Janet Skinner</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic-k38zP1LOYWRZAbzs099bSasG25XSdFAy5miq5IchVKVskAC43ksX_Txz7AIB9CgMFbE3xPLkVPslIrollo4NllCddQpHkLjTktPhGod6CzuyUUaCqXpR-EYNzJsgQKxNiuI5l9yu6Om/s640/IMG_0997-1.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="480" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic-k38zP1LOYWRZAbzs099bSasG25XSdFAy5miq5IchVKVskAC43ksX_Txz7AIB9CgMFbE3xPLkVPslIrollo4NllCddQpHkLjTktPhGod6CzuyUUaCqXpR-EYNzJsgQKxNiuI5l9yu6Om/w480-h640/IMG_0997-1.JPG" width="480" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">l-r Tracy Felstead, Flora Page, Nicki Arch</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgor5xB89UOv8drh7F47vcskvd_3zC0zEtn8FvauAyP4B4ZaXvmOyIuRNMt0Mc3tHS8DV3YCzUj5kIIyQ5MDegY5rXkwTIlXCq4USNKJk9sGvaTaHs5EEU1C9N8-cOQjVC3TjZtpvfpg6Ek/s2048/Clients+of+Hudgell+Solicitors+at+the+Court+of+Appeal+today.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgor5xB89UOv8drh7F47vcskvd_3zC0zEtn8FvauAyP4B4ZaXvmOyIuRNMt0Mc3tHS8DV3YCzUj5kIIyQ5MDegY5rXkwTIlXCq4USNKJk9sGvaTaHs5EEU1C9N8-cOQjVC3TjZtpvfpg6Ek/w640-h426/Clients+of+Hudgell+Solicitors+at+the+Court+of+Appeal+today.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hudgells staff and their clients strike a pose </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUfJhd706ba0PAmETylUewkgtXNdUMZxOhpuTycXSsnNQgx6rAGjEa-P2Ww57fuCrmDkAfcMQWHu4eJEMHSLh182Rycl39Qq6qsybYgUYu6msRdtVGYQbnEToY7XHRTaW1NPPfA6ap_kJw/s2048/Solicitor+Neil+Hudgell+intends+to+help+more+subpostmasters+overturn+convictions.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUfJhd706ba0PAmETylUewkgtXNdUMZxOhpuTycXSsnNQgx6rAGjEa-P2Ww57fuCrmDkAfcMQWHu4eJEMHSLh182Rycl39Qq6qsybYgUYu6msRdtVGYQbnEToY7XHRTaW1NPPfA6ap_kJw/w640-h426/Solicitor+Neil+Hudgell+intends+to+help+more+subpostmasters+overturn+convictions.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Neil Hudgell being interviewed outside court</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVs6JUOBCthIifwrjX7W7RFl6t2KzF9lAl2hPtzG5v-HIOBS199-YcAqEQxsbUqWkdaTvuqcZcj20LXhgzmBF6Piv_IZ77GiJgO0msj29cKkcYhdSKsiINGc-FP2JPXLuEBvXelu7AnrAz/s2048/Subpostmasters+celebrate+historic+victory+as+convictions+are+overturned+at+the+Court+of+Appeal.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVs6JUOBCthIifwrjX7W7RFl6t2KzF9lAl2hPtzG5v-HIOBS199-YcAqEQxsbUqWkdaTvuqcZcj20LXhgzmBF6Piv_IZ77GiJgO0msj29cKkcYhdSKsiINGc-FP2JPXLuEBvXelu7AnrAz/w640-h426/Subpostmasters+celebrate+historic+victory+as+convictions+are+overturned+at+the+Court+of+Appeal.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhMIgG-OiXLntT-gF11vLl26zwlVX5zO_yMEg_W_hRvojkT4STgKJCJsX9JvNUZXV3QxFwuE_CAgW7I1o4l15zX8-eP5jLgQsN7FJ_1PkADoOxDJ0L3OgAA7RfwB0GhQNHA139zm3DbK3P/s2048/IMG_7525.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhMIgG-OiXLntT-gF11vLl26zwlVX5zO_yMEg_W_hRvojkT4STgKJCJsX9JvNUZXV3QxFwuE_CAgW7I1o4l15zX8-eP5jLgQsN7FJ_1PkADoOxDJ0L3OgAA7RfwB0GhQNHA139zm3DbK3P/w640-h480/IMG_7525.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jo Hamilton has a moment with her phone</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFo8bT31FpWGQh3FJcrHkPd9UvMD5agp7M13T6hxCbr65H7r8zld2xGVlMBy4omOd-uHS9VVOCUjkb6xqCTX06zlX-ljvROOf7llIiHN3mKNxwkR48560FkMzLlYYSJc6lde-O2wQP6bCF/s2048/IMG_7511.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFo8bT31FpWGQh3FJcrHkPd9UvMD5agp7M13T6hxCbr65H7r8zld2xGVlMBy4omOd-uHS9VVOCUjkb6xqCTX06zlX-ljvROOf7llIiHN3mKNxwkR48560FkMzLlYYSJc6lde-O2wQP6bCF/w640-h480/IMG_7511.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chris Trousdale (l) whose conviction was overturned in December and relentless campaigner and social media presence Chris Head who was one of the 555 High Court claimants</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmIHFb-1s4Vnjjr_bdr6X1bY7YF-AizKv438D9dpA70KA-IdAbiFILlDchj0-gaazkCeaZ8-msD2ErANApv44iuProRWheamX98Hoxk9MYvVha-0G0fx7D3r0XZEW5E7rSd6SdHMG5I9Pj/s2048/IMG_7512.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmIHFb-1s4Vnjjr_bdr6X1bY7YF-AizKv438D9dpA70KA-IdAbiFILlDchj0-gaazkCeaZ8-msD2ErANApv44iuProRWheamX98Hoxk9MYvVha-0G0fx7D3r0XZEW5E7rSd6SdHMG5I9Pj/w640-h480/IMG_7512.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chris Head chats with Varchas Patel, whose father's conviction was overturned on 11 Dec 2020</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2X4U4C9S5L9pzrqcrT_UYGxoBDllynDoFJgYtSzvRPgBKKNAVMAazpmW0gxVOyY57BxaWpAMFiX7cT1tOFSOIVxeMobXfPhEFLpO3oc7e292qH1mITEDoN1RwuFgagXGDhRUKYvQkaHz6/s2048/IMG_7509.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2X4U4C9S5L9pzrqcrT_UYGxoBDllynDoFJgYtSzvRPgBKKNAVMAazpmW0gxVOyY57BxaWpAMFiX7cT1tOFSOIVxeMobXfPhEFLpO3oc7e292qH1mITEDoN1RwuFgagXGDhRUKYvQkaHz6/w640-h480/IMG_7509.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yes another photo of me and Jo Hamilton but who is that tall, dark stranger with the green mask? It's a rare sighting of Producer Bob, brains behind the Radio 4 series The Great Post Office Trial</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr2KDPNAQ_dbXAMYgM25D3J9AKF1opjUpgbFALKSg1vlG3fng6IPQN8NDGpd6r5Rmfoam1BTt-WSM6yRFpq0QNTdTzeu6WNXs1g73hZPR5WF3kuh0esyFFq3YL7_Y0uIi8Ht9FlBOekAdp/s2048/IMG_7513.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr2KDPNAQ_dbXAMYgM25D3J9AKF1opjUpgbFALKSg1vlG3fng6IPQN8NDGpd6r5Rmfoam1BTt-WSM6yRFpq0QNTdTzeu6WNXs1g73hZPR5WF3kuh0esyFFq3YL7_Y0uIi8Ht9FlBOekAdp/w640-h480/IMG_7513.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Vijay Parekh (second from right) and family</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA4ThW_PSgCWN0vQNS_aDoQXTG3qavTz6fSvXCY4SsMZrhwEiY_tpBLrG1ARZjgkQ5uXj7PZh4RCDVrbdHdYVcbAOHDm4K_n1EKr4AGQGLa3EGihOwsl_S0GXR8_LUkzqB8zG2_-yK0TP3/s2048/IMG_7507.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA4ThW_PSgCWN0vQNS_aDoQXTG3qavTz6fSvXCY4SsMZrhwEiY_tpBLrG1ARZjgkQ5uXj7PZh4RCDVrbdHdYVcbAOHDm4K_n1EKr4AGQGLa3EGihOwsl_S0GXR8_LUkzqB8zG2_-yK0TP3/w640-h480/IMG_7507.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A proper media scrum!</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3729643942522633558.post-54000444319986087502021-04-21T14:59:00.006+01:002021-04-21T18:52:13.793+01:00Settlement disagreement<p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPiYvWB5tp_fCJIdMFHfgsa5B6jQZs14qs933KhRtiAU1yDdAzdVCvsNNhiLh8Wc8qrdqSlEGa1hkwP_QjFKtn4TlwOQG9qdqQzNzS6OY7JUN62s1IdSO3s21ybEnfUPkfJLlsf-tk0PW9/s2048/20181107_132337.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPiYvWB5tp_fCJIdMFHfgsa5B6jQZs14qs933KhRtiAU1yDdAzdVCvsNNhiLh8Wc8qrdqSlEGa1hkwP_QjFKtn4TlwOQG9qdqQzNzS6OY7JUN62s1IdSO3s21ybEnfUPkfJLlsf-tk0PW9/w400-h225/20181107_132337.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Alan Bates</span></td></tr></tbody></table>The confidential (<a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/08/bates-v-post-office-settlement.html" target="_blank">now published</a>) settlement agreement which ended the Subpostmasters' group litigation has been attacked twice in the space of two weeks by the two men who signed it. What's going on?<p></p><p>On 11 Dec 2019 the Bates v Post Office High Court litigation was brought to a sudden end by the <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/its-all-over-parties-agree-resolution.html" target="_blank">announcement that both sides had settled</a>.</p><p>The agreement's confidentiality was immediately broken by the Post Office, which <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/further-questions.html" target="_blank">gleefully confirmed to journalists</a> it had got away with paying Subpostmasters the sum total of £57.75m. This sounds a lot, and is a lot, but not when you divide it by the 555 litigants and remove around £46m in legal fees.</p><p>I asked on the day of the announcement <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/further-questions.html" target="_blank">who had really won</a>, and the mixed emotions among Subpostmasters when the settlement payments began to land <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2019/12/further-questions.html" target="_blank">were reported here</a>.</p><p>Last year Alan Bates, lead claimant in the group litigation, <a href="https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252492495/Subpostmasters-want-300m-from-a-government-that-allowed-Post-Office-reign-of-terror" target="_blank">crowdfunded a Parliamentary Ombudsman complaint</a> against the government, seeking to claim back the fees he feels the government have a moral obligation to pay. </p><p>Two weeks ago Nick Read, the Post Office Chief Executive, surprised everyone by <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2021/04/nick-reads-speech-to-troops.html" target="_blank">swinging in behind him</a>, saying the government should indeed cough up. </p><p><b>Full n' final</b></p><p>The government has so far stood firm, saying the settlement is "full and final". This creates a two-tier compensation system - relative peanuts for those who threw their lot in with the litigants, but potential full redress for applicants to the Post Office's <a href="https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/05/historical-shortfall-scheme-announced.html" target="_blank">Historical Shortfall scheme</a>. </p><p>This scheme <i>only</i> exists because of the efforts of the claimants in forcing a very heavy loss on the Post Office (which fought tooth and nail to avoid responsibility for its actions), but it's only open to non-litigants. So it doesn't seem fair. In fact, it's not fair.</p><p>Now Alan Bates has <a href="https://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Post-Offices-full-and-final-settlement-with-Horizon-scandal-victims-in-plain-English" target="_blank">written a piece for Computer Weekly</a> which suggests that the settlement agreement itself is open to challenge, saying:</p><p></p><blockquote>"in trying to agree a settlement figure, the only issues that could be used to calculate a financial figure were based on those legal points we had won as part of the judgments in the two trials that had been held."</blockquote><p></p><p>There were, apparently a further eight points set to be contested as part of the litigation, but the claimants "did not have the funds to carry on with the case". Mr Bates says the 555 claimants:</p><p></p><blockquote>"have never received a penny for these other eight – and possibly significantly more – issues, yet the Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme, with 2,400 applicants, will compensate those people for all the 10 issues. The Post Office, BEIS and the government will not allow the 555 to take part in the scheme, no doubt as further punishment for daring to take the Post Office to court and exposing the failures of them all."</blockquote><p></p><p>Mr Bates stops short of saying whether or not he'll be going after the Post Office or the government to open up the other eight litigation points but concludes:</p><p></p><blockquote>"when you see the Post Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Her Majesty’s Government bandying around the phrase “full and final settlement”, in actuality they are only referring to the issues that formed part of the first two trials, although they would have you think everything had been addressed. Some people might think they were deliberately trying to mislead everyone."</blockquote><p></p><p>Could the settlement be reopened? I approached Freeths, the solicitors instructed by Mr Bates to see if they had any response to the Computer Weekly piece. They told me they were not able to comment, due to "some final consequential legal steps” still being carried out in relation to "following through the Post Office’s procedural obligations under the settlement agreement itself."</p><p><b>The third way</b></p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqQX7BN9qMG8MU9JRwdYCTdp1o2id7DR76onc__wSccJaxO0djNXCOcmOK59wy6Odg_Y4740hmtK_LhiLQTcGi4FVay0XLE0a7STHOSBwx0Z-Bp3ocGSgHGfeocjCVuwiNrJgk7l6EijVS/s1397/2020-03-04+Chris+Head+crop.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1267" data-original-width="1397" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqQX7BN9qMG8MU9JRwdYCTdp1o2id7DR76onc__wSccJaxO0djNXCOcmOK59wy6Odg_Y4740hmtK_LhiLQTcGi4FVay0XLE0a7STHOSBwx0Z-Bp3ocGSgHGfeocjCVuwiNrJgk7l6EijVS/s320/2020-03-04+Chris+Head+crop.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Chris Head</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Chris Head is a group litigation claimant who has <a href="https://www.change.org/p/beisgovuk-post-office-horizon-scandal-justice-campaign/u/28911110" target="_blank">campaigned tirelessly</a> since the settlement agreement - <a href="https://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/people/ex-west-boldon-postmaster-takes-petition-post-office-horizon-inquiry-downing-street-2100439" target="_blank">taking petitions to Downing Street</a> and building a <a href="https://twitter.com/chrish9070" target="_blank">decent following on social media</a> for his efforts. The day after the publication of the <a href="https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/secure-corporate/our-financials/post-office-annual-report/" target="_blank">Post Office's latest annual report</a> in March this year, Mr Head wrote to Mr Read with a suggestion:<p></p><p></p><blockquote>"The Post Office (with recommendations from yourself) could request from the government a further commercial loan at an agreed interest rate to cover the entire cost of full settlement to the group, settlement of the Historical Shortfall scheme and settlement of the malicious prosecution claims that are to follow after the conclusion of the Court of Appeal hearing. This loan could be provided to the Post Office on a long term basis anything from 20 to even 30/40 year period with the ability to re-negotiate the terms as needed based on profitability and cash flow."</blockquote><p></p><p>Mr Head <a href="https://twitter.com/chrish9070/status/1384833844495400960" target="_blank">announced today on twitter</a> that he had been contacted by Mr Read to set up a meeting to discuss his proposal.</p><p>I suspect there will be more to come on this once the Court of Appeal has handed down its rulings on the 42 Subpostmaster appellants (and the Post Office's behaviour in prosecuting them) on Friday.</p><p>The full text of Mr Head's letter can be read below:</p><p style="text-align: right;">"25 March 2021</p><p>Dear Nick Read,</p><p>I write to you with regards to the Post Office Horizon Scandal and after your statement alongside the annual accounts that were released yesterday.</p><p>It is encouraging to hear the change in tone at Post Office Ltd with regarding to maximising the potential of Postmasters which as you rightly say was not the case previously. Without them the Post Office does not exist as they make up the vast majority of the business. The other point to make is every single one of these Postmaster owned branches are different. They are based in different locations, have different cliental and football, and for this reason one model does and never has suited all. Although it is important that Post Office make a profit, it is imperative that these Postmasters thrive and want to grow their business not fighting against a management who only want to drive cost efficiency without any inventive ideas to grow. </p><p>I want to give you my background; back in 2006 aged 18 I became at the time the UK’s youngest Sub Postmaster. Having worked at my local branch in the retail offering from 12 years old delivering newspapers and then from 14 behind the retail counter I knew the type of business inside out by the time I was 18. Having come from a family who had no business or retail experience, only office based jobs they were not very keen on me taking this avenue. When the business came up for sale I approached a number of banks to raise the funding to proceed. After months of negotiating and business plans and having spent over 5 years saving £10,000 from such a young age I secured the mortgage and passed the Post Office interview. My branch was a single position, small village community branch with an income of £18,100 (£10,900 of that being an assigned office payment and the remainder commission). Over the presiding 7 years I was able to grow the Post Office income year on year until it reached over £30,000 at a time when a very large percentage were seeing year on year cuts from falling footfall, lower product commissions and loss of products and services. Having a salary of this size in a single counter office (Post Office was no more than 9 square metres in size) in a community setting was almost unheard of. The secret behind that was although the Post Office was pushing me to push all the banking and telecoms products I knew the core business was far more important to my business and for me to thrive. I was successful in selling credit cards, telecoms and insurance but I knew that this was limited to me because of the area and my customer base. The vast majority were elderly, had no bank accounts and on the BT Basic scheme where we couldn’t transfer them to the Post Office telephone service. I didn’t receive a great amount of passing trade, so I had to focus on Mails, Banking and Travel that would result in repeat business and repeat commission for income. I spent months building up a rapport with businesses and individuals who I knew would return week in and week out. Doing this allowed me to grow the Post Office income whilst also growing my retail business with continued daily and weekly visits from these customers. I can see your vision for a return to basics, it is just sad that it has taken so long and many offices are virtually unviable as a result of the Network Transformation program. </p><p>Anyway onto the main reason I am writing to you today. You talk about your excitement being tempered by the group litigation between yourselves and the Post Office (myself being one of them). You came in and wanted it resolved, however the way Post Office Ltd conducted itself in the litigation was nothing short of a disgrace. Spending unlimited amounts of taxpayer cash, attempting to bring the court into disrepute by applying for the judge to recluse himself simply because you didn’t like his findings and the failure to disclose documents that were in the possession of the Post Office. At times Post Office released documents way beyond deadlines hampering the claimants build a case. It is now known as heard in the Court of Appeal this week that Post Office still had not released all the relevant documents to the claimants in that previous civil litigation, not really a great look for openness and transparency is it? Also forgive me for not trusting the Post Office by since it has also come to light about a member of the security team authorising the shredding of documents and meeting minutes, how do we know this hasn’t happened previously before that date without 100% full disclosure of every single document the business holds. You say there is and has been a dissonance within the Post Office. It has always been a ‘them and us’ approach in the 9.5 years I was a Sub Postmaster. </p><p>You must realise that due to the actions of Post Office Ltd in court and the unlimited funding Post Office had from BEIS as they allowed you to continue with the litigation as seen in FOI requests, the claimants had very little chance of success overall, our funding was running low and you simply outspent us. The judge mentioned on numerous occasions that even for a commercial entity the spending was obscene. We were therefore forced into settlement, not out of choice. Had we continued we would have ran out of funding and had to stop and even if we were successful the amounts needing to be repaid to our funder could have eclipsed the damages awarded. Now it was us as claimants who exposed all the shocking revelations of the Post Office’s actions over the two decades and allowed you to make the necessary changes you are. Without us the business would not be able to be turned around. I fully endorse the Historical Shortfall scheme you have agreed to utilise to ensure Postmasters are given redress for the actions of the Post Office. However as you are probably aware because these new claimants have no legal expenses and Post Office has already been exposed therefore even if these new claimants decide to take the legal route rather than the new scheme, Post Office will not have much of a defence. Therefore whichever option these new claimants make they are to receive substantially more compensation, much closer to the actual losses they made at the hands of the Post Office. You want to reset the relationship with Postmasters past and present and change the culture of the Post Office. I am afraid that until full disclosure is made and changes made to this Historical Shortfall scheme this cannot and will not happen. For the same scandal and cover-up one group of claimants who didn’t bother to join the group litigation are now going to receive far greater sums of compensation, and how are they to achieve that by using the judgement from us claimants who battled tooth and nail to expose years of wrongdoing and cover-up within the Post Office. </p><p> So if you are genuine regarding resetting the relationship of Sub Postmasters, changing the culture within the Post Office and turning the business model on its head then I urge you to do the right thing and go further. Allow the 555 claimants to use the historical shortfall scheme to have their cases and losses calculated as they would have in the scheme had they not gone down the litigation route (let’s remember this scheme would never have been setup if it hadn’t been for us and Post Office would be carrying on as if nothing had happened) and then deduct the amounts they have already received from the £11 million litigation settlement (after legal expenses) from the amount due under the new shortfall scheme. This would show you genuinely want to put this scandal to bed once and for all and move on. The reality is otherwise it is not going away as the group will continue until fair justice is delivered for everyone and continue to expose the Post Office wrongdoings. </p><p>I have written to the Secretary of State, the Postal Minister and the Prime Minister outlining similar to what I have suggested along with calls to make the inquiry statutory. Also I have suggested another idea instead of the government/taxpayer footing the bill for all of this mess as is currently the case. The Post Office (with recommendations from yourself) could request from the government a further commercial loan at an agreed interest rate to cover the entire cost of full settlement to the group, settlement of the Historical Shortfall scheme and settlement of the malicious prosecution claims that are to follow after the conclusion of the Court of Appeal hearing. This loan could be provided to the Post Office on a long term basis anything from 20 to even 30/40 year period with the ability to re-negotiate the terms as needed based on profitability and cash flow. From the recent accounts without the one time exceptional items of the litigation and legal costs it appears the Post Office is progressing in the right direction to profitability. You could use the annual profits to pay an agreed % of that off this new loan so therefore the more profit that is made the more that is repaid. Wouldn’t this send to the public and Postmasters that the Post Office itself is paying for the mistakes and wrongdoing of the past rather than the taxpayer footing the majority of the bill. It also allows the Post Office the flexibility based on its future progress and profit. I know the business needs to succeed and want to see this happen regardless of the past especially for the current Postmasters. This would also help send the message that the Post Office is committed to resetting its relationship with Postmasters, change its past image and move on from the dark days of the past.</p><p>I am happy to discuss these ideas with you further if you so wish. </p><p>I look forward to your response. </p><p>Respectfully,</p><p>Christopher Head</p><p>Ex Postmaster West Boldon Post Office"</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">*******************</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.199999809265137px;">I am currently running a crowdfunding campaign to ensure I can attend all relevant appeal court, high court and government inquiry hearings related to the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. Reward levels include access to the secret email, and a forthcoming book. Please <a href="https://store29806256.company.site/" rel="noopener" style="color: #086632; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">click here</a> for more information, and if you would like to support my work.</p>Nick Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17514683092459798316noreply@blogger.com