Confirmation of Horizon trial scheduling

A press release from Luther Pendragon, the PRs for Freeths, who are the solicitors for the claimants:

Post Office Group Litigation update

4 March 2019

The judgement on the Common Issues trial in the Group Legal Action against Post Office Ltd is likely to be formally released in the week of 11 March. It is expected to be extremely detailed and will give full analysis and findings on the 23 separate issues addressed in the trial, as well as observations and findings on the evidence given by the witnesses for both sides.

Interpretation by Freeths on behalf of the JFSA will be made available as soon as possible after the judgement is handed down.

The second trial in the group action will take place in the Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London and will commence on 11 March.  This trial will focus on several issues relating to the accuracy and robustness of the Horizon system used across the Post Office branch network. Ahead of this trial, independent IT experts have been appointed by each of the parties, each of whom will give evidence at trial.

Summary Trial 2 timetable

The trial timetable is subject to change so we cannot provide a detailed account of what is happening each day, however in summary:

Week 1 commencing 11 March

11 March – barristers for each side give opening legal submissions

12-14 March – evidence from claimants

15 March – court not sitting

Week 2 commencing 18 March

18-21 March – evidence from defendants

22 March court not sitting

Week 3 commencing 25 March

Court not sitting

Week 4 commencing 1 April

1-2 April – evidence from claimants’ expert

3 April – evidence from claimants’ expert and defendant’s expert (1/2 day each)

4-5 April – evidence from defendant’s expert

Week 5 commencing 8 April

8-9 April – court not sitting

10 April – claimants’ closing submissions

11 April – defendant’s closing submissions

12 April – court not sitting 

The Managing Judge has stated that he will continue to pro-actively manage the Group Litigation to a final conclusion as quickly as possible, whilst recognising that this is a major case with a large number of complex issues which need to be broken down and determined in stages. 

The ballad of Paula Vennells

Paula Vennells

Paula Vennells this week announced she'll be leaving the Post Office to join Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust as its Chair in April. In January she was awarded a CBE and on 7 Feb she was appointed as a non-executive board member to the Cabinet Office. She leaves her organisation fighting a class action which has the potential to sink it (see timeline here). Paula Vennells' award and the appointments have outraged dozens of former Subpostmasters who hold her ultimately responsible for what happened to them - variously sacked, criminalised and ruined.

Ms Vennells joined the Post Office in 2007 and became CEO in 2012. She was head-hunted after a career working for massive blue chip companies. She started as a graduate trainee at Unilever, moved to L’Oreal, then Dixons Retail, Argos and finally Whitbread. On her decision to join the Post Office she told the Daily Telegraph:

“I felt I’d done the rounds in terms of big corporate jobs and saw something in the Post Office that was bigger and deeper, maybe it was something about giving back. If you work for the Post Office you can’t just focus on the commercial side by itself, it’s about community too. People care desperately for the Post Office. Very often it’s the sub-postmaster or mistress that notices that an elderly customer hasn’t turned up recently and finds out what’s happened to them.”

This quote suggests there was a moral and possibly even spiritual motivation behind her decision. She acknowledges that the public care for the Post Office and recognises this is largely because of the actions of Subpostmasters who "very often" act in a socially-responsible community-minded way. She wanted, in essence, to join the Post Office for the same reasons many Subpostmasters joined - to make a good living, yes, but also to put something back into the community.

What would Jesus do?

The Reverend Paula Vennells is an ordained christian minister. She preaches throughout the Bromham Benefice near her home in Bedfordshire. She has spoken about Faith in Business and how Jesus is her guide in what she does, as a review of one of her speeches records:

"Paula has taken biblical inspiration from the young King Solomon, who showed humility in asking God for a wise and understanding heart, so that he could rule his people with justice (1 Kings 3:6-12).... She has sought to celebrate what is good and deal decisively with what is not. She says communication should be inspiring, but also well structured, and it should not duck complexity – over-simple messages can leave people dissatisfied. In all this she has found inspiration from the person of Jesus."

When Paula Vennells joined the Post Office in 2007 as Sales and Network Director, the Horizon computer system was already wreaking havoc. Dozens of Subpostmasters had been sacked over discrepancies at their branches, and the Post Office's investigations department was busy suspending, investigating and prosecuting Subpostmasters at an alarming rate - with no external oversight of its activities.

A national scandal

Ms Vennells did nothing to stop or even change this. Whilst she was Chief Operating Officer (2009 - 2012) Seema Misra was prosecuted for theft and sent to prison whilst pregnant, despite a judge telling the jury the Post Office had "no direct evidence" on which to convict her. Whilst she was Chief Executive (2012 - 2019) former Subpostmaster Martin Griffiths took his own life and his widow's silence was allegedly bought. On her watch a mediation scheme collapsed in acrimony and the Post Office was described by MPs as "arrogant", "high-handed", "duplicitous" and responsible for a "national scandal". The Daily Mail described what's been happening as likely representing "one of the most widespread miscarriages of justice in the UK this century."

By any measure this would merit comment. But Paula Vennells has not once agreed to be interviewed by any journalist on what her company has been doing to people in the seven years she was running the show, nor the historical cases she inherited. 

This should shame everyone in my profession. For her entire tenure in charge of a multimillion pound, publicly-owned company not a single journalist has held Paula Vennells to account.

Where the buck stops

The one invitation Ms Vennells did accept to explain herself was in front of MPs on 3 Feb 2015, giving oral evidence to the Business Innovation and Skills Select Committee inquiry into the Horizon IT system. I was present.

Just before it started, whilst everyone was milling around the committee room entrance in awkward groups, I shouldered my way into her circle of flunkeys, introduced myself and asked for an interview. I wasn't expecting her to suddenly agree after four years of trying to get her to speak on the record, but I wanted to ensure she never had the opportunity to claim she didn't know about the interview requests she was getting. Ms Vennells was polite, shook my hand and muttered something about speaking to her press office. Which I did, and which, as ever, came to nothing.

During the inquiry (which you can read in full here), the following exchange took place:

Nadhim Zahawi MP: You are the chief executive, so the buck stops with you. 

Paula Vennells: It does stop with me. Also, therefore, as chief executive, I am responsible for the reputation of and what happens for the Post Office.

This is Paula Vennells publicly acknowledging, on the record, her moral, legal and corporate responsibility "for" the Post Office. The buck stops with her.

During that inquiry, Ms Vennells refused to accept the Post Office had done anything wrong with regards to prosecuting its Subpostmasters, and during that session she failed to answer a question about how much legal coaching she'd received in advance of answering MPs questions.

First trial judgment

There is no doubt Paula Vennells is a successful and talented businessperson, and that she has been very careful to ensure there is nothing to explicitly connect her with what her organisation has been doing. 

But she was in charge of the Post Office for 7 years. She was ultimately responsible for the decisions which provoked more than 550 claimants to launch their High Court action (the defence of which is currently costing the taxpayer millions). Some of those decisions are now being investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. This is serious stuff.

The first trial in the class action concluded in December last year. Between Christmas 2018 and the imminent judgment on that first trial Ms Vennells has taken steps to cocoon herself in the establishment's protective embrace.

Of course, Mr Justice Fraser's findings could entirely exonerate her and her actions. If it doesn't, someone somewhere has to hold her to account, because mere journalists can't. 

Paula Vennells has proved that if someone in a powerful publicly-funded position doesn't want to answer serious questions, they don't have to. 

And that's wrong.

***********************

NB: just in case you're wondering, I asked the Post Office if Ms Vennells would be available for an interview about her leaving the Post Office and the court case she's leaving behind. Obviously, it was a no.

So where are we now?

Tony de Garr Robinson (pic: One Essex Court)

Today's pre-trial review was a matter of crossing the tees and dotting the ayes before the Horizon trial, which begins three weeks on Monday.

As the "unbelievably clever and super charming" Anthony de Garr Robinson QC (above) will be leading the Post Office's defence in the Horizon trial, he was in court today. David Cavender QC (who acted for the Post Office in the Common Issues trial) will be back for the third trial this November (see below for more info on that).

In today's pre-trial review:

- The Post Office suffered a comprehensive defeat in its attempt to stop the judge paying too much attention to Ian Henderson's evidence in the forthcoming Horizon trial.

- We got some more clarity on how the Horizon trial will proceed.

Let's deal with the first point first.

Mr de Garr Robinson expended a considerable amount of energy on trying to persuade the judge, Mr Justice Fraser, that accepting the six page witness statement submitted by Ian Henderson, a director of the forensic accounting firm Second Sight, was somehow not fair on the Post Office.

Wary of making a formal strike-out request after the Post Office was defeated in a pre-trial ruling before the Common Issues trial (read the ruling here, it's pretty comprehensive), Mr de Garr Robinson said he was instead seeking some kind of assurance from the judge that the Post Office would be protected from any adverse consequences which might come from interpreting what Mr Henderson has written as expert evidence as opposed to factual evidence (each party is only allowed one expert each in this trial, and there is a practice direction which excludes any other kind of expert witness evidence).

He developed his point to say that although Mr Henderson only provided a six page written statement, in it he makes reference to at least one Second Sight report written about Horizon (read more on Second Sight's reports here).

The conclusions reached by Second Sight are hotly disputed by the Post Office and Mr de Garr Robinson was at pains to point that out to the judge. He suggested that any weight given to Second Sight's reports by the court should only come after a thorough investigation into Second Sight's methodology, which was certainly possible, but time-consuming, expensive and not what the Horizon trial was about.

Good for the Goose

He also said that if he were to challenge Mr Henderson's statement under cross-examination, Mr Henderson would introduce other themes, reports, expertise etc and in order to have the tools to properly counter and question anything Mr Henderson says, a huge amount of work would need to be done, which would take Post Office outside the scope of the purpose of the Horizon trial.

The judge asked if the Post Office felt that Mr Henderson's witness statement amounted to expert evidence effectively admitted by the back door. Mr de Garr Robinson said he did, and said it was therefore specifically prohibited by practice direction.

The judge asked Patrick Green, QC for the claimants if he had anything to say.  Mr Green did. He noted “what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander” and pointed out that a witness statement by a Post Office employee relied very heavily on conversations with Gareth Jenkins, the Fujitsu IT expert who acted for the Post Office in the trial of Seema Misra [read this for more on the Misra trial].

There was a bit more to-ing and fro-ing and then the judge made his ruling, which was that Mr Henderson's witness statement should stand in its entirety and that during the trial the Post Office could cross-examine him on it for a maximum of one hour.

Another thing which came out of these exchanges was that Gareth Jenkins from Fujitsu is not being called to be cross-examined, and neither is Professor Charles MacLachlan (the latter was appointed an independent IT expert for Mrs Misra).

It's odd that Mr Jenkins is not going to be cross-examined. Two months before he was acting for the Post Office in the Misra trial (which, don't forget, led to Mrs Misra being sent to prison whilst pregnant, solely on the basis of Horizon "evidence") he took part in a meeting about a serious Horizon error which had been affecting several Post Offices for months. The existence of this error had deliberately been kept secret from the affected Subpostmasters, even though it would be potentially leaving them out of pocket. As far as I am aware Mr Jenkins did not disclose the existence of this error to the jury, or to Professor MacLachlan. Perhaps he decided it wasn't relevant. Because he is not being cross-examined, I suspect we'll never know.

Scheduling the Horizon trial

The second part of the morning was taken up with a discussion on scheduling. Both parties pleaded for more time to cross-examine the witnesses and experts, which the judge cheerily refused.

During this discussion it was revealed that the independent IT expert appointed by the claimants, Jason Coyne, has discovered 22 Horizon errors. These must have some kind of material impact or they wouldn't be part of his report. It'll be interesting to know more about them when that report is released to the court.

The way the trial will proceed is as follows:

11 March - opening arguments from the claimants and defence
12 - 14 March - cross-examination of the claimants' witnesses by the Post Office QC
18 - 21 March - cross-examination of 12 Post Office witnesses by the claimants' QC
1 - 5 April - cross examination of the expert witnesses (2.5 days each)
10 and 11 April - closing arguments

You'll notice the court is not sitting w/c 25 March - this was first floated by the judge at the case management conference on Tuesday. It is now definite. Apparently Britain is potentially leaving the EU that week, and HM Courts and Judiciary (including Mr Justice Fraser) need to be on standby for who knows what kind of legal shenanigans.

Among the last things the judge mentioned this morning was me, by name, which woke me up a bit. The judge indicated that his order during the common issues trial that I receive daily transcripts of each day of the trial's proceedings should continue during the Horizon trial. Which is quite the thing.

The next 12 months

So after Tuesday's case management conference and today's pre-trial review, this is where we are now:

28 Feb or first week in March Common Issues trial judgment due.
11 March - Horizon trial starts
11 April - Horizon trial ends
Sometime in May - Horizon trial judgment due
23 July - case management conference for Breach/Concealment trial (also known as "Round 3")
18 Sep - case management conference for Breach/Concealment trial
17 October - pre-trial review for Breach/Concealment trial
4 November - Breach/Concealment trial

The Breach/Concealment trial is scheduled to last four weeks. The cases of claimants Naushad Abdulla and Pam Stubbs will be tried. Both Naushad Abdulla and Pam Stubbs were lead claimants in the first trial, so you can read their witness statements and oral evidence here.

Issues of limitation, concealment and breach will be tried. On Tuesday in court pleadings, disclosure and evidence were discussed. The general agreement appeared to be that key moments around specific incidents which have already been identified in each claimant's case will be gone over in detail, and the Post Office will be required to disclose all the documentation relating to each of these specific incidents so they can be tried fully.

The judgment in this trial could arrive just before Christmas 2019, but bearing in mind the speed at which things are happening now - it's more likely going to be Jan or Feb 2020.

Only after that will the judge decide how relatable his findings are to the remainder of the claimants.

Whatever the relatability of those findings to the wider GLO cohort, we will get concrete findings for or against Mrs Stubbs and Mr Abdulla. If the judge finds in (either of) their favour, there will be damages.

If you want to have a read of today's live tweets, they're here. All errors my own, including calling Mr Coyne "Mr Coin" throughout. Happy Valentine's Day.

Horizon Trial pre-trial review live tweets

Here are the live tweets I sent out during this morning's pre-trial review. You can read a beautifully-formatted version on thread reader here and you can read the original thread on twitter here. Or just read down...

We are in Court 19 of the High Court Rolls Building for a Pre-trial conference (PTC). The morning’s discussion will be about the second trial in Bates and others v Post Office - the Horizon trial - starting 11 March. pic.twitter.com/dQGocGWYxr

— Nick Wallis (@nickwallis) February 14, 2019

All tweets are paraphrases and summaries of what is being discussed. Nothing I tweet is said verbatim unless it is in “direct quotes”.

Mr Patrick Green QC will be representing the claimant Subpostmasters. Mr Anthony de Garr Robinson QC repping the Post Office.

Follow this thread for all the “action”.*
* I am not expecting much action.

Judge is sitting. They are discussing the witness statement of one of my followers @forensicgod and his meeting with Gareth Jenkins, the Fujitsu employee who was the expert witness for the Post Office in Seema Misra’s trial.

PO counsel has apparently objected to something in @forensicgod’s (Ian Henderson) statement.

PO QC says it is not seeking to exclude all his evidence. It is just trying to limit it to “proper” facts.

Also PO QC keen to keep Professor Charles McLachlan out of the picture (he was Seema Misra’s expert witness in her trial).

JFSA QC confirms the prof will not be called

So PO have successfully blocked Professor Charles McLachlan and they are trying to limit @forensicgod’s on the basis of practice directions which try to keep proceedings manageable.

CPR 35.1 is the practice direction which limits expert evidence.

PO QC says @forensicgod’s evidence falls well outside of this general prohibition.
JFSA QC relying on case law to keep @forensicgod’s in the trial. Judge is going to have to make a ruling on it.

Going back to @forensicgod’s statement on his knowledge of Horizon and the manner in which Second Sight was terminated by the PO, his confidentiality agreement and the way docs were provided to him by the PO. PO QC call the latter three issues “blissfully irrelevant."

PO QC not happy about @forensicgod’s description of receiving data from the PO. Saying his “concerns” are not even a conclusion.

PO QC says Second Sight’s reports are hotly contested and if they were to be incorporated into this trial work would have to be done on whether those reports were done properly. By referring to and relying on those reports in his witness statement @forensicgod is...

… introducing huge areas which “is not what the Horizon issues trial is for."
PO QC says this matters a great deal. They are angling for the opportunity to cross-examine @forensicgod, which he currently isn’t scheduled to do on a time-limited basis.

But also saying that if they do that - then @forensicgod will introduce a load of other arguments and justifications which would extend the document bundle significantly. So even if they did get to xe @forensicgod it wouldn’t be fair on them.

PO QC repeats that this is not what the trial is about. PO QC now repeating judge’s words back to him from a CMC on 22 Feb when he told the court exactly what the Horizon trial was to be all about.

Evidence of fact kept to a minimum and the court was to rely on expert evidence.

J asks how many PO witnesses of fact there are going to be.
PO QC says about 12.
J The only real issues is how to treat Mr Henderson (@forensicgod) - you say he’s an expert by the back door.
PO QC: My lord we do.

It’s a very odd process that seeks to exclude experts. But hey. That’s the law.

PO seem to be saying that @forensicgod is making claims as an expert, but they have no oppo to challenge them. But that it would be bad to challenge them because it would create a whole load more work and court time. So it would be better if it weren’t admitted.

PO QC insists, tho, that is is not a strikeout application. (PO QC is making this submission in full awareness of the last PO strikeout application which they lost comprehensively).

PO QC wants a ruling or direction which gives PO the protection its entitled to adverse consequences from accepting his evidence.

PO QC says admitting the evidence when it isn’t properly challenged creates a problem, but allowing that challenge would extend the trial and

give the PO a headache in having the tools to respond to whatever @forensicgod says. AND that they shouldn’t be doing this anyway because the work of Second Sight is NOT what the Horizon trial is all about.

JFSA QC responds “what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander”. There is a massive assymmetry in the information available to the claimants and to the PO.

JFSA QC taking J to a document in the bundle (Vol 2 of 5 Sec 5 Tab 7b, fact fans). Mr Godseth (?)’s second witness statement talking about Prof M and Gareth Jenkins again.

Witness statement refers to payments mismatch bug, callendar square bug, dalmellington bug…

J so you’re saying he’s being called as a witness of fact, when in fact he’s making expert witness points.

JFSA QC “its much worse than that” - goes on to quote how this PO witness...

… relies on conversations with Gareth Jenkins (who is also not being called in this trial).

Gareth Jenkins was the PO expert witness from Fujitsu at the Misra trial who was also present in internal PO meetings around the same time of the Misra trial discussing withholding information about Horizon bugs from Subpostmasters, as we discovered in the common issues trial.

Wonder why Jenkins is not being called in Horizon trial.

We are going to get a direction/ruling/order on @forensicgod’s witness statement, now.

Judge is summarizing the GLO before he gives the ruling for the written record.

H trial is about: Bugs errors defects in Horizon and how H does or does not work. There are 15 of these issues and claimants and PO are allowed to call one expert witness each.

He is now explaining the Second Sight investigation and its termination. Mr Henderson as a director of 2S has provided a short witness statement. His WS is somewhat short, but it does refer to reports by 2S. It summarises the position as he sees it involving his views...

… as he sees it on technical matters. No application was made by the PO to get his statement thrown out (which they tried to do in a wide-ranging way before the Common Issues trial). They are objecting that under CPR 35 this is introducing expert evidence by the back door.

They also object to his evidence on the basis that they don’t know what they can attack and that it would be a huge amount of work to prepare to do so.

Witnesses of fact in the TCC courts often have a huge amount of technical knowledge. Insofar as @forensicgod’s evidence seeks to rely on 2S’s reports as being correct I don’t need to consider that.

I am not going to allow this trial to be sidetracked into a satellite trial about the quality of 2S’s reports.

It doesn’t seem to me the concerns the PO has raised are either unusual or well-founded. J notes that PO has called witnesses of fact with vast amounts of expertise.

I don’t think it is helpful if I strike out or rule any of Mr H’s evidence as inadmissible. Nor am I going to tell the PO what they can or can’t challenge about it. That’s up to them.

Mr Henderson can be cross-examined, but I don’t expect that to last more than an hour.

That means @forensicgod’s witness statement is allowed to stand in its entirety.

We are now discussing timetabling of the Horizon trial.

It will definitely start on 11 March. Half a day each for opening submissions. Then the rest of the first week will be taken with the cross-examination of claimants witnesses.

The second week will be claimants’ xe of PO witnesses.

Third week the court will not sit cos Brexit.

Fourth week (commencing 1 April) will start the expert witness evidence.

PO QC wants to spend 4 days xe-ing Mr Coin - the claimants’ expert witness. Mr Coin has apparently uncovered 22 bugs in Horizon.

PO QC says that he could spend an hour xe-ing Mr Coin on each bug - that’s 22 hours.

J not having any of it. Says its very unusual for anyone in the TCC courts to be on the stand for more than a day. Your request is excessive.

JFSA QC on his feet. Says we’re going to have a lot of trouble getting through all 12 of the PO’s witnesses of fact.

J notes that a while back this trial would take 6 months. We’re not going back to that.
I know in an ideal world each of you would like a week each, but you’re...

… not going to get it.
JFSA QC we’re asking for three days.
J I know and you’re not going to get it.
JFSA QC - nothing further to add.

J okay - w/c 1 April we will sit 5 days and you will get 2.5 days each.
Anything you can’t put to the witnesses you can put in summary form in your closing argument. I am sure in 5 days of xe I will be very well informed and able to
to come to a conclusion.

J notes the IT experts for PO and JFSA are meeting this morning to agree a further joint statement. There’s no reason why they can’t meet again. They ought to be encouraged to agree as much as possible.

Final week will be closing submissions from the JFSA and the PO QCs.

Suspect the court will not be sitting on Mon 8 April and Tue 9 April to give the judge time to read the closing submissions.

Judge has just ordered that I get the transcripts of each day in court as they are distributed to the claimants and defence.

Which was nice.

Court has risen.

So that’s that. A wee battle over the admissibility of @forensicgod’s evidence which the Post Office lost, scheduling and timetabling discussions and we’re all set for 11 March.

Justice delayed

Rollsing Rollsing Rollsing...

The judge in the Post Office group litigation has told a Case Management Conference at the High Court Rolls Building today that his judgment on the Common Issues trial, which finished on Thursdau 6 December, will now not be released until the final day of February at the earliest.

Mr Justice Fraser had told the court he wanted to hand down his findings at the end of January, but the judgment isn't finished. He gave no reasons for the delay or why it would take at least a full month longer to complete. He put the claimants and the defendant on notice that they would receive the draft judgment in "late" February.

The notification of the delay came at the end of a morning's legal argument about the third trial of this group litigation. The judge ordered this will begin on Monday 4 November and will last four weeks.

We also got a little closer to understanding what the third trial would be about. The judge today directed (in the face of some resistance from the Post Office) it will be about some of the outstanding issues which weren't covered by the Common Issues trial and won't be in the forthcoming Horizon trial. I haven't seen the skeleton arguments from either party so I don't know what those outstanding issues are or will be, but the claimants' QC, Mr Patrick Green was very keen to get alleged issues of deceit, concealment and fraud by the Post Office into the third trial.

Whether he will succeed or not will be played out between the QCs as they meet up to discuss things next week. If the QCs cannot come to an agreement, they will each draw up a list and the judge will decide which issues the trial will cover at the next case management conference on Tuesday 12 February.

Round three

The judge also wants both parties to decide whether or not the third trial will need Lead Claimants and whether or not those lead claimants will be the same as the lead claimants in the Common Issues trial. If new lead claimants are to be selected, he needs to know how many new lead claimants both sides are proposing and he wants them to agree the mechanism for selecting those claimants by the date of the next CMC.

It is almost certain a fourth trial will now take place in Spring 2020.

Reading the above must be hugely disappointing for those who were hoping a judgment on last year's Common Issues trial was imminent, but it's now going to arrive very close to the start of the Horizon trial, which begins on 11 March.

Newsworthy findings might stoke wider media interest in the next chapter of this very long and very drawn out legal story.

Read today's full live tweets here.

*****************************

Secret email to follow tonight. If you want to subscribe to that - please put any cash you can afford in the tip jar, which is on the right hand nav bar of this website. All major cards accepted...

It looks like I am going to be following this group litigation for at least another year. Every pound you give (after PayPal take their cut) will go towards helping me report it effectively. Thank you!

Case Management Conference live tweets

Hi all - live tweets of today's proceedings below. Read the originals on twitter here, or read the thread on thread reader here. Or just read down...

Case Management Conference for Bates and others v Post Office has begun. Court 1 of the Rolls Building. Mr Justice Fraser presiding. Mr Cavender QC for @postoffice, Mr Green QC for the claimants currently on his feet.#postofficetrial
Follow this thread for live tweets. pic.twitter.com/8xjNJKtUzU

— Nick Wallis (@nickwallis) January 31, 2019

Mr Patrick Green and Judge discussing October’s trial. PG apologises for documents going to the wrong place. J says a couple of years in and he’s sure the documents will go where they should eventually.

Just a note - nothing in these tweets is a direct quote unless it is in direct quotes. These tweets are paraphrases and summaries of what is going on. And they will be infrequent as I try to pull out the nuggets from the legal to-ing and fro-ing.

#postofficetrial

If you want to know why I am in court, do have a look at postofficetrial.com - it has the whole story.

#postofficetrial

October’s trial might not be October’s trial at this rate… it could be December. 

I am told some group litigations can take 5 years...

The third trial (previously known as October’s trial) doesn’t yet have a name. It was being called the “Breach” trial during the Common Issues trial.

Mr David Cavender QC for the Post Office on his feet.

Argument is about how many lead cases the third trial should have as well as the number of experts and the date.

There are at least three journalists in court, which must be some sort of record for a CMC. I did warn them.

Circular discussion which still hasn’t been resolved since the last trial - it is in the interests of doing things thoroughly to try as few claimants as possible in the third trial. However the fewer you do, the fewer issues they have which are relevant to the wider claimant pool

Everyone agreed on this. Ideas for how to resolve it not yet aired.

PO QC: this is what happens in any group litigation.

J: It’s what’s happening in THIS litigation.

The claimants proposed solution is to try more issues in third trial rather than individual cases. PO QC calls this “not very well thought through"

We are already one journalist down.

J: "I consider a round three trial in the autumn of 2019 not only to be a good idea, but to be essential."

J also says a 5 week trial (as opposed to a 10 week trial) is the best balance between cost, effectiveness and resolution.

So we’re going to have a 5 week trial in the autumn. But we are no nearer to what its content will be than we were in December. So how is judge going to move this forward?

J rejects PO’s argument that third trial should be of two individual claimants. It will instead be (subject to informed debate between the parties) on a group of issues. Claimants very keen to get alleged issues of deceit, concealment and fraud by PO into the third trial.

J notes no agreement about what third trial involves or which claimants should be involved. today’s CMC was meant to be all about third trial and yet there’s no agreement between the parties at all about what form it should take….

… However J has now decided it will be on a group of issues.

J so you want third trial to happen in the autumn and you want it to be around other issues not yet agreed to maximum resolution, and you want to spend the next 7 days discussing what those issues are and if you can’t agree you come back to me?

PG Yes.

J turns to PO QC.

DC: My lord I think it is a terrible idea.

[he goes on to explain why]

J going through PO plan. Resolving 2 cases in trial three, then 16 cases in trial 4 in 2020. Judge’s tone suggests he is not happy with this proposal.

J Suggests this means no resolution for the first claimants till 2020.

PO QC says J's got low expectations of what might come out of third trial. It will inform many other claimants’ cases.

J I think is pushing for a re-run of first trial format except with different issues and potentially new lead claimants.

J about to make an order.

Third trial (now called R3) scheduled for 8 Oct. J wonders if this is too soon given we appear to be starting from scratch.

PG asks for November start.

PO QC agrees.

Okay so date of third trial R3 (this was first raised during the first week of the Common Issues trial in November last year. it’s taken more than two months to get to this)...

Third trial will start on 4 November and last for four weeks. That is now an order. Finally.

Judge adjourns rest of CMC till Tue 12 Feb

J: you must agree a list of issues to be identified in R3 and whether there are issues of fact involved and therefore how many lead claimants needed. If you can’t agree I need a list from both of you and I will make a decision.

J also orders the two QCs to meet and actually spend some time together to try to resolve their issues.

PG QC: We are quite good at that now.

PO QC asking judge to order a proposals list of lead claimants for R3 and set up a selection process for those claimants. And that that selection criteria process should start now.

J you will agree list of issues in R3, which of the existing lead claimants can be used in R3 and..

… if there are any new lead claimants to be added the selection criteria for choosing the new lead claimants.

J turns to judgment of Common Issues trial. 

Had hoped it would be end Jan, but it isn’t finished. Current plan is draft will be with parties in late Feb. J says it will not be handed down [made public]...

… AT LEAST before the last day in Feb.

J has asked that both the Post Office and claimants liaise transparently with the press to ensure all parties are aware of the date the judgment will be handed down as soon as it is known. Both QCs agree.

Judge rises. CMC over. Alan Bates, head of the JFSA has just walked over to me. He’s asked that I let people know that the two conferences he was planning to hold with claimants in Feb will now be postponed until the judgment has been handed down.

Oh well.

That concludes todays tweets from #postofficetrial

Full write-up will be on the blog postofficetrial.com as soon as I can.

Parliamentary questions

On 24 January, Gill Furniss, Labour MP for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and Shadow Minister for Steel, Consumer Protection and Postal Services, put down two written parliamentary questions. They follow the written question put down by Lord Arbuthnot in the House of Lords on 19 November.

Ms Furniss's questions were as follows:

1: "To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Post Offices' [sic] Horizon IT system; and if he will make a statement." 

2: "To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many prosecutions the Post Office has made against Sub Post Masters over the Post Offices IT Horizon system; and if he will make a statement."

On 29 January these questions received the same, word-for-word responses from Kelly Tolhurst, Conservative MP for Rochester and Strood, and Gill Furniss's opposite number at BEIS:

"While the Government sets the strategic direction for the Post Office, it allows the company the commercial freedom to deliver its strategy and operate as an independent business. The Horizon IT system and management of the branch network are operational matters for Post Office Limited. Paula Vennells, the Group Chief Executive of Post Office Limited, will write to the hon. Member on these matters. A copy of her reply will be placed in the Libraries of the House."

So Paula Vennells will be required to answer:

1: What recent assessment of the effectiveness of Horizon has been made.
2: How many prosecutions have been made against Subpostmasters over the Horizon system.

I can imagine the first answer will be a load of blee about continuous assessment unless there was a specific reason for framing the question in that way. The second answer might be more interesting. I think from memory the Post Office say they don't hold records going back to the advent of Horizon.

Many times whilst following this story I've been asked by other journalists about the number of annual prosecutions of Subpostmasters in the (say) ten years leading up to the introduction of Horizon and the ten years after, but FOI requests have not produced the answer. Let's see if a shadow minister can find out.

My thanks to Mike for alerting me to the above questions being asked!

*******************
There is a case management conference taking place at the High Court Rolls Building tomorrow. I will be in attendance. During this conference, the date on which the Common Issues trial judgment will be handed down is going to be "addressed".  Secret email subscribers will get the usual full service, but there will be plenty to read and see on this blog and on twitter.

Please consider donating via the website PayPal tip jar if you can. The only reason I can afford to report from court is because of the support of people who have donated. Thank you to those who already have.

"The horror of that whole Post Office fiasco was a major factor in her death."

When I read this article in Forecourt Trader magazine, I couldn't quite believe it. I've come across grim stories in the past, but this one seemed worse than most, particularly with regard to the alleged behaviour of Post Office staff on the ground.

I contacted Phil. He kindly wrote a personal account of his experience for this blog and showed me the corroborating documentation he had available. Phil is a claimant in the group litigation, and many of his files are now held by the Freeths, the claimants' solicitors.

I am satisfied it is Phil's honestly-held belief that the events he describes below happened as he tells them.

Phil Cowan

"I used to be based in Edinburgh and was a reasonably successful businessman. I had multiple interests including a number of Shell service stations (back when there was still money in it), a Cash Converter and a valeting company. I was also slowly building a property portfolio.

With further diversification in mind I bought a post office on Parson's Green Terrace in Edinburgh and we opened on 5 Feb 2001.

The office had a sizeable retail area and the idea was that Fiona, my other half, would in due course, take over the running of the office allowing me to exploit the healthy Post Office footfall for retail purposes. I'd already had many years experience in this area via my service station outlets..

I would be keeping a watchful eye, whilst taking care of my other business commitments.

This was all made clear to the Post Office in my business plan, which I still have.

As the registered Subpostmaster, I needed to learn the ropes and fully satisfy myself that I was a capable 'buck-stop'.

Crash course

I prepared myself for some hefty training.

I received ONE week!

The Post Office rep who supposedly trained me then flounced out of the office promising he'd be at the end of the phone should I encounter any problem. And there was always the helpline.

The actual training consisted initially of a flurry of paperwork which needed to be read, digested and signed followed by a crash course in operating a terminal alongside the one-thousand-and-one other actions required to run a post office.

The Horizon training merely comprised an explanation of the various icons on the terminal and an official handing over of my very own Horizon Operations Manual - oh and the number of the help-lines. I was not shown any troubleshooting techniques or what to do if the system showed discrepancies or shortfalls.

Phil and Fiona with one of her boys in 2008

I have had a long business career, working for large organisations throughout my life. I can honestly say the Post Office training was the worst I ever experienced, considering the complexity of the system and the consequences and personal liability should anything go wrong. Other companies would require months of training in order to be left alone to deal with a system like Horizon.

Luckily I inherited a very experienced staff member and with her help and guidance, over six months or so, Fiona and I became satisfied that we actually knew what the hell we were doing - although we had never envisaged just how complex it would be to run a post office.

Over time Fiona became super-competent (she was very clever with great admin skills) and although we had lost our main staff member to retirement we were lucky enough to secure the services of yet another efficient counter assistant (we'll call her Brenda). Brenda came highly recommended by my area manager. She was a veteran with decades of blemish-free counter experience in both Crown and franchised branch offices.

Brenda was a lovely salt-of-the-earth lady and she and my wife became good friends.

After another year or so - aside from building-up and running the retail side - my sole contribution to running the post office counter was producing the weekly balance.

Hours checking everything

We promoted Brenda to manager, and in due course Fiona and Brenda took on the joint responsibility of producing the weekly balance, reporting back to me accordingly.

When I did the balancing my recollection is that there were numerous discrepancies, but many of them bounced back via Transaction Corrections the following week or were re-credited at a later date.

I remember mentioning it to the Post Office area rep but he simply dismissed it as 'some kind of crossover' (as did the help-desk).

However there were also a number of occasions I do remember where I had to fork out sums that never did return - two of them sizeable - £200 and £2000.

At no point did I suspect dishonesty - a slip of the finger perhaps - but there was only my wife and Brenda with my daughter helping on the retail side. I also had a sophisticated cctv system, including covert cameras - there for an absolute double-check.

Also, we did not just accept a shortage - we would spend hours and hours after a balance double-checking absolutely everything again and again. My wife and Brenda had a mantra - 'it has GOT to be here somewhere'. They'd repeat it constantly throughout the check.

Fast-forward now to 11 Feb 2004 - one of the worst days of my life.

Discrepancy, audit, ransacking and closure

I received a phone call from Brenda informing me that the weekly balance was showing a shortage of more than thirty thousand pounds.

Convinced it had to be an error I rushed over to the office and did a further two balances myself. These produced the same awful result.

My wife informed me that the shortage had been accumulating in large amounts over the previous five weeks.

Fuming at Brenda, I reminded her that it was a part of her responsibilities to inform me immediately of any shortage greater than two figures - and why hadn't she done so!?

It transpired that she'd been overruled by my wife 'so as not to worry me'.

They'd recently been experiencing shortages on a regular basis, they told me, but up until the last five weeks they'd bounced back the following week - literally all of them.

They'd simply been rolling over with the shortages.

For five weeks they'd been expecting a similar outcome but the discrepancies did not reverse, they  accumulated.

I immediately called the area manager, explained the situation, and he was there within the hour, alongside two forensic accountants.

The accountants did two balances arriving at the same awful conclusion.

The area manager then took me aside and asked me just one question..."how soon can you pay us back?"

The three of them then literally ransacked the place, emptying the office of all that had Post Office ownership. Money, stamps, postal orders, alongside the terminals, scales and  finally demanding the keys to the safes.

It was all over in a flash! The office never opened again.

You're the only one

Over the next few days we were each of us called in 'individually' for questioning, firstly by the local management and then by a team of three investigators from the head office in England.

From the very start their attitude toward us was one of guilty until proven innocent.

I remember the investigation team at one point attempting to point the finger of suspicion toward my wife, telling me that in the majority of cases they've investigated it turned out to be the spouse. This seemed 'scripted' as I'd already had the same spiel from the local guys.

No matter how much I protested our innocence, suggesting a possible glitch in the system, it was met with the same slow head-shake accompanied by a knowing smirk - 'if that were the case you'd be the only Subpostmaster in the entire network to experience such a glitch - ever!' I was expressly told that if I was experiencing problems with Horizon then I was ‘the only one on the planet’ having such issues.

Eventually I was cleared of any suspicion but both Fiona and Brenda were charged with false accounting.

I requested a temporary Subpostmaster to run our office until we got to the bottom of it, but this was categorically refused.

I invited them to come take a look at our home; encouraged them to have a look at our bank accounts; our properties; welcomed any kind of private investigation, however intrusive.

£30,000 is a lot of money for sure, but at that time it was a drop in ocean compared to my net worth.
But they were having none of it. Simply not interested.

The investigation team scuttled back down south, assuring me they had the facility to trace and investigate the transaction journey from point-of-sale to destination - something I'd asked about - and they said that they would report back.

I never heard from them again, nor were they contactable.

Post Office refuse to co-operate with police

Meanwhile, angered at the way the investigation was being conducted - and by now deeply suspicious of their motives (network re-invention was underway at the time) - I approached the local police asking that they investigate, supplying them with a comprehensive background and log of events.

They contacted me a few days later apologetically explaining that although they were happy to help, the Post Office were unwilling to co-operate. Not only that, they spelled out to the police that they had their own autonomous investigative structure which included power of arrest & charge.

As the months then drifted by, the prospect of re-opening my branch became unrealistic - my customers/clients etc had been hoovered up by other offices and the retail side was nothing without the footfall.

The shop became derelict and a target of vandalism - also ineligible for insurance.

I recall one incident when Fiona needed to visit the shop after the alarm had been triggered. Whilst boarding up a broken window she was spat on by a former customer. This was witnessed by her two little boys. Charming!

Not long after that I sold it for a pittance.

I did continue to fight my corner however - mainly from the perspective of not being allowed to keep my office open for business. With the help of the National Federation of Subpostmasters - and under the auspices of 'punishment over-kill', the Post Office eventually caved and in 2007 I was offered an £88,000 redundancy payment (from which, of course, they deducted £30,000). Every penny of the balance went toward the outstanding mortgage on the shop.

In the meantime Post Office had 'kindly' informed the local press of the office closure and my resultant suspension.

Word got around, as it does, and in 2008 when a fresh contract with Shell was due for renewal I was subtly and informally advised 'not to bother'. That's the way they worked.

Anything verging on 'dodgy' was a complete no-no with Shell, even after a 14 year blemish-free partnership. I was even training their company-owned site managers for them.

I was a damaged man that's for sure. I'd now lost my main source of income, my post office was gone and the economic collapse of 2008 meant my little property portfolio had all but evaporated, as had the Cash Converter.

Overdose and death

But it was nothing compared to that suffered by my wife.

She was a dynamic woman - full of energy with a strong work ethic (and a good heart), and she genuinely enjoyed her job.

Sadly she also suffered sporadic bouts of black depression, brought on by a dreadful experience as a child. Three or four times a year it would hit her, and each time it would be for a three or four day stretch. It could be truly awful.

Generally she could work through them, and her post office duties were good for her in that respect, as was her beautiful garden.

Now suddenly she was unemployed. Not only that, it dawned on her that she was now probably 'unemployable' due to the criminal charge hanging over her - she would be too honest not to mention it at job interview.

She also felt terribly betrayed by Brenda , whose friendship she greatly valued. She believed what the Post Office investigators had told her...that one of us was a thief....and she knew it wasn't us!

Without going into detail Fiona eventually succumbed to her mental illness and spiralled downwards into what she called her 'cauldron of misery'.

She passed away in her sleep on 21 January 2009 after accidentally over-dosing on her medication.
She was 47.

I have no doubt in my mind that the horror of that whole Post Office fiasco was a major factor in her death.
What's more, I found out years later via a freedom of information requests that the criminal charges against her had been dropped years before - while she was still with us.

The Post Office did not even have the courtesy or decency to inform her."

The Post Office have told me they will not comment on individual cases whilst the group litigation is ongoing.

Fiona McGowan 1961 - 2009

Other stories:

16 Jan 2019
A former Subpostmaster writes: "She was simply regurgitating a lie."

6 Jan 2019
A former Subpostmaster writes: "I am broken."

30 Dec 2018
A claimant writes: "I felt a fool for trusting them."

12 Dec 2018
A former Subpostmaster writes: "This was systematic abuse... I lost my business and lost my family."

27 Nov 2018
A former Subpostmaster writes: "I hate them."

Expert comment menu
Articles by me
First trial menu
Timeline

Start here

I'm trying to make this website as accessible as possible. If you're new to this story's twenty year history it might seem tricky working out where to dive in. This page is here to help.

So... what's this Post Office Horizon IT scandal all about, then? 

Here is an attempt to answer that question in 400 words.

If you'd like to know more about who I am and the reason for this website's existence - do take a look at the About section. It was one of the first pages I put together. It tells you about my relationship to the story, as well as the crowdfunding campaign I launched to fund my reporting.

Subpostmasters

The human stories at the centre of this scandal should be keeping a lot of people awake at night. They are, on occasion, harrowing. Many more remain untold.

"I hate everything about it. I will not go into a Post Office" - Nicki, 32yo, is accused of theft by Post Office goons. She loses everything. The trial is a farce. The jury find her not guilty. She has been on Prozac on and off ever since.
"They didn't care that I was this scared girl" - Tracy, a 19yo, is accused of theft. She pleads innocent, tries to commit suicide and is jailed.
Wendy Buffrey's story - accused of theft and false accounting, Wendy suffers a complete mental breakdown.
"The horror of that whole Post Office fiasco was a major factor in her death" - Phil loses his wife after the Post Office accuse him of losing tens of thousands of pounds.
"I am broken" - Wendy Martin ploughs thousands into her Post Office, it is badly wired, her computer keeps cutting out, she is accused of losing £30,000. She is clinically depressed, on pills and has lost everything.
Seema and Jo's story - Seema was thrown in prison whilst pregnant, Jo narrowly avoided jail.
Sue Knight's story - part of two five minute, easy to watch BBC tv pieces. Accused of false accounting, Sue is advised to plead guilty. She refuses. The Post Office offers no evidence and the case collapses.
Julian Wilson RIP

For more, please see the Victim testimony page.

The litigation which gives this website its name:

Bates and others v Post Office class action (or Group Litigation Order) was filed in 2016.

The first (Common Issues) trial was held in Nov/Dec 2018.
First trial judgment was handed down 15 March 2019.
The second (Horizon) trial was held Mar/Jul 2019.
The Horizon trial judgment was handed down on 16 Dec 2019 - see "They did it".
Though, weirdly, the case was actually settled on 11 Dec 2019 - see "It's all over"
As a direct result of the litigation, 39 Subpostmaster cases which were being investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have now been referred to the Court of Appeal.
The Prime Minister has indicated he would support a public inquiry into this scandal.

The shareholder - HMG:

Despite being the sole shareholder in Post Office Ltd, the government has essentially let it operate without proper scrutiny for the best part of 20 years. Successive Postal Services Ministers have refused to be interviewed. There has not been a single review of the Post Office's prosecution strategy.

The cover-up, part 2 "They wanted it all to go away"
"Trying to hold the government to account for its actions" - meeting the current minister for Postal Services and a senior civil servant who sits on the board of the Post Office.
BIS select committee inquiry into Horizon IT system - 3 Feb 2015
Transcript of the Westminster Hall debate on the Horizon IT system - 17 Dec 2014

Post Office senior management:

"The Ballad of Paula Vennells" - how the Post Office chief executive managed to wash her hands of what her own organisation was accused of doing.
"And with that... she was gone" - summary of the outgoing Post Office CEO's failures.

"Vennells' career ends in ignominy" - Paul Vennells resigns from public life after convictions are quashed.

Since this story broke in 2009, the Post Office has refused to be interviewed about any aspect of it. Apart from once on BBC Radio 4's Today programme in 2014 ("Post Office: the ONLY interview" - transcript of the 2014 Post Office interview.

The unions:

Whilst the government has failed to properly scrutinize the Post Office from above, the failure of the National Federation of Subpostmasters to challenge from below is perhaps the biggest scandal of them all. The NFSP has repeatedly thrown members who were having problems with Horizon under a bus. It is only now the Communications Workers Union has gained a toe-hold amongst Subpostmasters that the Post Office is being properly challenged.

Common Issues trial judgment: the NFSP - a damning indictment of the NFSP's activities, colluding with the Post Office and acting against its members interests, written up in a High Court judgment.
The Post Office admits it can ignore the NFSP - the NFSP claims it negotiates with the Post Office. The Post Office says it only discusses things with the NFSP and can safely ignore it.
Bates v Post Office: The NFSP - my view on the NFSP, written well before the High Court judgment, but coming to more or less the same conclusion.
A union man writes - a former NFSP rep turned CWU organiser tells all.

Key moments:

"He did it" - after sixteen years of campaigning, Alan Bates wins the first ever judgment against the Post Office over its treatment of Subpostmasters.
"Going Postal" - the Post Office submits its application to recuse the litigation's presiding judge. All hell breaks loose.
The recusal hearing - Lord Grabiner v Sir Peter Fraser.
Sir Peter Fraser declines to be recused. A damning judgment.
Fraser J is going nowhere - the Court of Appeal agrees the Post Office's recusal application is entirely without merit.
First trial judgment appeal application - the Post Office is applying to appeal the Common Issues trial judgment.
The long March to, er March - the third trial in this litigation will happen in March 2020. This piece sums up the current state of play.

"They did it" - the litigation is settled with a £57.75m payment to the claimants.

CCRC refers 39 cases to the Court of Appeal

First convictions quashed at Southwark Crown Court.

Court of Appeal quashes 39 convictions.

Statutory Inquiry is announced.

The cover-up

What the Post Office knew, what the government knew... parts 1 and 2.

Crowdfunding

I am a freelance journalist and have been following this story since 2010. Between 2011 and 2020 I made several broadcast pieces for the BBC, including a Panorama, a File on 4 plus several investigations for Inside Out and the One Show. I also spent nine years contributing to Private Eye magazine on this story, culminating in a six page special report, which was published in March 2020.

When the trials approached in 2018 I figured my best chance of getting a front row seat in court was to try to crowdfund my journalism. Amazingly, and thanks to the extraordinary generosity of a whole range of people, I was given enough money to report the entire litigation.

I am now writing a book called The Great Post Office Scandal. Please click here to buy it on pre-sale.

Expert comment

I asked people to contact me with their own thoughts about the Post Office and Horizon, and the ongoing class action. If you have something to say about the various trials, you use Horizon regularly or you are a computer expert, politician, legal/accountancy/fraud/investigations specialist with a particular area of expertise or experience relevant to this website, or you work(ed) for the Post Office or Fujitsu, or the NFSP or you just have a relevant and useful anecdote, please get in touch via the contact form on this website and I'll post up your perspective too!

Here is what I've got so far, latest first. You can also find these pieces via the date they were posted by looking down the right hand nav bar of this blog web page.

3 Jan 2019
A union man writes: '"Be careful", he said to me as he left.' 

20 Dec 2018
A WHSmith Post Office manager writes: "they finally admit to a 'glitch' in the system"
A serving Subpostmaster writes: "They have no concern for the postmasters whose lives they have ruined" 

11 Dec 2018
A former Subpostmaster writes: "The Post Office has lost already" 

Victim testimony

I have asked people to write about their own experiences with the Post Office and Horizon, in order to build up a series of case studies which hopefully give some insight into what some former Subpostmasters have been through. If you are a former Subpostmaster or Post Office worker with a story to tell, please get in touch via the contact form on this website.

You can also find these pieces via the date they were posted by looking down the right hand nav bar of this blog web page.

Chirag Sidhpura's story: "I felt as if a ton of bricks had fallen on my chest."
Farncombe Post Office Subpostmaster is accused of losing £57,000. Too late to join the group litigation, he is still fighting.

Nicki Arch's story: "I hate everything about it. I will not go into a post office."
An innocent post office manager is accused of fraud, theft and false accounting. She loses everything.

Deirdre Connolly's story: "It's been a living hell."
Deirdre is sacked for a £16,000 discrepancy which is never properly investigated. Her mental health disintegrates.

Tracy Felstead's story: "They didn't care that I was this scared girl" - Tracy, 19 years old, is accused of theft, prosecuted and tries to commit suicide.

Wendy Buffrey's story "I just sat and cried for hours."
Wendy was a Subpostmaster in Up Hatherley, Cheltenham. She was prosecuted for theft and false accounting by the Post Office, despite there being no evidence of theft. She pleaded guilty to false accounting. Her mental health completely collapsed.

Pete Murray is not told by the Post Office that the branch he is taking over at Hope Farm Road in Great Sutton used to be run by Martin Griffiths, a Subpostmaster who in 2013 took his own life after being hounded by the Post Office for inexplicable discrepancies. Pete soon starts to find the Horizon system is playing up:
1) "The Post Office claim I owe them £35,000, despite never showing or telling me what I have done wrong."
2) "What kind of games are you playing with human beings' lives?"
3) "Post Office Ltd see fit and well to treat me like this, pending an 'investigation' which appears not to be taking place."
4) "You'd better get a lawyer."

Gary Brown's story: "I balanced and it showed a loss of £32,000."
A Subpostmaster in Rawcliffe, East Yorkshire, loses his house, business, health, and reputation.

24 Jan 2019
"The horror of that whole Post Office fiasco was a major factor in her death."

16 Jan 2019
A former Subpostmaster writes: "She was simply regurgitating a lie."

6 Jan 2019
A former Subpostmaster writes: "I am broken."

30 Dec 2018
A claimant writes: "I felt a fool for trusting them."

12 Dec 2018
A former Subpostmaster writes: "This was systematic abuse... I lost my business and lost my family."

27 Nov 2018
A former Subpostmaster writes: "I hate them."