500 MORE Subpostmaster convictions under review

Daily Mail, Sat 11 April, p27

When I wrote two weeks ago that the Post Office was reviewing a number convictions which hadn't been taken on by the Criminal Cases Review Commission I was intrigued. The obvious question was how many. Now, as per this article in the Daily Mail, we know. 500.

The 39 cases (of the 61 under review) already referred to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC make this one of the widest potential miscarriages of justice in the UK this century. If just 10% of these 500 other convictions are unsafe, all bets are off. 

Totting up the figures which are publicly available, we know that between 2004/5 and 2016/17 the Post Office prosecuted 252 people. Assuming there have been negligible prosecutions since then (I've asked for those numbers via FOI), and knowing that not all those prosecutions resulted in convictions, that means over a four year period - between the rollout of Horizon in 1999 and 2003/4 - the Post Office successfully convicted at least 250 people. Wow. That is criminalisation on industrial scale.

This is what the Post Office told me about its review:

"We continue to make full disclosure of documents to the CCRC and will be, similarly, assisting the appeal courts regarding the cases that have now been referred to them. Outside of this work, we have established a review of around 500 additional cases prosecuted by Post Office which resulted in convictions, spanning a lengthy period of well over a decade, to identify and disclose material capable of impacting on the safety of the convictions. The work is being undertaken by Peters & Peters, a criminal law firm with no previous involvement with the Post Office or these cases. The CCRC’s decisions and reasoning will inform their review.

The Post Office has also confirmed these convictions are for offences such as false accounting, theft and fraud and they date back to the advent of Horizon in 1999.

Now what?

If Peters and Peters find that some or all of these prosecutions are/might be unsafe, what is the process for getting those convictions quashed? The Post Office tells me:

"We’re not in a position at the moment to comment on potential future steps but we’re committed to working as quickly as we can to assist the criminal justice process."

The scale of this scandal has just potentially multiplied by a factor of four. And yet thanks to the coronavirus, the most it can muster is page 27 of the Daily Mail. These are strange times indeed.

Scot-free, milords

You'll be pleased to know that despite the growing scale of this scandal, the government is pretty clear no one should be held responsible. 

A serving Subpostmaster recently wrote to the ministry of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (which "owns" the Post Office on our behalf) with a number of concerns. He received a lengthy reply by letter on 2 April 2020 from a lady called Lauren Wood at the "BEIS Ministerial Correspondence Unit" which he kindly forwarded to me. The letter included the following paragraph:

"With regard to the point you raise about taking action against former directors, 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. The Post Office must learn from Mr Justice Fraser’s findings and deliver the commitments it made as part of the final settlement, to strengthen and repair its relationship with postmasters. Minister Scully will ensure that the Post Office is accountable for delivering this work."

I am not sure the "oh-it-was-all-a-long-time-ago-and-lots-of-people-were-involved" approach is morally legitimate, but it seems that's where we are for the time being.

*************************
If you have found the content on this website or found it useful or interesting, I would be grateful if you could put a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more get regular "secret" emails which have all the info about this story and its wider repercussions.

Choose an amount

- £2.50 GBP -- £5.00 GBP --- £20.00 GBP ---- £30.00 GBP ------ £40.00 GBP ------- £50.00 GBP -------- £75.00 GBP --------- £100.00 GBP ---------- £250.00 GBP ----------- £1,000.00 GBP

Are you looking for legal representation?

One of the terms of the High Court settlement to the Bates v Post Office group litigation in Dec last year was that Freeths, the Subpostmasters' solicitors, would not be able to take any further legal action against the Post Office.

The exact nature of this agreement is secret, but it seems to mean that Freeths cannot offer any legal advice to Subpostmasters about what they should do next.

This has left some people rather disorientated. As a result some have contacted me. I am not in a position to give advice. I am a journalist. But I can, at least, make some enquiries.

Would you trust the Post Office?

Broadly it seems the people who are looking for redress and possible legal representation fall into three categories:

a) former/current Subpostmasters (and counter assistants etc) who weren't part of the group litigation, but who may have been held liable for discrepancies with Horizon. They may also have been erroneously suspended and/or sacked and/or prosecuted. Many of these Subpostmasters were not aware of the group litigation or even that there were others in the same boat until the publicity around the court case came to light.

b) claimant former Subpostmasters who feel the High Court settlement was unsatisfactory.

c) Subpostmasters whose cases are lodged with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, particularly those who have already been referred to the Court of Appeal.

Of the above, the Post Office appear nearly ready to attempt to head off/address the concerns of group a) by launching what they call the Historical Shortfall Scheme. The scheme has been set up to:

"independently assess applications from current and former postmasters who believe they have experienced shortfalls related to previous versions of its computer system Horizon"

The scheme was due to open on 23 March 2020, however it has been postponed due to the coronavirus.

Indeed.

Whilst the words "independently assess" might bring comfort to some, going into a process like this without appropriate legal representation (particularly given the battery of lawyers the Post Office will be deploying) might be inadvisable.

As the claimants in Bates v Post Office have been told very clearly, several times, this scheme is not open to them.

So what happens to those in category b) - do they have any right to further redress?

On the face of it, no. They signed up to the litigation, and in doing so, allowed a small steering group to take decisions on their behalf. The steering group settled for £57.75m, and part of that agreement was apparently that none of the claimants could take any further action against the Post Office, unless it was for malicious prosecution. If you were never prosecuted, you can't claim malicious prosecution.

Many Subpostmasters have pointed out that this seems extremely unfair. They were part of a group of people that went into battle against the Post Office, won, and now others will apparently take home the spoils. Don't forget £46m of the £57.75m has disappeared in legal fees, leaving the claimants with an average of around £20K each. Many people suffered horrors at the hands of the Post Office. Some lost hundreds of thousands. Twenty-thousand pounds, by comparison, is small beer. But legally? Done and dusted, mate.

Or is it?

Maybe it's not that simple. The MP Karl Turner (a barrister himself) recently tweeted this:

If you’re ex postmaster and have received email from @PostOffice saying you will not be considered in compensation scheme if you were litigant in the class action, you should seek legal advice. Hudgell Solicitors have agreed with me to give free initial advice. #postofficetrial https://t.co/Qgc5ifCn1I

— Karl Turner MP (@KarlTurnerMP) April 3, 2020

... which is interesting. Hudgell have already set up a Post Office-specific web page, which is surprisingly comprehensive, yet it makes no explicit claim to be able to act for dissatisfied group litigation participants.

I don't know anything about Hudgell, and I'm definitely not recommending them. I'm just pointing out they are clearly becoming active in this area and they have the backing of an MP who knows a lot about this story.

Ward Hadaway

Another law firm who have taken an interest in all this are Ward Hadaway. Like Hudgell, they too have set up a Post Office-specific web page. I spoke to Stephen Lewis, the lawyer who is spearheading Ward Hadaway's work in this area, a few weeks back. He used to work at Freeths (leaving part-way through 2019) and so he knows a lot about the group litigation. His team has also successfully started acting for non-claimant Postmasters and apparently done rather well for them.

Again I am definitely not recommending Ward Hadaway, I am just pointing out they too are becoming active in this area.

Other law firms are available. They may be better than Hudgell and Ward Hadaway, they may not.

Don't forget, you may not need legal advice. And lawyers, like everyone else, are trying to make a living. They don't come free. You either pay up front, or down the line.

But if:

a) you have a current or historical grievance against the Post Office,

b) you are a disaffected group litigation claimant wishing to explore your options, or

c) your case is with the CCRC or about to be sent to the Court of Appeal and you are thinking about malicious prosecution,

there are at least two firms who would, most likely, be happy to have a conversation with you.

If you do pick up the phone, or decide to go for the Post Office's Historical Shortfall Scheme without representation, don't forget to let me know how you get on.

*************************
If you have enjoyed reading the content on this website or found it useful, I would be grateful if you could put a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more get regular "secret" emails which have all the info about this story and its wider repercussions.

Choose an amount

- £2.50 GBP -- £5.00 GBP --- £20.00 GBP ---- £30.00 GBP ------ £40.00 GBP ------- £50.00 GBP -------- £75.00 GBP --------- £100.00 GBP ---------- £250.00 GBP ----------- £1,000.00 GBP

Private Eye Special Report Out Now!

If you get a chance to go to the shops this week, please look out for Private Eye magazine, which carries an investigation into the Post Office Horizon scandal. The six-page report (starting on p24) includes some pretty harrowing content, including the first public telling of Martin Griffiths' story, the Subpostmaster who, after being hounded by the Post Office for inexplicable losses, ended his life.

There is also a rogues gallery of those responsible:

I wrote the report with Eye staffer Richard Brooks who I took the story to back in 2011. Richard has produced some brilliant work down the years and it is great he is getting byline recognition for this piece.

Eye 1519 - the best so far, imho

I am also extremely grateful to everyone who has ever given me any information about this story, particularly those who have given me permission to write about their personal situations. I realise it can be difficult.

This week's magazine also has lots of useful information on the coronavirus, and just so you know what you're looking for, the front cover looks like this (see left).

I realise going out to the shops can feel a bit like the scene in the 1981 BBC adaptation of Day of the Triffids (when the blinded protagonists have to try to retrieve a cabbage from a nearby allotment or face starvation as the alien vegetable overlords attack. Not that I'm still scarred by those images. No sir...), but if you are unable to get to the shops, why not subscribe to Private Eye? It is a great rag and a consistent support of investigative journalism. If you specify you want to start with this week's issue (Eye 1519), hopefully they will be of some assistance. They also have a six-issue half-price deal going at the moment.

Thanks again for your continued support.

Fisking the Horizon trial judgment 2: What Angela did next

Angela van den Bogerd

Angela van den Bogerd probably knows more about the Horizon scandal than anyone else inside the Post Office.

She attended most days of both trials during the litigation, she was an integral part of the Post Office's complaint and mediation scheme, and in 2015 she appeared before MPs at a parliamentary select committee inquiry into Horizon. She has also co-authored at least one internal Post Office report on its relationship with Subpostmasters and Horizon.

In 2018 Mrs van den Bogerd was made the Post Office's Business Improvement Director, and in the first trial in this litigation, she attempted to mislead a High Court judge under oath.

Notwithstanding this, Mrs van den Bogerd was put forward as a witness by the Post Office in the 2019 Horizon trial and gets an entire section to herself in the Horizon Issues judgment.

When discussing her evidence this time round the Hon. Mr Justice Fraser says:

"I did detect a change of approach in Ms Van Den Bogerd.... she generally demonstrated in her cross-examination a more realistic approach to the accuracy of her evidence than she originally demonstrated in the Common Issues trial."

It's great that reality had started intruding into Mrs van den Bogerd's approach, yet, according to the judge, "her written evidence...  was still substantially of the same tenor in relation to individual Subpostmasters, in terms of widespread attribution of fault to Subpostmasters as a default setting."

So why the inconsistency between the written and oral evidence? Well, it seems most of Mrs van den Bogerd's written evidence was submitted before the Post Office received the first trial judgment.

After that judgment, which found gaping holes in her credibility, Mrs van den Bogerd may have had a little strategic re-think, and turned up in the witness box with a clearer appreciation of her responsibility to the truth.

Two cheers for Mrs van den Bogerd.

So how did she do, second time around, in the Horizon Issues trial? 

This is what the judge said:

... on the accuracy of Mrs van den Bogerd's written evidence:

"I do not consider that her written evidence had provided plausible explanations. It provided explanations that the Post Office wished to advance, as these explanations would, if accepted, provide a defence to the claimants’ factual case. These explanations were not based on the facts."

... on remote access:

"Mrs Van Den Bogerd had only learned of the ability of Fujitsu in terms of remote access, namely the insertion of transactions at the counter under Legacy Horizon “within the last year or so”... which given she is central to the Post Office’s position in the group litigation shows, in my judgment, a remarkable situation."

.... on the Rose Report:

"I do not accept Mrs Van Den Bogerd’s characterisation of the evidence she had originally given in her witness statement. She had clearly stated that Mr Coyne [claimants' independent IT expert], having taken passages out of context, “mistakenly claim[ed] that the relevant reversal was issued in error by Horizon, not the Subpostmaster”. In fact she accepted that the reversal had been generated by the system, which in my judgment it plainly had. Not making oneself clear is a curious way of describing that her own statement had said the exact opposite of the factual situation."

.... on her dismissal of the evidence of a witness Subpostmaster, Adrees Latif:

"the notable point made by Ms Van Den Bogerd, a director of the Post Office, in her written evidence, to shift the blame back onto Mr Latif, is simply wrong in fact... [her response] essentially amounted to an assertion that if certain steps had been followed by him, this should not, or could not, have happened. That would be all well and good in an ideal theoretical world that did not pay any attention to reality."

... on the Post Office and Fujitsu's bizarre definition of what Horizon working correctly actually means:

"Mr Jenkins [Horizon Chief Architect at Fujitsu] thought that “the system had behaved as it should”. Given Mrs Van Den Bogerd accepted that this situation could lead either to an Subpostmaster, or a customer, either being in pocket or out of pocket, I disagree that an accounting system should work in that way. This is not only an optimistic description, it is in my judgment entirely wrong."

... on Mrs van den Bogerd's apparent ignorance of Really Important Things.

"I do however consider that this litigation, and indeed her cross-examination, is a very expensive way for a senior director at the Post Office to become educated about the myriad issues contained in the documents that were put to her. Either the team of ten people assisting her with her evidence had the aim of producing entirely one-sided evidence in chief, or they were unaware of all the documents relied upon by the claimants. Either alternative is highly regrettable."

But...

"There were no evident attempts on this occasion to mislead me in her oral evidence" [hurray!] and "I am of the view that her approach in the Horizon Issues trial to answering questions was far more constructive and aligned to what is expected of any witness giving evidence in court, particularly a senior witness of an organisation such as the Post Office."

She's learning. But it is downright odd that a supposedly competent director of a government-owned organisation should, over the course of two High Court trials, first attempt to mislead a judge on oath, then supply inaccurate and misleading sworn witness statements, and then profess ignorance of Horizon problems absolutely central to Subpostmasters' concerns.

It is even odder that Mrs van den Bogerd's interesting approach to supplying accurate information to the courts was self-evidently supported and abetted by her employer.

The Post Office tells me Angela van den Bogerd remains its Business Improvement Director, and is "currently working as part of the Covid-19 response team, putting in place all the various measures the Post Office is taking to support postmasters, staff and customers."

UPDATE: On 19 May 2020, the Post Office quietly noted that Angela van den Bogerd had left the organisation.

Further reading:

Fisking the Horizon trial 1: the meaning of "robust"
Bluffer's guide to the Common Issues trial

Fisking the Common Issues trial:
Part 1 - on the first few lead claimants and their treatment by the Post Office
Part 2 - on the last few lead claimants and their treatment by the Post Office
Part 3 - on the Post Office witnesses (one found to mislead the court on oath)
Part 4 - on the Post Office's goon squad and general attitude problem
Part 5 - a breakdown of who won what re the Common Issues themselves
Special report on the judge's findings on the National Federation of Subpostmasters

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

This blog is entirely funded by donation. You can donate any amount through the secure payment portal I have set up for this purpose (click here for more info or to donate).

If you contribute £20 or more you will be added to the secret email list. This alerts you to the latest developments on this story before they happen, as well as links to new articles and stories, whether posted here on this blog or elsewhere. Thank you for your support.

Post Office reviewing MORE prosecutions

The Royal Courts of Justice, home of the Appeal Court

There could be more potential miscarriages of justice in the pipeline.

As well as the 61 cases being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (39 of which were yesterday sent to the Court of Appeal), the Post Office has asked an external team of criminal lawyers to look into other cases which are not being reviewed by the CCRC.

In a statement responding to yesterday's decision by the CCRC to refer a record number of cases, the Post Office said:

"We will be looking carefully at the Commission’s decision when we have that information and continue to fulfil all their requirements of us.

We have also been doing all we can to ensure that, in the light of the findings in the Horizon judgment, further disclosure is provided as appropriate in other cases where Post Office acted as prosecutor, not just those reviewed by the CCRC.  The CCRC’s reasoning will be applied to those cases, which are being reviewed by an external team of criminal lawyers."

I have asked the Post Office to tell me:

- how many cases it is having reviewed by external lawyers,
- whether this relates to convictions only or includes prosecutions which did not end in convictions,
- the nature of the offences under review, and
- which firm of lawyers is doing the reviewing.

Here is the list of the #PostOffice39 - the 39 people whose criminal convictions will go to appeal, the largest in the CCRC's history:

Surname, Forename - Offence(s) - Date of Conviction - Court of Conviction

Ashraf, Kamran - Theft - 28/1/04 - South Western Mags’ Court
Barang, Jasvinder - Fraud 3/8/12 - Luton Mags’ Court
Brennan, Lisa - Theft - 4/9/03 - Liverpool Crown Court
Buffrey, Wendy - False accounting - 17/10/10 - Gloucester Crown Court
Burgess, Tim - False accounting - 12/8/11 - Teesside Crown Court
Capon, Barry - Theft and false accounting - 9/10/09 - Ipswich Crown Court
Clark, Nicolas - False accounting - 23/2/10 - Doncaster Crown Court
Cousins, Wendy - Theft - 5/5/09 - St Albans Crown Court
Darlington, Scott - False accounting - 22/2/10 - Chester Crown Court
Fell, Stanley - False accounting - 27/7/07 - Leicester Crown Court
Felstead, Tracy - Theft + false accounting - 2001 - Kingston-Upon-Thames CC
Gill, Kashmir - False accounting - June 2010 Oxford Crown Court
Graham, William - False accounting - 14/1/11 - Maidstone Crown Court
Hall, Alison - False accounting - 30/6/11 - Leeds Crown Court
Hamilton, Jo - False accounting - 2008 - Winchester Crown Court
Hedges, David - Theft and false accounting - 7/1/11 - Lincoln Crown Court
Henderson, Allison - False accounting - 15/12/10 - Norwich Crown Court
Holmes, Peter - False accounting - 22/12/09 -Newcastle-Upon-Tyne CC
Hussain, Neelam - Theft - 20/6/11 - Wolverhampton Crown Court
Hutchings, Lynette - False accounting - 30/7/12 - Portsmouth Crown Court
Ishaq, Khayyam - Theft - 7/3/13 - Bradford Crown Court
McDonald, Jackie - Theft and false accounting - 21/1/11 - Preston Crown Court
Misra, Seema - Theft and false accounting - 21/10/10 - Guildford CC
O’Connell, Dawn -False accounting - 12/9/08 - Harrow Crown Court
Owen, Damien - Theft - 7/12/11 - Mold Crown Court
Page, Carl - Theft - 1/1/07 - Stafford Crown Court
Parekh, Vijay - Theft - 8/11/1 - Harrow Crown Court
Patel, Vipinchandra - Fraud - 3/6/11 - Oxford Mags’ Court
Rasul, Mohammed - Theft - 20/6/07 Manchester (Minshull) Crown Court
Robinson, Della - False accounting - 30/11/12 - Manchester Crown Court
Rudkin, Susan - False accounting - 23/3/09 - Stafford Crown Court
Sayer, Siobhan - False accounting - 15/2/10 Norwich Crown Court
Shaheen, Rubbina- False accounting - 22/11/10 - Shrewsbury Crown Court
Skinner, Janet - False accounting - 5/1/07 - Kingston Upon Hull Crown Court
Thomas, Hughie (Noel) - False accounting - June 2006 - Caernarfon Crown Court
Thomson, Pauline - False accounting - 1/2/10 - Maidstone Crown Court
Trousdale, Christopher - False accounting - 8/3/04 Scarborough Mags’ Court
Ward, Gail - False accounting -15/10/07 - Bristol Crown Court
Wilson, Julian - False accounting - 15/6/09 - Worcester Crown Court

More on what happens now these cases have been referred.

*************************
If you have enjoyed reading the content on this website, I would be grateful if you could chuck a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more get regular "secret" emails which have all the info about this story and its wider repercussions.

Choose an amount

- £2.50 GBP -- £5.00 GBP --- £20.00 GBP ---- £30.00 GBP ------ £40.00 GBP ------- £50.00 GBP -------- £75.00 GBP --------- £100.00 GBP ---------- £250.00 GBP ----------- £1,000.00 GBP

CCRC refer 39 Post Office cases to the Court of Appeal

Jo Hamilton (l) and Seema Misra (r) - successful 

The Criminal Cases Review Commission is to refer the convictions of 39 Post Office applicants to the court of appeal.

After two days of deliberations, commissioners decided to refer the convictions on the basis that each prosecution could have amounted to an abuse of process.

One applicant whose referral was successful emailed me this morning to say:

"I shaking I’m so bloody happy right now. If that committee was in front of me now I’d kiss them all. I’m shaking, crying my stomach is turning like I’m on a rollercoaster."

Another said to me: "I’m over the moon. I’ve waited my whole adult life for this."

The Subpostmasters' convictions were variously for theft, fraud and false accounting and the CCRC says the abuse of process argument is based on issues with the Post Office’s Horizon computer system.

The CCRC can only refer a case for appeal if it considers that there is new evidence or new argument that raises a real possibility that the appeal court will quash a conviction. It says the information which came to light over the course of the epic civil litigation (which this blog was set up to report) was instrumental in providing that new argument and evidence.

Of the remaining 22 cases, the CCRC says it has further work to do before it will be in a position to announce decisions as to whether or not it can refer them. Although the CCRC has been sitting on many of the 61 cases for nearly five years, around 20 people have applied since the Horizon Issues judgment in December and it may be that many of those cases are still being investigated.

Helen Pitcher, Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, said:

“This is by some distance the largest number of cases we will ever have referred for appeal at one time. Our team has got through a huge amount of work, particularly since the judgment in December,  in order to identify the grounds on which we are referring these cases... we will continue to do whatever we need to in order to make decisions in the remaining cases as quickly as we reasonably can.”

The referrals will be formally made when the appropriate papers are sent to the relevant appeal courts (36 cases will be referred to the Court of Appeal as convictions obtained in the Crown Court, and three will be referred to the Crown Court as magistrates’ court convictions). Covid-19 restrictions may mean that that process may now take a some time to complete.

Lucy Allan MP said "This is fantastic news... the Post Office had extraordinarily claimed ‘few if any,’ would be referred. Getting closer to justice thanks to so many brilliant campaigners."

The people being referred are:

Surname, Forename - Offence(s) - Date of Conviction - Court of Conviction

Ashraf, Kamran - Theft - 28/1/04 - South Western Mags’ Court
Barang, Jasvinder - Fraud 3/8/12 - Luton Mags’ Court
Brennan, Lisa - Theft - 4/9/03 - Liverpool Crown Court
Buffrey, Wendy - False accounting - 17/10/10 - Gloucester Crown Court
Burgess, Tim - False accounting - 12/8/11 - Teesside Crown Court
Capon, Barry - Theft and false accounting - 9/10/09 - Ipswich Crown Court
Clark, Nicolas - False accounting - 23/2/10 - Doncaster Crown Court
Cousins, Wendy - Theft - 5/5/09 - St Albans Crown Court
Darlington, Scott - False accounting - 22/2/10 - Chester Crown Court
Fell, Stanley - False accounting - 27/7/07 - Leicester Crown Court
Felstead, Tracy - Theft + false accounting - 2001 - Kingston-Upon-Thames CC
Gill, Kashmir - False accounting - June 2010 Oxford Crown Court
Graham, William - False accounting - 14/1/11 - Maidstone Crown Court
Hall, Alison - False accounting - 30/6/11 - Leeds Crown Court
Hamilton, Jo - False accounting - 2008 - Winchester Crown Court
Hedges, David - Theft and false accounting - 7/1/11 - Lincoln Crown Court
Henderson, Allison - False accounting - 15/12/10 - Norwich Crown Court
Holmes, Peter - False accounting - 22/12/09 -Newcastle-Upon-Tyne CC
Hussain, Neelam - Theft - 20/6/11 - Wolverhampton Crown Court
Hutchings, Lynette - False accounting - 30/7/12 - Portsmouth Crown Court
Ishaq, Khayyam - Theft - 7/3/13 - Bradford Crown Court
McDonald, Jackie - Theft and false accounting - 21/1/11 - Preston Crown Court
Misra, Seema - Theft and false accounting - 21/10/10 - Guildford CC
O’Connell, Dawn -False accounting - 12/9/08 - Harrow Crown Court
Owen, Damien - Theft - 7/12/11 - Mold Crown Court
Page, Carl - Theft - 1/1/07 - Stafford Crown Court
Parekh, Vijay - Theft - 8/11/1 - Harrow Crown Court
Patel, Vipinchandra - Fraud - 3/6/11 - Oxford Mags’ Court
Rasul, Mohammed - Theft - 20/6/07 Manchester (Minshull) Crown Court
Robinson, Della - False accounting - 30/11/12 - Manchester Crown Court
Rudkin, Susan - False accounting - 23/3/09 - Stafford Crown Court
Sayer, Siobhan - False accounting - 15/2/10 Norwich Crown Court
Shaheen, Rubbina- False accounting - 22/11/10 - Shrewsbury Crown Court
Skinner, Janet - False accounting - 5/1/07 - Kingston Upon Hull Crown Court
Thomas, Hughie (Noel) - False accounting - June 2006 - Caernarfon Crown Court
Thomson, Pauline - False accounting - 1/2/10 - Maidstone Crown Court
Trousdale, Christopher - False accounting - 8/3/04 Scarborough Mags’ Court
Ward, Gail - False accounting -15/10/07 - Bristol Crown Court
Wilson, Julian - False accounting - 15/6/09 - Worcester Crown Court

More on what happens now these cases have been referred.

*************************
If you have enjoyed reading the content on this website, I would be grateful if you could chuck a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more get regular "secret" emails which have all the info about this story and its wider repercussions.

Choose an amount

- £2.50 GBP -- £5.00 GBP --- £20.00 GBP ---- £30.00 GBP ------ £40.00 GBP ------- £50.00 GBP -------- £75.00 GBP --------- £100.00 GBP ---------- £250.00 GBP ----------- £1,000.00 GBP

EXCLUSIVE: First high court settlement payments land

A claimants' bank account showing the pending deposit

Claimant Subpostmasters who won an epic High Court case against the Post Office last year have begun to receive thousands of pounds "early" to help with cashflow during the coronavirus outbreak.

The 555 claimants in the Bates v Post Office case settled for a sum of £57.75m on 11 December last year. Five days later they were  told legal costs had swallowed at least £46m. Since then individual claimants have been waiting to find out what portion of the remaining £11m or so they will receive, weighted according to their specific circumstances.

Today's payments, many of which are in the single figure thousands (though some are in the hundreds and a few are £10k), are not final sums but emergency payments provoked by the coronavirus "to help to ease some of the financial pressure on you in the current circumstances."

Freeths told claimants their specific, individual amounts are:

"a fixed payment based upon categories of claimants, which is defined by the circumstances of their claim... Your payment category is based on certain legal factors, which is the fairest way to do this at short notice. The Emergency Payment you receive is not necessarily an indication of the size of your proportionate share – it will be at least the amount of your proportionate share but it may be that you are set to receive more."

A source close to the steering group tasked with apportioning the funds was at pains to point out that the payments are not proportionally representative of what some Subpostmasters might get in their final settlement, but acknowledged, for some, it could be the maximum they will get.

If the 555 claimants were to share £11.75m equally they would all get just over £21,000 each, however the final range of sums will vary considerably. A few claimants are serving Subpostmasters in dispute over a few thousand pounds, others have had their lives ruined, lost their savings and went to prison.

Final payments by June 2020

Over the last three months some postmasters have expressed anger at what they consider to be the relative paucity of the overall settlement and their concern at the time it is taking to receive any money at all.

One claimant who received £1000 today said: "Is this some sort of cruel joke? This is just rubbing salt in very raw wounds!”

In an email dated 20 March, Freeths tell the claimants:

"there are still aspects of the Settlement Agreement that are being concluded (for example in relation to currently suspended Claimants and Claimants with civil judgments/charging orders by Post Office to be dealt with) and so we cannot pay out everyone’s full share until all aspects of the settlement have been concluded – we are still aiming for June 2020 for this but should this change for any reason we will let you know."

Emotions amongst claimants since the settlement of the court case have been mixed. Nonetheless today is significant, as it marks the first time some postmasters have received any financial redress in nearly two decades of campaigning.

*************************
If you have enjoyed reading the content on this website, I would be grateful if you could chuck a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more get regular "secret" emails which have all the info about this story and its wider repercussions.

Choose an amount

- £2.50 GBP -- £5.00 GBP --- £20.00 GBP ---- £30.00 GBP ------ £40.00 GBP ------- £50.00 GBP -------- £75.00 GBP --------- £100.00 GBP ---------- £250.00 GBP ----------- £1,000.00 GBP

Recent parliamentary activity: a 2020 timeline

Boris Johnson agreeing to an independent inquiry on 26 Feb 2020

There have been number of parliamentary debates and exchanges about the Post Office Horizon scandal over the past two months. I thought it might be useful to lay them out chronologically with a few notes:

4 Feb 2020 - question in the House of Lords from Lord Arbuthnot.

This sparked a lively ten minute debate. The minister answering said the Post Office "got it badly wrong" but suggested things were going to be made better by quarterly meetings with the National Federation of Subpostmasters, (already discredited by the High Court and completely supportive of the Post Office over two decades on the issue of Horizon).

The government also indicated no change to the Post Office's ability to prosecute Subpostmasters.

Watch the debate and read the transcript here.

Lord Callanan in the Grand Committee debate

25 Feb 2020 - Grand Committee debate in the House of Lords, led by Lord Berkeley.

Here the new government minister in the Lords, Lord Callanan, claimed advice the government had been receiving from the Post Office over the last ten years or so was "flawed". He also said "A scheme will be announced in ​the near future with the aim of addressing historical shortfalls for postmasters who were not part of the group litigation settlement", but said of the claimants "the Government cannot accept any further request for payment."

The government also said as well quarterly meetings with the NFSP, it was in talks with the Communications Workers Union.

The minister was silent on the need for an inquiry and said "the Government do not propose to take any further action against current or former directors."

Read the full debate in Hansard.
Watch it online.

PMQs 26 Feb 2020

26 Feb 2020 - Prime Ministers Questions in the House of Commons in which Boris Johnson agrees to an independent inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal.

Watch the short exchange and read the transcript here.

Lucy Allan MP in Westminster Hall

5 March 2020 - Westminster Hall debate, led by Lucy Allan MP.

Ms Allan has become a passionate, effective and articulate advocate for aggrieved Subpostmasters and during her opening speech she had the most startling revelation as she explained a recent interaction with the Post Office about the cases before the Criminal Cases Review Commission:

"I understand from my discussions with representatives of the Post Office that it would prefer each [potential miscarriage of justice] case to be treated separately. They have said that the Post Office will insist that those who pleaded guilty to false accounting should be excluded from the process."

Ms Allan was clear:

"That should not be a matter for the Post Office to involve itself in. Should the cases be referred by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal, the Post Office will be a respondent. It would be wholly wrong for the Post Office to be involved in any decisions around the mechanisms for the quashing of the convictions, given that the convictions are of people whom it sought to prosecute."

Palpable anger about the current situation was expressed by many other MPs. The demands for an independent judge-led inquiry were long and loud. Here's just one example, from Duncan Baker:

"The Government must intervene and force the Post Office to make good the losses that those postmasters have suffered, in full. The board of the Post Office is accountable for this fiasco. Action must be taken against it. The issue is most definitely worthy of a public inquiry to uncover the extent of the wrongdoing that has occurred."

The new Minister for Postal Services, Paul Scully, was having none of it. He repeated Lord Callanan's mention of a scheme to help Subpostmasters outside the litigation, but all he would say on the Prime Minister's agreement that there should be an independent inquiry was:

"We will certainly look at how we can keep the Post Office on its toes in future and at how to look back to learn the lessons" 

Read the full debate in Hansard. It is quite something. Or watch it online.

Lord Arbuthnot

5 March 2020 - short debate in the House of Lords, led by Lord Arbuthnot.

In response to the various questions, the minister, Lord Callanan, was more strident than he was on 25 Feb, telling peers:

"During the unfolding of this scandal, BEIS officials were clearly misled by the Post Office."

Unlike Paul Scully, he followed firmly on the Prime Minister's promise of an independent inquiry.

"We agree that there needs to be a full examination, with due rigour, of what happened and what the next steps will be, but I cannot go further than the answer that I gave earlier to my noble friend - that, as soon as we can, we will announce the next steps following the Prime Minister’s announcement."

He also stated:

"There is no question but that the Post Office management at the time behaved disgracefully but none of them is now in post."

Which is incorrect. Plenty of them are still there.

Read the full debate in Hansard.
Watch it online here.

Wendy Buffrey (l) and Tracy Felstead (centre) giving evidence

10 March 2020 - Select Committee hearing.

The transcript for this doesn't yet seem to be available, but you can watch it online. Tracy Felstead and Wendy Buffrey gave evidence of their experiences at the hands of the Post Office, and Alan Bates, the founder of the Justice For Subpostmasters' Alliance gave his account of the Post Office's attitude.

The second session featured Andy Furey from the CWU and Calum Greenhow from the NFSP, separated by Ron Warmington and Ian Henderson from Second Sight. Given this was Ron Warmington's first opportunity to give evidence under parliamentary privilege, it's a shame Second Sight were barely given five minutes to speak.

Watch the hearing online.

Kevan Jones MP

19 March 2020 - debate in the House of Commons main chamber led by Kevan Jones MP.

Another blistering debate in which the full rage and anger of MPs was duly recorded. In terms of the government's answer, Paul Scully was slightly more forthcoming.

On the issue of an independent inquiry, he said:

"We are looking at the best way to do it. There will be a further announcement as soon as possible in the very near future. I know that hon. Members want progress, but I want to ensure that we get it right, rather than rushing into the terms of reference and other details."

Which is somewhat different to his position earlier in the month. He promised backbenchers: "I will not hide and I will not wash my hands of it", adding "even if we cannot achieve everything that has been asked."

At the end of the debate, Kevan Jones was very direct, telling Mr Scully:

"The Minister has an opportunity here. I have been a Minister, and it is a great privilege, but it is not about sitting on that Front Bench or carrying the red box; it is about making a difference. The Minister has an opportunity to make a real difference and put right a wrong. He cannot carry on as his predecessors have done and ignore the truth. I challenge him: be brave, Minister. Please, put this right; it is in your hands. No matter what obstruction he has from his officials, he should challenge them."

Read the full debate in Hansard.
Watch it online.

*************************
If you have enjoyed reading the content on this website, I would be grateful if you could chuck a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more get regular "secret" emails which have all the info about this story and its wider repercussions.

Choose an amount

- £2.50 GBP -- £5.00 GBP --- £20.00 GBP ---- £30.00 GBP ------ £40.00 GBP ------- £50.00 GBP -------- £75.00 GBP --------- £100.00 GBP ---------- £250.00 GBP ----------- £1,000.00 GBP

Government to launch independent review into Horizon scandal

Kevan Jones MP, kicking off the Commons debate on 19 March 2020

Last week's Commons debate on the Post Office Horizon scandal, secured by Kevan Jones and Andrew Bridgen, moved things on a little from the Westminster Hall debate I attended in 2014, but not by much.

You can watch everything unfold in real time here, or you can read the transcript in Hansard here.

During the debate, MPs demonstrated their clear understanding of what had gone wrong over the last 20 years whilst spelling out to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), Paul Scully, what they thought was needed to bring proper redress to those caught up in it.

The minister deflected nearly everything.

Mr Scully did give some more information on the inquiry the Prime Minister promised to Kate Osborne during PMQs on 26 February this year. His exact words were:

"We have talked about the independent review, which the Prime Minister mentioned a couple of weeks ago. We are looking at the best way to do it. There will be a further announcement as soon as possible in the very near future. I know that hon. Members want progress, but I want to ensure that we get it right, rather than rushing into the terms of reference and other details. I want to make sure, as I said, without hiding and without washing my hands of it, that we actually get something that means something to the affected postmasters."

How a "review" differs from an "inquiry" obviously depends on its terms of scope and reference, but I suspect, given what the government has said already, finding out who was responsible for the last six years of denial and cover-up will not be part of it.

This is because on 25 Feb Lord Callanan, the BEIS minister in the House of Lords told a Grand Committee debate that when it comes to the Post Office "the Government do not propose to take any further action against current or former directors."

On 5 March, Lord Callanan also told the Lords that "the Post Office management at the time behaved disgracefully but none of them is now in post."

This is not true. Plenty remain in post, not least Tim Parker and Alisdair Cameron (who, as Post Office board members, authorised the attempt to recuse the High Court judge presiding over the class action against the Post Office) and director Angela van den Bogerd (who was found to have tried to mislead the same judge whilst on oath in court).

Mr Scully's "review" is also unlikely to properly address the issue of compensation for claimants in the class action, given that, during the 25 Feb House of Lords debate, Lord Dallanan said that because the action had been settled the government "cannot accept any further request for payment."

Mr Scully's review is also unlikely to look into whether or not the Post Office should still be able investigate and prosecute its Subpostmasters without any external scrutiny. During Thursday's Commons debate he shrugged: "individuals and companies can bring such prosecutions—they are not limited to the Post Office."

So it seems, as things stand:

a) no one will be held responsible for the dozens of lives ruined by the Post Office and its shareholder, the government, because no one in power is proposing to find out who made the decisions which allowed this to happen.

b) none of those most affected by what was done to them (ie the group of campaigning Subpostmaster claimants who brought the High Court class action) will ever receive anything close to what they lost.

For a fully-indexed, easy to digest menu of recent parliamentary activity around the Post Office scandal, including top quotes, a/v and transcripts, please click here.

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

If you have enjoyed reading the content on this website, I would be grateful if you could chuck a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more get regular "secret" emails which have all the info about this story and its wider repercussions.

Choose an amount

- £2.50 GBP -- £5.00 GBP --- £20.00 GBP ---- £30.00 GBP ------ £40.00 GBP ------- £50.00 GBP -------- £75.00 GBP --------- £100.00 GBP ---------- £250.00 GBP ----------- £1,000.00 GBP

BBC1 Panorama - Scandal at the Post Office

UPDATE 2: The episode did get scheduled and went out on Monday 8 June at 7.30pm. It got 2.9m viewers and led to an Urgent Question (and debate) in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. You can watch it here.

UPDATE: The episode has been postponed due to the coronavirus outbreak. There is currently no scheduled date for transmission

It's still not 100% confirmed as we don't know whether the Coronavirus will require changes to the broadcast schedule, but as things stand, at 8.30pm this coming Monday evening (23rd March 2020), I will be presenting a Panorama episode called Scandal at the Post Office.

Here's the billing on the BBC website.

I've spent the last couple of months putting it together with the same team of producers who made the first Panorama on the subject back in 2015. I do hope it goes out, and I do hope you'll be able to watch it.