Tuesday, 14 May 2019

Post Office vs Mental Health

A couple of tweets posted yesterday by the Post Office comms team and the Post Office communications director have raised the hackles of campaigning former and existing Subpostmasters.

The tweets in question are as follows. First this one from the comms team:
and then this one from the Post Office Director of Communications, Mark Davies:
Now, as readers may be aware, the Post Office stands accused of mentally destroying several Subpostmasters through its business practices.

I am aware of two cases where surviving relatives (some in part, some wholly) blame the Post Office for their loved ones' suicides. You can read one of those stories here. I know of one woman who had a complete breakdown and was subsequently institutionalised for her own safety after being pursued by the Post Office for discrepancies her branch.

Former Postmaster Bal Gill has also written about his Post Office-induced breakdown on this blog as has Wendy Martin. I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg.

So as you might expect, the rather self-satisfied tone of yesterday's tweets from the Post Office has caused something of a reaction. Here are few examples:





I have asked the Post Office for comment on this, both via email and directly on twitter, but the strength of reaction has got me thinking. I have never really collated the stories of the mental breakdowns described by Subpostmasters before. It's always been the legal or financial implications of what happened to them. But describing what happened to individual Subpostmasters' mental health whilst their livelihoods were under attack is just as important, and it's about time I started to do this properly.

If you believe your mental health has been directly affected by the Post Office as a result of discrepancies in your branch or changes to your working practices, please do get in touch. I would like to put together a body of testimony on this specific subject.

If you wish to discuss this sensitive area, use the contact form on the desktop version of this website (in the right hand nav bar). Or if you're already a secret emailer, just hit reply to any of the secret emails you've been receiving. Both methods are secure, confidential and go straight to my inbox.

UPDATE: I am delighted to tell you that a number of very brave people came forward to tell the story of their anguish at the hands of the Post Office. These are harrowing reads:

Deirdre Connolly - "It's been a living hell."
Tracy Felstead - "They didn't care that I was just this scared girl."
Nicki Arch - "I hate everything about it. I will not go into a Post Office."

For more stories like Deirdre, Tracy, Nicki, Wendy and Bal's, please visit the victim testimony page of this website.

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

If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.                                                             

Choose an amount
at

Post Office reaction to Court of Appeal decision

Pic: EriKolaborator
The Post Office has kept very quiet about the Court of Appeal's thorough trashing of its request to appeal the recusal application judgment, not releasing a peep to the media.

But it did send a short note to its Postmasters via email earlier today. It comes from "Al" Cameron, the Post Office's new (interim) Chief Executive. He says:
"As promised, I want to keep you up to date on the Group Litigation... Over the weekend we were told that the Court of Appeal has refused Post Office permission to appeal on recusal. Our Managing Judge will therefore continue to oversee all trials and the second trial on Horizon issues will resume on 4 June. Permission to appeal the Managing Judge’s interpretation of our contracts will be sought at a hearing on 23 May 2019...
"Our primary focus is on ensuring that we continue to improve how we work with Postmasters, making it easier for them to earn more money for less effort. This covers a number of workstreams from the new field teams, to better training, to new processes and we will update you on our plans and progress in the next few weeks."
Three things on the above:

1) This is the strongest acknowledgment yet that the Post Office will ask for leave to appeal the Common Issues judgment. They've always said they are considering seeking permission to appeal and they have yet to lodge a formal request (they have until Thursday this week to do so), but if the CEO of the PO is telling Subpostmasters it's happening, you can be pretty sure it's happening.

2) I am not quite sure why Mr Cameron decided to use the possessive when describing a judge who has just had to halt a trial to demonstrate that he is nobody's man, but hey.

3) It's interesting he notes the Post Office's "primary focus" is "to improve how we work with Postmasters."

This echoes Post Office Chairman Tim Parker's statement on the day the Common Issues judgment was handed down. He said:
"Our postmasters are the backbone of our business and our first priority will be to consider the points raised about the management of our contractual relationships and how we could improve them. 
"We will make sure that problems brought to our attention by postmasters are investigated even more quickly and transparently. 
"In addition, we will further improve communications with postmasters, as well as the training and support they receive."
Quite what the Post Office are actually doing about this is anyone's guess. I have had one email from an irate Subpostmaster who received a change to his contract ("rubber stamped by the NFSP") on 25 April backdated to 1 April. No warning, no negotiation, no debate. As far as he's concerned the Post Office's attitude to its Subpostmasters hasn't changed a bit.

I was also told by a Post Office insider that even acknowledging things are going to have to change as a result of the Common Issues trial judgment is off limits for anyone within the Post Office as it would lend validity to a judgment which the Post Office intends to appeal.

That, I suppose, is a sensible perspective - after all, if the Post Office appeal is successful, then some of the decisions J Fraser made would be reversed. Or changed. But if the Post Office keeps trying to hump its Subpostmasters for cash whenever there are branch discrepancies, and Postmasters refuse to cough up on the grounds of a disputed High Court ruling which requires the Post Office to prove its Subpostmasters are at fault, it's going to get interesting.

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

If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.            
Choose an amount
at

Saturday, 11 May 2019

Court of Appeal recusal decision

This decision, handed down on 10 May 2019 by Lord Justice Coulson, refuses the Post Office's application to appeal their application to recuse Sir Peter Fraser from the Bates and others v Post Office litigation on grounds of apparent bias.

Sir Peter had already refused to recuse himself and refused permission for the Post Office to appeal on 3 April 2019.

You can read more on the recusal process and the document below in my blog post about it here. Or you can go straight to the source document on scrib'd here, or read it embedded below - it's only 19 pages:

*******************
If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.  
Choose an amount
at

Fraser J is going nowhere

The Hon. Sir Peter Fraser. Winning.
I thought the Court of Appeal was taking its time with the Post Office's application to appeal Sir Peter Fraser's decision not to recuse (sack) himself from the Bates and others v Post Office group litigation. I was wrong. It made its decision without a hearing yesterday. I am consoling myself with the knowledge I am the first journalist to get a hold of it. You can read it here.

The ruling was made by the Right Honourable Lord Justice Coulson. Over 19 pages he indicates that Sir Peter was bang on about everything in his recusal application judgment and the Post Office's application to have his judgment overturned was "without substance", "misconceived", "fatally flawed", "untenable" and "absurd".

Lord Justice Coulson notes the claimants contended the purpose of the recusal application and application to appeal was to sink the Horizon trial.

He muses: "the mere making of these applications could have led to the collapse of that [Horizon] trial altogether. Although I can reach no concluded view on the matter, I can at least understand why the SPMs [Subpostmaster claimants] originally submitted on 21 March that that was its purpose."

There follows some choice quotes from the ruling broken down into sections. They are all critical of the Post Office.




In summary:

"Permission to appeal against Judgment 4 [the recusal judgment] is refused. I set out the reasons for that conclusion in greater detail than usual only because of the volume and nature of the criticisms which have been made and the importance of the group litigation to both parties. I do not do so because of the merits of the application itself, which in my view is without substance.”

"What matters for the purposes of any recusal application is whether, when looking at Judgment 3 [the Common Issues trial judgment] as a whole, a fair-minded observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that, to the extent that he made such findings, the judge was biased in so doing.... as explained in greater detail below, the PO has not come close to demonstrating it in this case."

The Post Office's obssession with trying to get rid of evidence it doesn't like:

"There is force in the submissions...  that the PO’s strike-out application [made in October last year and rejected in Judgment 2] arose because the PO wished to adduce extensive factual evidence in their favour, but objected to any evidence to the contrary from the SPMs [Subpostmasters]. As they put it, “the Post Office wanted the case decided all one way”. There remains a distinct flavour of that approach within the recusal application."

The Post Office's approach to cherry-picking a 180,000 word judgment:

"As the judge [Fraser J] explained... the PO is now having to argue that the outcome of the sub-trial was irrelevant to the recusal application, and that what mattered were individual sentences, scattered through Judgment 3 which they say amount to a demonstration of apparent bias. The judge thought that was a misconceived approach. So do I."

"The judge said in a number of different places in Judgment 4 that many of the phrases or sentences upon which the recusal application is based are taken wholly out of context by the PO. I agree with that conclusion."

"This is particularly egregious where, as happens repeatedly, the sentence before or the sentence after the phrase/sentence relied on makes clear that, for example, it is not a finding of fact, or it is an observation based on the PO’s own evidence."

"The fair-minded observer would only consider whether the passages relied on gave rise to a real possibility that the judge was biased by considering those passages in full and in context. That is what being “fair-minded'’ requires. I consider that the recusal application and the appeal ignore this basic principle and are fatally flawed in consequence."

The Post Office's behaviour before and during the Common Issues trial:

"The PO’s application is based on a total disregard of what it actually said and did before and during the Common Issues sub-trial... the PO’s skeleton argument, in keeping with the oral
arguments made to the judge, endeavour to present the sub-trial as a clearly-defined, simple set of issues concerned with the construction of contract terms, where factual disputes were few and far between. On any view of the papers, that is a significant misrepresentation, not only of the issues themselves, but also of the way in which the PO itself ran its case before the judge. It raised factual disputes at every turn."

"For the PO now to say - as they do - that actually all of this was irrelevant, and that the judge demonstrated apparent bias by dealing with and making findings upon those matters which the PO itself had put in issue, is an untenable position to adopt."

"For the PO now to complain about the making of findings on these issues, which arose out of the way which they themselves put their case, is absurd."

The Common Issues judgment's alleged mission creep:

"The mere fact that in a lengthy judgment, the judge may have strayed beyond the strict scope of a particular issue, out of thousands in dispute, is, in one sense, neither here nor there. It is quite capable of correction at any subsequent sub-trial."

In his recusal judgment Sir Peter made it quite clear that even if the Post Office's submission for his recusal had any substance he would refuse them anyway due to the way they were made. Lord Coulson agrees:

"It is unnecessary to decide the waiver point, given that, for the reasons I have given, the substantive appeal has no prospect of success. However, it would be wrong to leave this application for permission to appeal without dealing with the timing and manner in which the recusal application was made."

"The judge learned of the recusal application by accident just before the afternoon session of the last day of the factual evidence on the Horizon Issues trial This was at best discourteous; at worst, it betrayed a singular lack of openness on the part of the PO and their advisors."

In conclusion:

“… the scattergun way in [sic] the original application was made, now mirrored in the way that this appeal has been pursued, can be seen in the continually changing nature of the PO’s arguments."

“It is a great pity that the recusal application and this application for permission to appeal have had the effect of delaying the conclusion of the critical Horizon sub-trial. Indeed, the mere making of these applications could have led to the collapse of that sub-trial altogether. Although I can reach no concluded view on the matter, I can at least understand why the SPMs originally submitted on 21 March that that was its purpose."

So there we go. Sir Peter Fraser remains and will remain the managing judge in Bates and others v Post Office until it concludes. The Post Office's attempt to blow him out of the water has failed, miserably.

I have, of course, emailed the Post Office asking for a comment on the ruling, and as soon as I get it, I'll post it up.

Further reading:
Common Issues trial judgment (cheat sheet)
The drama of the day the recusal application was given to the judge
Being in court for the initial recusal application judgment
And because it's now in danger of being overshadowed by the Court of Appeal ruling, a piece I put up yesterday afternoon about a Subpostmaster currently being hounded by the Post Office for £35,000. It's always good to remind yourself why this story exists.

The Horizon trial now definitely re-starts 4 June. I'll be there. Join the secret email gang by donating below and enjoy the build up.

*******************
If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.                                                           

Choose an amount
at

Friday, 10 May 2019

"The Post Office claim I owe them £35,000, despite never showing or telling me what I have done wrong."

Pete Murray
Many of the cases currently part of the Bates and others v Post Office litigation date back to the first decade of this century, but a large chunk relate to problems with Horizon online, which came on stream in 2010 and a version of which is still in use today.

Subpostmasters were having problems with Horizon online and joining the claimant cohort right up to the July 2017 deadline (cf Liz Stockdale*), and more Subpostmasters who aren't claimants continue to have serious problems with Horizon.

Hope Farm Road Post Office in Great Sutton used to be run by Martin Griffiths, who is sadly no longer with us. Whilst he was Subpostmaster, Mr Griffiths experienced huge, inexplicable discrepancies appearing on his Horizon terminal which the Post Office demanded he repay. He became depressed and eventually took his own life.

The current incumbent at Hope Farm Road, Pete Murray, was not told any of this before he took on the branch. He found, within weeks of taking over, his Horizon terminal was throwing up large inexplicable losses. He was suspended over the Christmas period last year and is facing legal demands from the Post Office to give them £35,000 of his own money.

What follows was written by Pete back in December whilst he was still suspended.

Here is Part 1 of Pete's story, in his own words:

"My problems started on 8 October 2014, when we took over Hope Farm Road. I already had one post office at Grove Road in Wallasey, which I took over in 2013. Apart from being temporarily suspended for problems with accounting for ATM cash (later identified as a gap in my training and wholly resolved in my favour), I did not have any problems at Grove Road.

The contracts manager for both my post offices is now Paul Williams, who also interviewed me for the Hope Farm Road office.

Since I took over at Hope Farm there have been a number of random, sudden and large deficits at close of business on a number of days. We are talking thousands.

Besides the staff member I inherited on buying the business, I also employ two other people on a relief basis from time to time.

All three are vastly experienced with the Horizon computer system. Much more so than me. That said, I am capable with computers and all things numeric. I definitely have more of a maths brain.

The first time there was a sudden shortage, we had no idea where it came from and were unable to find it, so we declared and rolled over a loss. We had no choice. I felt very guilty for apparently losing the money, and of course, I had to repay it.

Then it happened again. And again. And despite going through every transaction each time, nothing could be found.

"Don't trust your staff."

I was away in October for three weeks last year, and I asked a friend to cover two days for me, as the agency I had contracted to provide me with cover could not fill these two one-day gaps.

My friend had just a couple of days counter training in his own post office, but as I was going to be on the other side of the world and he owed me a favour, I crossed my fingers and hoped we would be okay.

During the three week period I was away, a shortage of £17,000 arose. I can't point the finger at anyone. I wasn't there, and I don't know what happened.

On another occasion, the lady who worked at our branch full-time turned to me and said “Look." Her end of day cash declaration was showing a shortage of £8,000. I was 100% convinced it wasn't her.

We went through the system together, and found nothing. The other weird thing is that her stock unit basically almost never had that amount of cash in it - for it to be that short, there had to be a random high value transaction put through by mistake. We searched, and found nothing.

I called the helpline, followed their instructions and got nowhere. I called the helpline again, asking them to put me in touch with Mr Williams.

He never contacted me. I would get letters from the "Agents' Accounting Team" asking me to call them to set up repayments. I called them, on one occasion in tears, saying "PLEASE, can you get someone to come out?"

Eventually the Agents' Accounting Team agreed to "an intervention", and an auditor came out. He spent 20 minutes in the fortress [the secure area behind the counter] with me, chatting about my problems, but he didn't even bother to log into or Horizon, take a look at it or read any of my paperwork. He left me to it.

I called the Post Office head of security, who was on leave at the time. His voice message offered two other mobile numbers. I called one of them, got no answer and left a voicemail.

The man who called back was the Post Office's number two in the security department. He just told me repeatedly “Don't trust your staff.”

He said it over and over again. I was three years or so into being a Postmaster at this time. The staff at my branch had all been doing it for decades, completely professionally and honestly. Or so I thought.

How can I start not trusting these people? I was asking for help from the Post Office, from 5 different departments, all of whom were my gateway to the contracts manager, and NO HELP whatsoever was coming through. All I had was demands for payment. But I still stand on the fact that those losses were not down to me.

It was not until after I bought the Hope Farm Road post office branch that I learned that the previous Postmaster, Martin Griffiths, had taken his own life. He had thrown himself under a bus.

This was after a few years back and forth arguing the case with the Post Office about the shortages.

"They left litter lying around my office."

So far the Post Office have taken a total of £23,000 out of my monthly income. I have debts of £5,000 to my father and a friend and the Post Office still claim I owe them a further £35,000, despite never showing or telling me what I have done wrong.

On the 1 November 2018 I had a surprise audit. There were two people from head office at my Grove Road branch and at three at Hope Farm Road. It was like they already knew they were going to suspend me before the audit even started.  I felt really under pressure and vulnerable. They found another £2,000 discrepancy. I was suspended.

Something that really ground on me was the way these auditors behaved. They left litter lying around my office, coffee cups and wrappers from the bakery next door. They spent the entire time in my office bitching about colleagues.

Also, all three of them were talking about upcoming or just taken foreign holidays and the new company cars all three had recently ordered. Whilst they were going on about which model they'd chosen and the spec they'd gone for my blood was boiling. I can't afford any time off from my branch. I work really hard all day long, every day. I can't take my family away for a weekend, as I can't afford cover in my Post Office. Every day I strive to survive, making money for Post Office, only to listen to three head office staff members chatting away merrily about their lovely cars and holidays, whilst the input of 11,500 postmasters generates their income for them.

Several times during the audit, they called Mr Williams. This is the same Paul Williams who appeared in court during the recent trial [NB the Post Office have got in touch to say it's not]. I did not know the trial was happening until I saw it on twitter.

So when I read the transcript from the court during which the Postmasters' QC asked Mr Williams: “So, you are saying, your team has never had any complaints?” and Mr Williams responded: “No.” I was absolutely gobsmacked. [NB again this appears to be a case of mistaken identity - the Post Office says there are two different Paul Williams here]

To summarize, as a result of the recurring losses in Hope Farm Road Post Office, I have reached out to:

• Paul Williams – I called the helpline on at least three occasions, asking to speak to him, each time being told they will contact him to get in touch – he never has;
• the Agents' Accounting Team – during discussions about how to repay the missing monies, I asked them to please send help. I got a random visit from one auditor who hung around for 20 minutes chatting, basically said 'you're on your own', and left;
• the Post Office Security Team – I called them, they said 'don't trust your staff' repeatedly – and nothing else;
• the Helpline – not just asking for help to contact Mr Williams, but also, on the times I have had losses and gone directly to the helpline for guidance, generally they were clueless and/or unable to help.

"It was humbling, embarrassing, and downright wrong."

Since my suspension, Mr Williams has postponed a 'discussion' meeting twice so far. I've now been suspended three months, when he initially told me it 'could be up to 8 weeks'. The reason, he says, for the delay is that the team who specialise in deeper searches in the Horizon system have not found anything yet as regards the faults in Hope Farm Road.

I was extremely disappointed – then it struck me like a thunderbolt – if such a department exists, to do deeper, more intense searches into Horizon, then why on earth are they not available to do these searches when a postmaster reaches out to them for help?

Whilst I have been on suspension, I received a letter from the “Former Agents' Accounting Team” - FORMER! - demanding a response as to how I was to pay them £35,000. I haven't even had the meeting yet to discuss what happens next, but Post Office have handed my case over to the people who deal with "Former Agents". It seems to me that in their minds, they have already fired me – or at least that they have a system in place that is so automated, that there's a routine to it, and they do this often.

It did strike me that every time I spoke on the phone with the Agents' Accounting Team (Current, not Former), their behaviour on the phone seemed all so matter of fact. It seemed like they are perfectly used to taking card payments over the phone from postmasters, with a brusque efficiency that gives you a feeling that they see you as an unprofessional criminal paying what is owed. It was humbling, embarrassing, and downright wrong. The Post Office have also withheld money which I should have been paid on 1 December 2018, for work completed in October, before the suspension.

I also received a letter from a firm of solicitors, acting for the Post Office (it's very, very nerve-wracking to receive a letter with the heading “Post Office Ltd vs Peter J. Murray” I can tell you), which was basically a demand for me to give them evidence of how I was to repay the money they say I owe them.

I wrote back to the solicitors and said that as I have not yet had a review meeting with the contracts manager who suspended me, how could they be threatening me with legal action? As far as I was concerned, I am not yet an ex-Postmaster. They wrote back retracting their demand, saying as I am still waiting for a meeting with my contracts manager they will not take any steps until after that.

This, whether intentionally or by mistake, is extreme harassment, and strikes me as guilty until proven innocent.

"I have been contacting the Post Office for help, and absolutely NONE has been forthcoming."

Other than the ATM issue at the Grove Road branch, I had no problems before buying Hope Farm Road Post Office – which I later learned has a history of discrepancies going on for years. The first couple of times it happened, I didn't have a clue what caused it, and repaid it, but since it has happened more often and to more than one person, I have been contacting the Post Office for help, and absolutely NONE has been forthcoming.

Based on their refusal to answer my calls for help, along with their brick wall obstacles to prevent postmasters from contacting their contracts manager, how on earth can the Post Office hold me responsible for losses when I have asked repeatedly for their help?

When I read in the court transcript the other week that Mr Williams told the court that his team had received no complaints [See above] I was livid. The reason he's received no complaints was purely because the system is so set up that he could disappear from his desk for a year and none of the postmasters he is responsible for would have any idea.

I am still waiting for my meeting with Mr Williams. As a result, the people in Great Sutton and the people in Wallasey Village have had no Post Office for three months, and it is not fair. My family life is suffering, the stress is causing arguments, and I think it is just not fair that someone who clearly doesn't even watch his patch rules it like a bully – the guy round the corner who has been suspended had not had an audit in OVER 20 YEARS – surely the Post Office should be investigating Paul Williams, and not me?

I just want to walk away from Hope Farm Road and never return, but I have to pay £14,000 a year rent to the landlord. Not only that, now this is all coming out – who is going to want to buy a post office?

I wanted to write this a few weeks ago, and remain anonymous, as my meeting had not yet come up.

Now it has been postponed a second time, and given what they have done to me and to my branches, I think my relationship with Post Office may well be beyond repair, though I can hold my head up high in the knowledge that I have done nothing wrong. So now I just have to get all of the above out there, as I fear the Post Office are trying to silence stories like this, based on what I have seen of the recent court case.

I want to get the debt quashed and walk away from Hope Farm, and for Grove Road, where my wife usually works, to be returned to us and reopened. I believe the Post Office have a moral obligation to acknowledge that their rebuffs and refusals to help over the last two years should make these discrepancies THEIR responsibility, and not mine.”

Shortly after writing this, two things happened. Pete suffered a stress-related stroke on 20 Dec 2018, temporarily losing the use of his arm. Also after having his Subpostmaster pay stopped and losing two months worth of trade at the busiest time of the year (due to his suspension), the Post Office suggested a meeting in early January 2019.

Did Pete get reinstated? Is the Post Office still chasing him for £35,000?

You can read part 2 of Pete's story here: "What kind of games are you playing with human beings' lives?"
You can read part 3 of Pete's story here: "Post Office Ltd see fit and well to treat me like this, pending an 'investigation' which appears not to be taking place."

After my request for comment the Post Office told me its not appropriate to comment on individual cases.

Read more Subpostmaster stories of being pursued and sometimes sacked and prosecuted by the Post Office here: Victim Testimony.

----------------------------

* Read Liz Stockdale's Witness Statement and the transcript of her evidence via the Common Issues Trial Menu. The judge found Mrs Stockdale to be "a careful and accurate witness, and I consider she was telling me the truth."

*******************
If you can, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.
Choose an amount

at

Monday, 6 May 2019

Post Office: the ONLY interview

One very odd characteristic of the Horizon scandal has been the persistent refusal of the Post Office to be interviewed on the subject.* You'd think they'd be proud of their record in uncovering so much criminality amongst their Subpostmasters, but no.

As far as I am aware only one person has ever been been wheeled out to defend the Post Office's position - Mark Davies, still serving as the Post Office's Director of Communications.

Mr Davies' interview took place on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on 9 Dec 2014. It was prompted by an indication that the MPs who had pressured the Post Office to properly look into possible failings with Horizon had lost faith in the Post Office's handling of both the investigation and subsequent mediation scheme. I'm publishing the transcript for the record.

The first interviewee is Jo Hamilton, a former Subpostmaster who was convicted of false accounting after experiencing inexplicable discrepancies on her Horizon terminal. Jo featured in the Panorama investigation into Horizon and is a claimant in Bates v Post Office. ** Her spot in the segment on the Today programme is on the phone and pre-recorded.

Next up, live in the studio, is James (now Lord) Arbuthnot. Lord Arbuthnot was Jo's MP and a prime mover in drawing together the 140-odd MPs who had constituent Subpostmasters experiencing problems with Horizon.

Then, finally, we hear from Mr Davies, also live in the studio. The presenter is John Humphrys:

"John Humphrys: The time is 27 minutes to 8. It's 10 years since the world of many subpostmasters was turned upside down. They found themselves being accused by the Post Office of all sorts of dubious and even criminal practices involving false accounting and fraud - at least 150 of them. Some went to jail. Most denied ever having done anything wrong. They blamed the Post Office. They said they were being made scapegoats for a faulty IT system called Horizon accounting that created thousands of pounds of shortfalls in cash where none existed.

Jo Hamilton was a subpostmaster in the South Warnborough village shop in Hook in Hampshire, within a few weeks of getting the new system, she noticed something wrong...

Jo Hamilton: It all started off in December 2003 and I had a discrepancy of minus £2000. So I rang the help desk, because that's what they're for, and they told me to do various things, and I did that and the amount that I was down doubled. And I asked to speak to a supervisor so they came on the phone, and whatever we did, it wouldn't go back to minus £2000. The upshot of it was that they asked me to pay the money into the Post Office, which I didn't have. And then they decided to take my wages for the next 10 months to pay it back because under the terms of my contract, that's what has to happen if you're down. You have to make it good.

I had to remortgage the house, repay the money, and originally I was charged with stealing. They said, if I repaid and pleaded guilty to 14 counts of false accounting, they would drop the theft. So the decision was made that I was less likely to go to prison for false accounting than I was for theft, and that's what I did. If I didn't plead guilty, they would have charged me with theft, and I couldn't prove I didn't take anything. They couldn't prove I did, and at the time, they told me I was the only person that I'd ever had problems with Horizon, nobody else had. I actually did think I was the only person in the world I'd ever had problems with it. And I hadn't taken any money, but I didn't know what the hell was going on, and they never made any attempt to investigate the money or where it had gone.

I would love to see all our names cleared. And I'd love to see some of us have some of our money back.

John Humphrys: Well, a group of MPs took up the cause of the subpostmasters, but now they say they have lost faith in the Post Office. The leader of that campaign is the Conservative MP, James Arbuthnot. And he is with me, so is Mark Davies, who's the communications director for the Post Office.

Mr. Arbuthnot, what's the problem? Because the Post Office did set up a mediation system...

James Arbuthnot: Yes, at considerable public expense, the Post Office set up this mediation scheme. But sadly, they are now trying to sabotage that very mediation scheme that they set up, and they're doing this in secret. It's an extraordinary story. They're trying to bar from mediation 90% of the subpostmasters for whom it was set up. They're arguing, for example, that those who, like Jo Hamilton, pleaded guilty to false accounting, shouldn't have the mediation scheme available to them, despite having agreed expressly with MPs, that those who had pleaded guilty to false accounting should have it available to them.

So they're doing it in secret. They're doing it at a stage when there is no legal representation available to these subpostmasters, because they're trying to bar these people from the mediation scheme in the working group for the mediation get up. It's an extraordinary story, and I'm afraid I have no confidence that the Post Office is trying to clear it up.

JH: Well, what they say is that they paid for people to get independent advice, they've advertised for people to come forward with their stories, they've investigated the cases. They've done everything that could be reasonably requested of them.

JA: They talk about this legal advice, but then they try to prevent the subpostmasters going into the mediation scheme at a stage of the process when the subpostmaster is not represented by that legal advice. You won't get any of those legal advisors coming on to this programme because the Post Office has bound them to secrecy. You won't get Second Sight, the independent investigators, coming on to this programme because the Post Office has bound them to secrecy.

JH: So couldn't you argue that they have a relationship with their clients, and therefore they're inevitably bound to secrecy?

JA: Yes, and there was a concern at the beginning of this, that Second Sight, the independent forensic accountants who the Post Office chose and are paying for, do have a relationship with the Post Office, and that worried MPs about whether they would have the independence that was required. But they have had, and now that they've shown that independence, the Post Office is doing its utmost to poo-poo the recommendations that Second Sight is putting forward and they're trying to override those recommendations, possibly because of that very independence.

JH: But at the end of that the investigation isn't over yet, a lot of things might yet change.

JA: Well, that is my hope. But for myself, since this is an investigation, and a mediation scheme, which is in the hands largely of the Post Office, it's paid for by the Post Office, for myself, I have lost faith in the Post Office's determination to see it through to a proper end.

JH: Mark Davies, it is a very serious charge that you sabotaged this scheme.

Mark Davies: It's an extremely serious charge John and, clearly, we reject it outright and it's very regrettable some of the things that Mr. Arbuthnot has said this morning.

JH: What did he say that was wrong?

MD: Well, I think, to go back to the original setting up of this inquiry, we as the Post Office, take our responsibilities to our people extremely seriously and to their welfare as well.

JH: What did he say that was wrong?

MD: If I could just finish the point, I think it's really, really important to set this out. The Horizon system that Mr. Arbuthnot refers to is used every single day of about 80,000 people. In the course of the last decade, half a million people have used that system without any problems, face-to-face with customers across the 11,500 branches in the Post Office network. That said, a very small number of people came to us through their MPs with some questions, some issues which they said they had problems with the system. That amounts to 0.03% of those people who have dealt with the Horizon system in the last…

JH: It's still 150 people…

MD: It absolutely is.

JH: …and each individuals with their own lives being ruined. Now, what was it that Mr. Arbuthnot said about your handling of this scheme that is wrong?

MD: Well what is wrong is, first and foremost, that the scheme hasn't finished yet, John. So two and a half years ago, we set up a review into the Horizon system, that review has found no evidence at all have any systemic problems with the Horizon system.

JH: But it's your own review, isn't it?

MD: Well, it with independent forensic accountants, John. And then we set up the complaint and mediation scheme for those 150 people who came forward. Look, we advertised for people to come forward, we went to our people across the Post Office network and said, "If you feel that you've been treated unfairly, please come and talk to us about that." I don't think, if we weren't taking this seriously, I don't think we would have done that.

JH: But you've heard the story of Jo Hamilton there. I mean, she's tried to do everything that she could, at least if we are to believe her, and we have no reason not to believe her. Everything she could have done, she's tried to do and she's got nowhere.

MD: You'll forgive me John, for not getting into an individual case....

JH: All right. I understand you can't do that. But nonetheless, she is representative of many people like her, and they are in desperate trouble now, and they have a case, don't they?

MD: I am really sorry if people have had... have faced lifetime difficulties, lifestyle problems as a result of their having been working in Post Office branches. It doesn't necessarily follow, though, that the Post Office is responsible for the issues that people have had. And I think our commitment to seeking to look at every single case is on the line...

JH: But you barred 90% of them?

MD: No, that's not true. And I don't accept that figure at all. I mean…

JH: Well, what is the figure?

MD: Well, I haven't got... The working group, which is chaired independently by a former High Court judge is bound by confidentiality, the Post Office is bound by confidentiality.

JH: So you can't tell me how many have been barred? It might be 90%. It might be...

MD: I'm afraid I can't, John, because the working group was set up with confidentiality in mind. And we as The Post Office is bound to that.

JH: Well, you're not giving anything away, you know, I'm not asking you for the names of the people. I'm asking you for the number of people who have been barred.

MD: And I can't go into the details of that at all, we…

JH: So in that case we're entitled to accept what Mr. Arbuthnot said, which is that it is 90%.

MD: I don't accept that at all. It's not my... It's not, well...

JH: But without being able to give me a figure, with the best word in the world, it's impossible for us to have anything other than accept the figure that Mr Arbuthnot has given us.

MD: Well we have been placed in an intolerable position as the Post Office, because we're bound by a confidentiality agreement, which was agreed with all parties...

JH: But you entered into that...

MD: ...including the…

JH: …agreement yourselves.

MD: We did. Including with the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance. So we're in an extremely difficult position. It's not the case that 90% have been rejected. We're actually looking at every single case on a case-by-case basis.

JH: So you're saying no ruling has been rejected?

MD: We're absolutely committed to doing that. I'm not saying that at all, we look at every single case on a case-by-case basis. And in some cases, there is evidence whereby we've looked at what's happened, and we've held our hands up and said, "In some cases, we could have done things differently." And we've reached agreement with some people. In other cases, we don't...

JH: And if they have pleaded guilty, they've been banned as well.

MD: If I can just finish the point. In other cases, we haven't reached that conclusion because we have to take it extremely seriously. We're a large retail organization. We conduct audits in our branches across the 11,500 branches every single day. Where there are cases where there have been losses in those branches, then clearly, we have a duty to look at those, and you'd expect us to do that on behalf of our customers, on behalf of taxpayers.

JH: Final very quick word, Mr. Arbuthnot.

JA: Mark Davies says that it's a tiny proportion of the transactions in the Post Office, and of course, that's right. And yet one single miscarriage of justice ought to galvanize the nation and I've got more than 140 MPs, some of them with more than one case. This is not a small problem.

MD: And if evidence emerges where there is evidence that the case should be re-looked at through the legal processes, absolutely the Post Office has a legal duty to take that forward and we will do so.

JH: Mark Davies, James Arbuthnot. Thank you both very much indeed."

I've written about the democratic deficit in the Post Office's repeated failure to be held to account here. It's just as damaging as the lack of governmental oversight and failure of the NFSP.

One of the problems of not being interviewed, not being properly audited and not being challenged by the only "union" it recognises, is that the Post Office has been allowed to exist in a bubble. It is only being forced to rub up against reality with the ongoing litigation.

If Mr Davies, the current Chairman/CEO or indeed anyone else from the Post Office wishes to make it two in two decades and give another interview about Horizon and the Subpostmasters they've sacked and prosecuted, please do get in touch. There is lots to talk about.

-----------------------

* When she was chief executive, Paula Vennells and her then "Head of Partnerships", Angela van den Bogerd, accepted an invitation to give evidence to a parliamentary select committee inquiry on 3 Feb 2015.

Before giving evidence Ms Vennells instructed her staff to find a way for her to tell MPs that remote access to branch Horizon terminals wasn't possible when, in fact, it was. She also refused to answer MPs' questions on whether she had received legal coaching before speaking to the inquiry. Ms van den Bogerd has since been found to have attempted to mislead a High Court judge on oath.

** See more of Jo's story here.

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

If you feel so inclined, please help keep this crowdfunded public-interest journalism project going by chucking a few quid in the tip jar below. Contributors who give £20 or more will start receiving regular "secret" emails which have all the info and gossip about this litigation as it makes its way through the courts.

If you want to find out a little bit more about the underlying story, click here.


Choose an amount
at

Wednesday, 1 May 2019

And with that... she was gone

The Reverend Paula Anne Vennells CBE
Paula Vennells has, as of yesterday, been terminated as a director of the Post Office. I am grateful to blogger and campaigner Tim McCormack for bringing this to my attention.

Ms Vennells leaves her post having failed to give a single interview about the Bates and others v Post Office court action which, by the Post Office's own admission, poses an existential threat* to the business she joined in 2007 and ran for seven years from 2012 - 2019.

The taxpayer-owned Post Office has been caught trying to use government grants to fight the court action, and if it loses this litigation, it will have to go cap-in-hand to the government for a massive bailout or face disintegration.

I have written before (see "The Ballad of Paula Vennells") about the failure of anyone to effectively hold Ms Vennells to account over a scandal brewing before she joined the Post Office, but which effectively exploded on her watch.

Now she moves on to Chair the Imperial Health Trust and take up a non-executive role overseeing the Cabinet Office with a CBE and a nice clean pair of heels.

I hope that whoever chooses to ratify the above appointments asks some pertinent questions, and whoever might get to interview Ms Vennells (once she makes herself available) has a look at the findings made about the attitude and business practices of the organisation she ran.

Her christian supporters may also want to ask the reverend how she could morally preside over and defend an organisation which appears to have destroyed so many lives and livelihoods.

------------------------

* worth repeating in full. From clause three of the common issues trial written opening statement by Mr David Cavender QC: "If Cs [the claimants] were right in the broad thrust of their case, this would represent an existential threat to Post Office’s ability to continue to carry on its business throughout the UK in the way it presently does."

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

Please feel free to forward the link to this blog post. The more people who read it, the more people find out about what is the biggest trial going through the UK courts right now.

Please also consider a donation to keep the postofficetrial.com website going by choosing an amount and clicking the button at the bottom of this post. Contributors who donate £20 or more will be added to this secret email list. Thanks!


Choose an amount

at

Tuesday, 30 April 2019

Common Issues trial judgment: Alan Bates and James Hartley interview

Alan Bates outside court on 15 March 2019
If you are a follower of the Post Office Horizon story, you may have noticed Alan Bates, lead claimant in Bates and others v Post Office, and founder of the Justice for Subpostmasters' Alliance, doesn't give very many interviews.

As far as I am aware, until recently, Alan Bates had given just one solitary broadcast interview - to Taro Naw, the now-defunct Welsh-language investigative documentary programme, back in 2009.

This has always been a source of annoyance to me, partly because Mr Bates was a very good interviewee on Taro Naw and would probably have made a valuable contribution to a number of programmes since. I also think had he been more vocal down the years, this would be a bigger story than it is.

Anyway, on 15 March 2019, the day the Common Issues trial judgment came out, Alan Bates did give some media interviews. In fact, he held a press conference outside the High Court's Rolls Building alongside James Hartley, a litigation partner at Freeths, the claimants' solicitors.

There follows a tidied-up transcript of the one-to-one interviews the two men gave me, and at the bottom of this blog post, links to all the media reports that were published on the day. First things first:

Alan Bates - lead claimant and founder, Justice for Subpostmasters' Alliance

"NW: That's a pretty hefty judgment you're holding in your arms there.... your initial reactions and responses to it?

AB: Stunning, absolutely delighted. We couldn't be happier for the whole group. I mean, we've all been working for this for years. But now we're actually there. I'm so pleased with it.

NW: You've been campaigning for what... definitely more than a decade... this is the first time you have been legally vindicated in your campaign. It must be a big moment for you.

AB: It is but it's taken us this long to get here, unfortunately. It's been slowly, slowly, stage by stage, step by step, until we've had enough evidence and managed to find the support of a legal team that would take it to court for us.

NW: I know you haven't had long to go through the judgment. Are there any things that you would particularly pick out as being significant to you?

AB: The culture of secrecy that Post Office has, and how they stonewall everybody, not just ourselves but also the MPs over the years. There's an awful lot of truth in this document in there. And as it comes out over the following weeks, I think people will be shocked to hear what's been going on.

NW: The whole cost of this litigation is being essentially borne on the Post Office side by the taxpayer. It's a taxpayer-owned organization. Why have they been so determined to fight you and shut your claim down?

AB: Because they don't want people to know what's been going on. It's a disorganized organization that's very poorly led and it has been for donkey's years. And all they try and do is cover up their mistakes. They try and keep things hidden from people. And they are absolutely desperate for us [sic] to discuss anything to do with their computer or IT systems.

NW: Paula Vennells [Post Office CEO from 2012 - 2019] has left before the music started, hasn't she? What's your take on her leadership of the Post Office and her exit from the job shortly before this judgment?

AB: I have to wonder, is she gone before she was pushed? But you know, I don't know that but she might just be moving on to bigger and better things. But I mean, I think it's very good for Post Office, she's going at this time and I hope they bring somebody in that actually clears out the house and starts afresh. And we'd be delighted to help any way we can along the way.

NW: Many people will not know what this story is. It's bubbled under for many, many years, occasionally raising its head in the media. But there will be people watching your interview who just have no idea what the claimants have been through. Could you just give us an idea of what some of your fellow claimants have been through?

AB: Well, people have been made bankrupt, they've been driven through the courts, they've finished up in prison. And mainly it's because, at the end of the day, it's due to a contract that's very poorly worded. It's been shown in court that it doesn't have a lot of legs to stand on legally. And it's... being held liable or responsible for losses that they've been generated by a system which they've got very little control over.

NW: So what does today's judgment mean for them?

AB: I think it's a new day for that. It's a new dawning. And I think from here we go from strength to strength.

NW: Is this a turning point?

AB: It is a turning point because we've now actually had something through the courts that the courts agreed with us about what we've done. And we'll just carry on with that as the cases progress.

NW: I realize you can't say much more because this is an ongoing trial, at the moment. This is a long, slow process.... Is it taking it out of you?

AB: Well, it does but you know, it's a full-time job in theory for myself nowadays, and I'm so engrossed with it. And I couldn't put it down even if I wanted to. It's just too many people involved, it affects too many people. And at the end of the day, we will get justice for them all.

NW: There are a subset of the claimants who have criminal convictions against their name, largely due to the way the contracts was enforced. What does today's judgment on the contract mean for them?

AB: I don't know. You'd have to ask the CCRC, the Criminal Cases Review Commission where their cases are now being looked at by them. But I'm absolutely certain that the CCRC will be studying this judgment in great detail.

NW: The MPs who have supported the claimants for a large portion of your campaign found that they were unable to make progress with the Post Office. The Post Office is supposedly controlled by the business ministry. What do you make of the dynamic that is going on at the very highest levels at the legislature?

AB: My feeling is that the Post Office executive have been doing private briefings to the ministers over the year every time these matters have been raised with them. And have given them all sorts of assurances which now they're starting to find they aren't true. Now, the Post Office has stonewalled MPs year in, year out, at its select committees and at all sorts of other events in there. And they haven't responded, I think honestly and transparently throughout all of this. And I hope now that the MPs will take up the battle once more and actually bring Post Office to account for what it's done.

NW: What would you like to the government to do?

AB: I want the government to call it in, I want the committees to actually pull the executive in. I want an independent inquiry into the whole thing. But we'll carry on with our court cases because we're not stopping now. We've been going long enough. We're quite happy to carry on. And we're going to show in court what Post Office has been doing, as we have already in the previous trial.

NW: At the moment, we got Horizon trial ongoing and then finally...well, not finally... later on this year, we may have a third trial which will actually look into whether or not the Post Office were concealing issues from individual sub-postmasters. If that goes in your favor, what should happen to individual Post Office employees who are part of this culture that you were describing?

AB: Well, we'll have to wait for the trials to take place, obviously. And very much in those cases, we'll be looking to our legal experts to advise us along the way. I can't really answer that much further.

NW: Okay. The final question then. To what extent is Paula Vennells culpable for the way the Post Office has been behaving?

AB: Well, I think you only have to look back at some of the transcripts of the BIS [Business Innovation and Skills select committee] hearing, for example, when she was told by the MPs who were questioning her at the time, the buck stops with you, Paula. And that's where it lies. And it was down to her to... She's been at the helm throughout all this time and we very much held her responsible and now she's leaving. So I don't... I mean, she's leaving now. I don't know why. But I mean, I think it's a fortuitous time for her to go if she is going."

James Hartley outside court on 15 March 2019
James Hartley - litigation partner, Freeths solicitors

"NW: Tell me then about the significance of today's judgment.

JH: This is significant, Nick, for a number of reasons. First of all, obviously for the group, it's a very, very significant watershed for this group of claimants who've been fighting this for years now. So from their perspective, they're finally being listened to, and they're finally watching Post Office being held accountable. So it's enormously significant to these claimants. Secondly, it's significant on a legal footing, in a sense that we now have a judgment of the High Court, which sets out very clearly what Post Office's contractual obligations have always been, which are wide-ranging. And that includes an obligation and duty for them to act with good faith and transparency and cooperation with these claimants. And if it's found that Post Office haven't done that over the years, then they will be in breach of contract, and they will be responsible for damages. So significant on a legal footing.

NW: What does it mean for the individual claimants, many of whom have been left tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket by the way they've been treated contractually by the Post Office?

JH: Well, what this means is that, as I say, their particular situations are now being listened to and looked at. So ultimately, if breaches are confirmed, breach of contracts are confirmed, then they will be entitled to compensation. Which won't put right what's been done but it will help them.

NW: So the significance of this judgment is that it sets out exactly what the nature of the contract was. And it's largely the way that the claimants were stating that it should have been.

JH: Correct. The other significant point about this judgment as well as the findings by the court as to how some of these claimants have been treated, and also the references to Post Office's culture of secrecy. So not only has the judge found that a number of these claimants have been treated oppressively but the judge has, as I say, referred to this culture of secrecy, which is a significant issue in this case, and there will be more on that in future trials.

NW: So we're in the middle of a trial right now. Just give us a sense of scale of what's going on in this litigation and how it fits into the campaign that the claimants have been running for goodness knows how many years already?

JH: Well, the scale of the litigation is we've got over 550 claimants. And as you, I think, mentioned earlier on, Nick, there has been need to deploy a large legal team that has been working flat out, producing witness statements, reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents at enormous cost. And enormous time has been imposed by these claimants as well. So the cost is significant. And that was pretty necessary because the Post Office has continued to defend this case for years and years.

NW: The judge has some very harsh comments to make about the credibility of the Post Office witnesses. What are your comments on that?

JH: We agree with his comments. The cross-examination of those witnesses did highlight the fact that they seem to find it impossible to avoid their evidence being tailored to the interests of Post Office. That was the observation made or finding made by the judge. So we absolutely agree with the judges' comments and the judgments on that. And it doesn't surprise us because we have been, of course, reviewing documents that have been produced over many years where I'd say we have a good idea or a very good idea as to what the true facts are.

NW: To what extent is today's judgment historic? This campaign has been running for the best part of two decades now. And as far as I'm aware, no legal finding has ever been made against the Post Office in all the different iterations of ways this has reached court.

JH: I think it is historic. And as I say, I think it's historic because of the subject matter of the litigation, because of the amount of time it's been ongoing, and because we are dealing with a state-owned entity with very, very significant question marks now over their culture and how they're operated. So the phrase miscarriage of justice has been used a lot. And I think that that is a very appropriate phrase to use, particularly when one considers the work that's going on by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the CCRC, who are looking into whether or not the 20 or 30 convictions, criminal convictions of postmasters should be appealed on the basis they're unsafe. So again, there is a link between this case in the High Court and the work of CCRC. And I think if one looks at that in the round, then yes, one gets to the conclusion that this is a significant and historic judgment.

NW: Final question, there were some severe criticisms made of the evidence of one of the Post Office directors, Angela van den Bogerd, for her evidence in the first trial. She is due to be cross-examined next week. Does anything that is in this judgment have any bearing on what is happening in the ongoing trial?

JH: It doesn't necessarily have any direct bearing on what the judge will decide at the next trial because he will base his decision on evidence that he hears in the next trial. However, observations in the judgments regarding the impact on the weight that the court will put on her evidence. Because the judge has indicated that by reason of the way she gave evidence in the last trial, they will need to be documentary evidence supporting what she says. So that could well impact on the weight that is given to her evidence in the next trial."


Post Office response

The Post Office refused all requests for interviews on the day the judgment was handed down (as they have done all but once in my ten years of covering this story), but they did release the following statement, from Post Office Chairman Tim Parker:

"We take this judgment and its criticisms of Post Office very seriously.

“While the culture and practices of the business have improved in many ways over the years, the Judge’s comments are a forceful reminder to us that we must always continue to do better.  We have taken his criticisms on board and will take action throughout our organisation.

Our postmasters are the backbone of our business, and our first priority will be to consider the points raised about the management of our contractual relationships and how we could improve them.

We will make sure that problems brought to our attention by postmasters are investigated even more quickly and transparently.

In addition, we will further improve communications with postmasters, as well as the training and support they receive.

We note that the judgment highlights the ways our Network Transformation Programme improved procedures for incoming postmasters since 2011. The vast majority of those running post offices do so without problems and we can reassure the millions of customers who use our services every week that this judgment, focusing as it does on the interpretation of contracts with postmasters, will not affect their ability to do so.

Post Office will continue to defend the overall litigation, which has been underway since April 2016 and is scheduled to continue through four trials until at least March 2020.

This judgment from the first trial is long and detailed and we will take time to consider it fully.

There are, however, areas around the interpretation of our contracts where the Judge’s conclusions differ from what we expected from a legal standpoint and we are therefore seriously considering an appeal on certain legal interpretations.”

Further reading:

The Common Issues trial judgment
A quick fisking of the Common Issues trial judgment
"He did it" - report written on the day of Common Issues trial judgment for this blog.
Post Office response to the judgment
Post Office video response to the judgment - needs to be seen to be believed
NFSP response to the judgment
My take on the NFSP's pasting in the judgment

Some on-the-day press/tv/radio reports:

ITV News: "Landmark court ruling in favour of Subpostmasters"

Channel 4 News: "Subpostmasters win court battle against Post Office"

Sky News: "Hundreds of Subpostmasters win landmark case"

Sky News (again): "Bankruptcy and jail: why we sued the Post Office"

FT: "Sub-postmasters win legal victory against Post Office" (paywalled)

Daily Mail: "Subpostmasters hail High Court Victory"

Daily Mail (again): "Emphatic victory as 550 ex-Subpostmasters win High Court battle"

Computer Weekly: "Subpostmasters achieve stunning victory against Post Office in Horizon case"

The Register: "Blighty's most trusted brand? Yeah, you wish, judge tells Post Office"

If an outlet/publication wrote something about the judgment on the day and I haven't listed it, please send me the link (via the contact form on this webpage) and I'll add it with thanks.

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

Please feel free to forward the link to this blog post. The more people who read it, the more people find out about what is the biggest trial going through the UK courts right now.

Please also consider a donation to keep the postofficetrial.com website going by choosing an amount and clicking the button at the bottom of this post. Contributors who donate £20 or more will be added to this secret email list. Thanks!


Choose an amount
at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)