header-logo header-logo

Post Office at fault for miscarriage of justice

28 April 2021
Issue: 7930 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Disclosure
printer mail-detail
Court of Appeal criticises ‘egregious’ failures of disclosure & investigation

Lawyers representing sub-postmasters in the Post Office Horizon software scandal have called for a full public inquiry to take place.

39 of the 42 former sub-postmasters had their wrongful convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal last week, following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, in Hamilton and others v Post Office Ltd [2021] EWCA Crim 577.

They were prosecuted by the Post Office between 2003 and 2013, and convicted of crimes including theft and false accounting, when its faulty Horizon accounting system showed unexplained shortfalls and discrepancies. However, it was the software at fault and the Post Office has since admitted unreliable computer evidence may have been used to prosecute more than 900 sub-postmasters.

The Court of Appeal held the Post Office’s failures of investigation and disclosure ‘were so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the “Horizon cases” an affront to the conscience of the court.

‘By representing Horizon as reliable, and refusing to countenance any suggestion to the contrary, Post Office Ltd effectively sought to reverse the burden of proof’.

Neil Hudgell, of Hudgell Solicitors, said: ‘The Post Office failed to offer any sort of explanation as to why wholesale disclosure of evidence was withheld in cases, nor why a proper investigation was not carried out when known problems in the Horizon system started to appear.

‘Instead they sought to attribute failings to incompetence and not bad faith, and to engage in legal gymnastics to seek to persuade the court away from finding a clear systemic abuse of process of the criminal law.’

He called for a judge-led public inquiry, ‘where all those who played any part in this large-scale injustice are required by law to appear and be fully questioned under the rules of evidence and held to account as the independent review currently underway does not have the powers required’.

Issue: 7930 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Disclosure
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll