header-logo header-logo

19 January 2024 / Dr Graham Zellick CBE KC FAcSS
Issue: 8055 / Categories: Opinion , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Post Office litigation: Return to sender?

153990
Graham Zellick believes the government is wrong to annul the subpostmasters’ convictions by legislation

After years of indifference and torpor concerning the improper prosecutions by the Post Office of its staff for theft, fraud and false accounting based on the defective Horizon IT system, rightly described by the Prime Minister as the worst miscarriage of justice scandal in British legal history, along comes a television drama (Mr Bates vs The Post Office), which overnight provoked the government into frenetic hyperactivity.

It all began promisingly enough, with the Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk stating that exceptional methods would be invoked only once it had been concluded that all other possibilities had been exhausted, and the senior judges would of course be consulted. Within a day or so, however, the government had nailed its colours to the mast of exceptionality, committing itself to a blanket quashing of the convictions by legislation—an unprecedented and unconstitutional process that is misguided, unnecessary and problematic.

If only it had drawn breath,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll