News

Exclusive: The legal flaw and trial by computer error

Published

2 years ago

January 5, 2024

EXCLUSIVE: The Herald exposes the legal flaw that led to injustice for Sub Postmasters by our Chief Writer, John Coles and The Herald.Wales Team

IMAGINE being arrested and charged with a crime.

Now, imagine that charge going to trial.

You have led a blameless life, been well-known in your community, and you are entirely innocent of the allegations you face.

You are convicted and sent to prison.

Meanwhile, the person who claims you stole from them takes steps to recoup its money and plunge you into bankruptcy. You lose your business, your home, and your good name.

And you are innocent.

And to make it worse, the person who claims you stole from them has good reason to believe you did not commit any theft and they have lost no money.

They have the evidence to cast doubt on your conviction, but it’s never disclosed to the court or your defence team.

It sounds like something out of fiction. It sounds like the beginning of the plot of The Fugitive.

But it’s real.

And it happened.

It happened here in Pembrokeshire and across the United Kingdom to hundreds of others.

TAXPAYERS FOOT POST OFFICE’S BILL

That is precisely what happened to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses when the Post Office covered up disastrous IT system failures.

And, make no mistake, the Post Office knew what it was doing at the time. It wasn’t a case when the evidence of a computer fault became obvious later.

The Post Office knew there were problems with the Horizon system supplied by Fujitsu. It commissioned reports showing the system was flawed. And Post Office senior management decided to bury them.

It’s an obscene abuse of power for which taxpayers will now foot the bill.

In September, the government announced that every Post Office Horizon scandal victim would receive £600,000 compensation.

Every sub-postmaster whose wrongful conviction relied on evidence from the Horizon computer system is entitled to the money, with “no ifs or buts”.

Eighty-six wrongful convictions have been overturned.

Many postmasters, wrongfully imprisoned for fraud or false accounting, were shunned by their communities or even took their own lives.

At least 30 of the victims have died before seeing justice done.

555 claimants took part in successful group litigation against the Post Office

The Post Office made puny offers to settle litigation with another 2,200 victims;

And the executives who oversaw this scandal have, by and large, walked away with large payoffs, large pensions, honours for their public service and into well-heeled retirement or other well-paid jobs.

A PROBLEM WITH PRESUMPTION

The deliberate failure to disclose evidence that tends to prove the innocence of the accused is – thankfully, despite exceptions and soap operas – seldom an issue in the UK’s courts.

But the accused in the Horizon scandal faced an even greater hurdle than failures in disclosure.
The law provides that evidence provided by a computer is accepted as true unless the accused can produce evidence showing its system is somehow flawed.

This is called “presumption”: something is deemed to be what it states it is on the tin (a functioning and accurate computer system in the Post Office case) unless evidence rebuts the presumption.
This makes sense only so long as a rebuttal is realistically achievable. If it is not, the presumption will inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice.

The more complex the computer system, the less accessible its technical data are, and the more the presumption weighs down on the wrongfully accused. Few barristers are sufficiently qualified in information technology to have more than a mechanical understanding of IT processes (I press a button, the computer turns on, open a computer program, and type a document). And, even if they did, barristers are not expert witnesses or Perry Mason.

THE INNOCENCE TAX

The limits of Legal Aid demonstrate the inequality of arms between the prosecution and defence in criminal cases. Prosecution barristers in criminal law might not earn the big bucks. Still, they’ll be on more than a defence barrister funded by Legal Aid. Prosecutors won’t have to apply for funding for expert witnesses or forensic accountants. The whole force of the state lies behind every prosecution barrister. In most criminal trials, an overworked Legal Aid defence practitioner instructs a barrister and hopes for the best.

And then there’s the “innocence tax”.

Suppose you are acquitted or acquitted after a successful appeal. In that case, you will almost certainly never recover the money you had to contribute to the costs of defending you. That can run into tens – if not hundreds – of thousands of pounds.

Let’s cut this down:

The Post Office knew or reasonably should have known its IT system was defective;

Despite that, it supported the prosecution of subpostmasters and pursued thousands more through the civil court;

Those convicted had no hope of successfully challenging the evidence against them because the law denied them that opportunity;

Those pursued and harried into bankruptcy were in the same position as those prosecuted;

Even when they were vindicated, all of the subpostmasters affected faced financial ruin due to the costs of proving they were not guilty of theft or liable for computer errors.

And if they were made bankrupt, the Insolvency Act means the first call on their compensation goes to their Trustee in bankruptcy.
Private Eye editor Ian Hislop once remarked: “If that’s justice, I’m a banana.”

The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams KC, into the Post Office’s conduct has already reported on its conduct in damming terms and urged both it and the government to compensate those hit by the scandal now.

The Post Office and its executives oversaw the largest miscarriage of justice in modern times.
Those who presided over the cover-up must face the consequences of their actions and inaction. Those who knew the IT system was defective and connived at obscuring the truth must face criminal charges.

News

Angle RNLI launch stood down after false distress beacon alert

Published

1 hour ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

ANGLE RNLI were paged at 10:47am this morning after an EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon) was triggered on a local fishing vessel in the Dale Roads area.

Dale Coastguard Rescue Team was also tasked to investigate the alert.

As the lifeboat crew prepared to launch, further checks by HM Coastguard — along with direct contact from the vessel’s skipper — confirmed the beacon had been activated accidentally.

With no-one found to be in difficulty, the launch was cancelled.

Business

Cardiff Airport announces special Air France flights for Six Nations

Published

2 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

Direct services to Paris-Charles de Gaulle launched to cater for Welsh supporters, French fans and couples planning a Valentine’s getaway

CARDIFF AIRPORT and Air France have unveiled a series of special direct flights between Cardiff (CWL) and Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG) scheduled for February 2026.

Timed to coincide with two major dates — the Wales v France Six Nations clash on Saturday 15 February and Valentine’s weekend — the flights are designed to offer supporters and holidaymakers an easy link between the two capitals.

For travelling French rugby fans, the services provide a straightforward route into Wales ahead of match day at the Principality Stadium, when Cardiff will once again be transformed by the colour, noise and passion that accompanies one of the tournament’s most eagerly awaited fixtures.

For Welsh passengers, the additional flights offer a seamless escape to Paris for Valentine’s Day, as well as opportunities for short breaks and onward travel via Air France’s wider global network.

Cardiff Airport CEO Jon Bridge said: “We’re thrilled to offer direct flights to such a vibrant and exciting city for Valentine’s weekend. Cardiff Airport is expanding its reach and giving customers fantastic travel options. We’ve listened to passenger demand and are delighted to make this opportunity possible. There is more to come from Cardiff.”

Tickets are already on sale via the Air France website and through travel agents.

Special flight schedule

Paris (CDG) → Cardiff (CWL):

13 February 2026: AF4148 departs 17:00 (arrives 17:30)
14 February 2026: AF4148 departs 14:00 (arrives 14:30)
15 February 2026: AF4148 departs 08:00 (arrives 08:30)
15 February 2026: AF4150 departs 19:40 (arrives 20:10)
16 February 2026: AF4148 departs 08:00 (arrives 08:30)
16 February 2026: AF4150 departs 16:30 (arrives 17:00)

Cardiff (CWL) → Paris (CDG):

13 February 2026: AF4149 departs 18:20 (arrives 20:50)
14 February 2026: AF4149 departs 15:20 (arrives 17:50)
15 February 2026: AF4149 departs 09:20 (arrives 11:50)
15 February 2026: AF4151 departs 21:00 (arrives 23:30)
16 February 2026: AF4149 departs 09:20 (arrives 11:50)
16 February 2026: AF4151 departs 17:50 (arrives 20:20)

Crime

Mother admits “terrible idea” to let new partner change her baby’s nappies alone

Published

4 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

Court hears from timid mother who was barely audible in the witness box who said she carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child

A MOTHER who cannot be named for legal reasons gave evidence yesterday in the trial of Christopher Phillips, the man accused of physically and sexually assaulting her infant son – referred to as Baby C – and causing him life-changing injuries in January 2021.

Phillips, 37 at the time, had been in a relationship with the mother for only a few weeks when Baby C, then around 10 weeks old, suffered catastrophic anal injuries at a flat in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire. The child was rushed to Glangwili Hospital in the early hours of January 24 and survived, but the harm was permanent. Phillips denies 11 counts of sexual penetration of a child under 13, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, all between December 20, 2020, and January 25, 2021. The mother denies two charges of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm and two charges of child cruelty by neglect.

The prosecution alleges that Phillips deliberately inflicted the injuries while alone with the baby during nappy changes, using a finger coated in Sudocrem as lubricant on multiple occasions, leading to escalating harm including blood in the nappies and ultimately a massive tear and prolapse. A central part of their case is that the mother repeatedly allowed Phillips unsupervised access to her son – including taking him into another room to change his nappy and shut the door – despite knowing very little about him and despite behaviour that should have raised alarm, such as his insistence on privacy and her own unease.

Late on Thursday morning (Dec 4), under lengthy and forceful cross-examination by Caroline Rees KC, prosecuting, the mother appeared composed but spoke so quietly and timidly that people in court struggled to hear her answers. She conceded point after point:

She carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child.
She allowed him to be alone with Baby C from the very start of January 2021 (possibly even before 2 January).
She ignored her own concerns and permitted Phillips to shut the door while changing the baby’s nappy, telling her not to enter or accusing her of “micromanaging”.
She accepted that this had exposed her son to “a massive risk” and had been “a terrible idea”.

The mother explained that Phillips had said he wanted to learn nappy-changing because he “never got the chance” with his own child. She initially stayed in the room but soon permitted him to take Baby C into a separate room alone. She also recounted noticing odd details during changes, such as Phillips having Sudocrem around his finger “as if it had come from a pot” – despite her not owning a pot of the cream – and him leaving the room without putting the baby’s babygro back on after fastening the nappy, which immediately struck her as wrong. A few days earlier, she had discovered extensive bruising to the baby’s bottom, a swollen testicle and blood in his nappy, prompting her to confide in family and seek medical advice, though Phillips became angry when she mentioned the appointments.

Key moments from the cross-examination

Caroline Rees KC: “You took no steps whatsoever to keep Baby C safe, did you?” Mother (barely audible): “No.”

Caroline Rees KC: “You did absolutely nothing to keep him safe, did you?” Mother: “No.”

When His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC asked her to clarify for the jury why she let Phillips change the baby alone, she confirmed:

“I wasn’t allowed in the room. If I tried to go in he would accuse me of micromanaging.”

She said this made her feel “annoyed”, but she “ignored it”.

Caroline Rees KC put it directly to the mother:

“The signs were all there, weren’t they?”
“It was a terrible idea, wasn’t it?”
“You could have stopped it at any time – by doing the changes yourself or by ending the relationship.”
“This man wanted to have your baby on his own more than is normal.”

The mother eventually accepted each proposition, agreeing that: