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.