Post office compensation scheme

[Clitheroekid]

Whilst I’ve been as horrified by the Post Office scandal as everyone else I am now seriously concerned that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Over the past couple of years I’ve spoken to a couple of my colleagues who practise criminal law and who have personal knowledge of some of the prosecutions over the years.

They have told me that both their own experience and the `word in the trade' is that many defendants pleaded guilty because they were guilty, and that their convictions were not based on evidence derived from the Horizon system.

I would therefore think it likely that a significant proportion of the convictions were entirely justified, and had nothing to do with the faults of the Horizon system. Or, more accurately, they may well have occurred as a result of faults in the Horizon system but that those faults were exploited by some sub-postmasters for their own benefit.

It seems to have been overlooked that out of the 700 convictions between 1999 and 2015 147 of them have now been dealt with by the Court of Appeal. However, `only' 92 of those appeals have resulted in the convictions being overturned. Whilst that's a large number, it's actually rather lower than the average success rate for criminal appeals. Between 1997 and 2023 out of 806 appeals heard 569 were successful - 71% compared with the 63% of PO appeals.

So even on those figures it’s reasonable to assume that around a third of convictions were justified. In fact, the proportion may be considerably higher – it’s quite possible that the reason 80% of the convictions have not been appealed is because many of the defendants knew they were guilty.

Although this has been bothering me for a while I was prompted to write by an article in our trade press - https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/firm- ... 77.article I should, perhaps, point out that Peters & Peters are widely recognised as one of the top City firms that practise in criminal law, and although they are advising the PO regarding the appeals they were not involved in any of the prosecutions.

However, my understanding is that the proposed legislation will not only exonerate these criminals by cancelling their criminal record, but richly reward them with a payment of £600,000 in return for some sort of written declaration that that they have done nothing wrong. I don’t think it’s stretching credibility to believe that a genuine criminal might just be tempted to sign such a declaration knowing it to be untrue if the reward for doing so is being released from clink and picking up a presumably tax-free gift of £600,000 from the taxpayer.

Kevin Hollinrake, the Minister for the Post Office, has apparently accepted that this will happen, but that it is a reasonable price to pay in order to clear the decks. I’m afraid I don’t agree. It is, to my mind, utterly wrong in principle for the government to use my taxes to stuff the pockets of convicted criminals. It may well be more expensive and time-consuming to deal with each case on an individual basis, but justice shouldn't be a matter of convenience.

However, I suspect that many people will agree with the official line. I should therefore like to ask for the views of my learned fellow Fools.

[the0ni0nking]

I have no insight in the same way that you have in terms of the conversations within the legal fraternity.

I think I'm in agreement in so far that the societal judgemental pendulum seems to have swung too far to the extent that "we are now all sufficiently outraged about this, so sod due process, we must exonerate them all irrespective of the evidence."

And this has been mentioned previously here - let some off who were guilty for the "wider good".

But that's the problem - plenty of this could and likely should have been resolved years ago whereas now we're rushing to a solution - largely endorsed across the party political spectrum - when there had been plenty of time beforehand for a more considered analysis and review

[staffordian]

There is one issue I don't understand about the Horizon scandal. Apparently the Postmasters all knew that under the terms of their contracts they were responsible for any shortages. All perfectly reasonable when they and they alone (or their staff, of course) dealt with all the transactions.

So this being the case, how could Postmasters expect to commit the frauds they were accused of? Surely they were just stealing from themselves? And in the same vein, on what grounds were they prosecuted. Presumably only where they could not or would not reimburse the Post Office for the shorts.

If so, it does seem likely that the bulk of the shortages and by extension, the prosecutions were Horizon induced, or possibly (but IMHO not likely) committed in the knowledge that Horizon had issues and in the hope they could blame the shortage on the sytem. Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?

The answers to the above would inform how I vote in this poll, which I've thus far held back from doing.

[XFool]

Whilst I’ve been as horrified by the Post Office scandal as everyone else I am now seriously concerned that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Over the past couple of years I’ve spoken to a couple of my colleagues who practise criminal law and who have personal knowledge of some of the prosecutions over the years.

They have told me that both their own experience and the `word in the trade' is that many defendants pleaded guilty because they were guilty, and that their convictions were not based on evidence derived from the Horizon system.

However, I suspect that many people will agree with the official line. I should therefore like to ask for the views of my learned fellow Fools.

Nothing "learned" about this Fool. So just a few random thoughts.

The "word in the trade"? Um... well, the word in the PO trade was, at one time, that they were ALL guilty.

I don't doubt that, in a large population of people operating independently in a financial environment, where cash is handed over daily, inevitably there would be financial crime. I don't doubt that is what the PO thought - and they also thought Horizon was, amongst other things, a way of finding out the guilty.

Unfortunately...

So even on those figures it’s reasonable to assume that around a third of convictions were justified. In fact, the proportion may be considerably higher – it’s quite possible that the reason 80% of the convictions have not been appealed is because many of the defendants knew they were guilty.

Lots of things are quite possible - including everything that is not impossible. I might be a murderer - but that is not evidence I should be handed a life sentence.

Court cases then to pursue the guilty? Look - who now on a jury would be prepared to believe anything the PO would bring forward as evidence? How many years would it take? How many more expensive briefs would need to be paid?

From the linked article:

"In a statement to parliament last week, Hollinrake added: ‘The government accepts that this is a price worth paying in order to ensure that many innocent people are exonerated.’"

So what now is the alternative? That we accept it is a price worth paying for guilty people being found guilty that many innocent and possibly innocent people are allowed to go on suffering for years more? And that it is a better thing for the government to continue for years to "use my taxes to stuff the pockets of" expensive lawyers? (Not that that hasn't already happened)

But that's the problem - plenty of this could and likely should have been resolved years ago whereas now we're rushing to a solution - largely endorsed across the party political spectrum - when there had been plenty of time beforehand for a more considered analysis and review

Well yes it should have been. But it wasn't, was it? It was all screwed up by incompetence, and possibly worse, by two large organisations. One a public body and the other a private company.

Perhaps by now it is simply a case of: "Enough already"?

[didds]

Whilst I’ve been as horrified by the Post Office scandal as everyone else I am now seriously concerned that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Over the past couple of years I’ve spoken to a couple of my colleagues who practise criminal law and who have personal knowledge of some of the prosecutions over the years.

They have told me that both their own experience and the `word in the trade' is that many defendants pleaded guilty because they were guilty, and that their convictions were not based on evidence derived from the Horizon system.

IANAL. But I am one of the men on the Clapham omnibus.

I get what your concerns are CK of course - but this is the tangled web that the PO has weaved themselves by deceiving, lieing and obfuscating everything already. They have created the situation whereby none of the prosecutions are likely to be safe. Any miscarriages of justice the other way (so to speak) lay entirely at their door.

I would add that it is, to my mind, utterly wrong in principle for the government to use my taxes( in effect) to stuff the pockets of the innocent for so long.

Its frankly just another manifestation of the adage from Benjamin Franklin - "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer." Others have said similar etc etc etc

[XFool]

There is one issue I don't understand about the Horizon scandal. Apparently the Postmasters all knew that under the terms of their contracts they were responsible for any shortages. All perfectly reasonable when they and they alone (or their staff, of course) dealt with all the transactions.

So this being the case, how could Postmasters expect to commit the frauds they were accused of? Surely they were just stealing from themselves? And in the same vein, on what grounds were they prosecuted. Presumably only where they could not or would not reimburse the Post Office for the shorts.

I have no inside knowledge on this matter but, going on my personal observation in the 1970s and later understanding in the 1980s, wrt the introduction of laser scanners at supermarket check-outs: If you take goods out, you need to 'sell' lots of stuff to unsuspecting people to get the cash to balance. Turning this around, if you want to take cash out, you would need to 'sell' a lot of stuff (or possibly not) to... somebody, or other.

[the0ni0nking]

I do wonder if the fact this is a financial crime (or lack of) clouds the judgement of the wider population. If they had been murderers I doubt we'd have such an outcry (i.e. we'd be happy to have some in prison wrongly because the crime was murder as opposed to theft/fraud).

[UncleEbenezer]

Surely it's a principle of how our system is supposed to work. Beyond reasonable doubt. And for those convicted, convictions are overturned because they're unsafe, not necessarily wrong.

Any conviction that used Horizon evidence would now appear to be unsafe! Given that that's what's now been declared, I have a problem here with the premise of your poll.

[staffordian]

I have no inside knowledge on this matter but, going on my personal observation in the 1970s and later understanding in the 1980s, wrt the introduction of laser scanners at supermarket check-outs: If you take goods out, you need to 'sell' lots of stuff to unsuspecting people to get the cash to balance. Turning this around, if you want to take cash out, you would need to 'sell' a lot of stuff (or possibly not) to... somebody, or other.

I'm unsure how relevent this comparison is, but I see a parallel. When scanning at supermarkets came in, one benefit was the almost real time stock control it allowed (assuming no thefts, of course...).

Horizon, and Capture before it, presumably did something similar, in that all items had to go through the terminal, so, in theory, stock and cash balancing should be a doddle. Now if a bent PM sold stuff without entering it in Horizon, then pocketed the cash, the crime would be easily discovered because the cash would balance to the system figure, but the stock would be proven to be short at the next audit. So again, the PM would be responsible for the short and the PO would not suffer a loss.

So, again, on what grounds would a prosecution be made?

Still puzzled...

[Lanark]

If this had been unfolding over a more reasonable time-frame of 2-5 years then I could see an argument for closer investigation of the minority of genuine fraud cases. But this has been going on for over 20 years, everyone involved is starting to die off.

The amount of fraud by post offices increased by something like 20 fold immediately after the Horizon system was introduced.
Correlation is not causation, but it is now clear that the vast majority of these cases were down to software faults and broken ways of working at head office.

Even if you could find a clear case where someone looks guilty, at this point I doubt if any jury is going to convict.

One amazing part of this saga, is that the software is still in use and still causing problems.

The written declaration that that 'they have done nothing wrong' presumably leaves the door open for future prosecutions should they ever get things together and be able to prove some cases beyond doubt.
That seems very unlikely though, if all the evidence is coming from a deeply flawed IT system, how are they going to prove anything?

[chrissyr]

The bit that gets me is - if I was stealing from my post office every month for many years and geting away with it all well and good. But if the PO installed a new system that showed that I was stealing every month/week or however often I had to reconcile my account, I'd have to be a bit dim to continue stealing in that way.
Now of course they could try a double bluff on that but then you would have to coordinate that with all the others which didn't happen.

And from the tv I seem to get the impression that the PO investigators sort of said pay the money back and plead guilty to false accounting you'll get a lesser sentence. Now you can argue they did false account as they signed off on the figures knowing that they were wrong.

But still they seem to have been hard done by.

[Leothebear]

I think in this instance pragmatism is called for. The actions of the PO senior management have been so monumentally flawed, haste in compensating the wronged is essental and if a few undeserved cases get through, so be it.

I'd then put, as the next priority, determining and prosecuting those who knowingly kept on with the POSP's prosecutions , after Horizon was discovered to be a dog's breakfast, with perverting the course of justice.

[stewamax]

There is one issue I don't understand about the Horizon scandal. Apparently the Postmasters all knew that under the terms of their contracts they were responsible for any shortages. All perfectly reasonable when they and they alone (or their staff, of course) dealt with all the transactions. So this being the case, how could Postmasters expect to commit the frauds they were accused of? Surely they were just stealing from themselves? And in the same vein, on what grounds were they prosecuted. Presumably only where they could not or would not reimburse the Post Office for the shorts.

A few points:

- Subpostmasters* (SPMs) in England and Wales were privately prosecuted by the Post Office themselves. One might construe that they had some additional skin in the game

- the PO were taking at face value Horizon's statement that the branch cash account (trial balance) showed a loss. The PO prosecuted on that basis. Detailed analysis often subsequently revealed that the PO had not experienced a genuine loss.

- the 'Impact' development removed the ability for SPMs to put Horizon-indicated losses and credits into suspense that allowed them to temporarily balance the trading statement, reconcile cash with stock, and roll over to a new trading period. To continue to trade, the SPM would be forced immediately to either plug the gap with his/her own money (which many did - unwarranted as it often turned out) and/or blitz the PO Horizon Help Desk or even the Fujitsu Help Desk if they knew one existed - but not get a worthwhile response.

- some SPMs were threatened by PO Investigators with probable prison if they didn't plead guilty to false accounting, repay the apparent loss AND claim that the Horizon system was robust. After doing this, they were nevertheless prosecuted by the PO for theft and imprisoned.

- the PO denied until very late in the day that branch accounts could be remotely amended without the SPM's knowledge. But they were told much earlier that Fujitsu could indeed do this and had done so to prop up Horizon

I understand CK's view but don't subscribe to it: the speed at which any proper restitution has been made makes Jarndyce vs Jarndyce look like unnecessary haste.

* not employee Postmasters of the former Crown offices

[Clitheroekid]

Some interesting responses, and I'm not surprised to see that my view is a minority one.

Court cases then to pursue the guilty? Look - who now on a jury would be prepared to believe anything the PO would bring forward as evidence? How many years would it take? How many more expensive briefs would need to be paid?

There wouldn't need to be any new court cases to pursue the guilty, as they're already convicted. The point that was made to me by my colleagues was that in the cases they knew about any evidence based on the Horizon software was incidental to the conviction, and that there was plenty of other evidence of fraud that did not derive from the software.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to my mind that we could expect each individual case to be looked at, and that if the conviction was dependent on the software it should be set aside, but that if it was based on extrinsic evidence it should stand. I reiterate that it is so wrong in principle to reward criminals with millions of pounds from scarce public funds that at least a basic effort should be made to separate the wheat from the chaff.

But I'm used to holding a minority view!

[swill453]

It doesn't seem unreasonable to my mind that we could expect each individual case to be looked at, and that if the conviction was dependent on the software it should be set aside, but that if it was based on extrinsic evidence it should stand. I reiterate that it is so wrong in principle to reward criminals with millions of pounds from scarce public funds that at least a basic effort should be made to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The problem is that they haven't even started doing that, and innocent people are already dying before their cases are resolved. More delay is literally fatal.

Scott.

[scotia]

They have told me that both their own experience and the `word in the trade' is that many defendants pleaded guilty because they were guilty, and that their convictions were not based on evidence derived from the Horizon system.

I fear that I disagree with these views. Let us look at the published evidence.
I quote from https://www.postofficetrial.com/2020/05/post-office-reviewing-900-prosecutions.html

there was a significant uplift in prosecutions of Subpostmasters after the advent of Horizon. It went from an average of 3.6 Subpostmasters a year in the six years of available figures up to and including 1998 to an average of 29.8 a year in the six years after the introduction of Horizon in 1999. That is an eight-fold increase - or if you prefer it in percentage terms - 827%.

The most obvious way of looking at this data is that the (unreliable) Horizon system was by far the most important factor in the increase of prosecutions.

[88V8]

Whilst I’ve been as horrified by the Post Office scandal as everyone else I am now seriously concerned that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Over the past couple of years I’ve spoken to a couple of my colleagues who practise criminal law and who have personal knowledge of some of the prosecutions over the years.

They have told me that both their own experience and the `word in the trade' is that many defendants pleaded guilty because they were guilty, and that their convictions were not based on evidence derived from the Horizon system.

If the Post Office wanted it done properly it should have been done umpteen times quicker.
They have delayed and delayed past all excuse.
Those responsible need to be named and sacked.
Move on.

V8

[Cornytiv34]

I have been following this for some time on Private Eye, which I consider a trusted source. I cannot accept that when investigators were paid a bonus for every conviction obtained and used intimidatory tactics their word or statements presented to the courts can have any validity. The courts surely formed an opinion of the witness and the presented "facts" on the information they had at the time. All this new information must now cast doubt upon such historical judgements. Can anyone take their statements or views as now relevant. The deeper the investigations the greater the extent of management involvement.

I wrote to our MP saying I feared the planned payment of compensation to Sub Postmasters could trigger yet another round of incompetence and money grabbing by HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS. The Government must make sure that they are not beset by another round of worries by having tax payment demanded immediately. HMRC is incapable of dealing with the public in writing or on the phone quickly, in some cases delays exceeding a year, but still demands immediate payment of what they may say incorrectly is due.

The Sub Postmasters may want to transfer money to their families and friends who have substantially supported them through difficult times and try and restore lost family life. How will such transfers be treated if more than nominal? They are all getting on in years and have not had the opportunity to make arrangements for paying into pensions on the lost income or minimising inheritance tax should they die. HMR&C must not penalise them upon the POST OFFICE restitution received.

The next nightmare for them will be the Banks and the Money Laundering restrictions, they will be having their accounts closed or more regulatory red tape and problems.

The Government must set up a single department DIRECTLY ANSWERABLE TO THE PRIME MINISTER and Parliament to promptly deal with any problems that arise on any matter connected with this long overdue restitution. The Sub Postmasters, families and friends must not suffer anymore. We must see they do not die in more misery and ensure they can enjoy what is left of their life.

Mike

[stewamax]

The point that was made to me by my colleagues was that in the cases they knew about any evidence based on the Horizon software was incidental to the conviction, and that there was plenty of other evidence of fraud that did not derive from the software. ....
It doesn't seem unreasonable to my mind that we could expect each individual case to be looked at, and that if the conviction was dependent on the software it should be set aside, but that if it was based on extrinsic evidence it should stand.

Given the very recent disclosures of damning material by the PO, and the admission by ex-Fujitsu technicians that they amended branch accounts without telling the subpostmasters - something the PO repeatedly denied was possible, what was extrinsic evidence may have actually only been part of the story. And it now appears that the PO's attitude to disclosure has had an element of bum protection, in spite of their Board being advised that this was (latterly) a statutory Inquiry and that deliberately withholding relevant material was a criminal offence.

CK argues that 'each individual case to be looked at'. Unarguable in principle, but Horizon (in its first of three incarnations) was first developed in 1996, with errors being reported by subpostmasters from its inception, and the first prosecutions by the PO in 1999: twenty-five years ago. How long must the innocent wait for 'their case to be examined'', while living with the various taints of imprisonment, (wrongful) confiscation of their money, bankruptcy, and loss of livelihood?

[Redmires]

twenty-five years ago. How long must the innocent wait for 'their case to be examined'', while living with the various taints of imprisonment, (wrongful) confiscation of their money, bankruptcy, and loss of livelihood?

The infected blood scandal has been dragging on for over 40 years now, and it will soon be 7 years since Grenfell Tower happened. Both have had public inquiries and in both, no one has taken responsibility and no one has been charged. The Post Office case will no doubt follow suit. But lessons, no doubt, 'will be learned'.