British Post Office scandal

7 languages

- Article

- Talk

- Read

- Edit

- View history

Tools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Post Office scandal or Horizon scandal involved faulty accounting software, provided by Fujitsu and known as Horizon, creating false shortfalls in the accounts of thousands of subpostmasters. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, described it as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in the history of the United Kingdom. Between 1999 and 2015, over 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on faulty Horizon data, with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office. Other subpostmasters were prosecuted but not convicted, forced to cover Horizon shortfalls with their own money, or had their contracts terminated. The court cases, criminal convictions, imprisonments, loss of livelihoods and homes, debts and bankruptcies, took a heavy toll on the victims and their families, leading to stress, illness, divorce and, in at least four cases, suicide.

Although many subpostmasters had reported problems with the new software, the Post Office had insisted that Horizon was robust and failed to disclose its knowledge of faults in the system while securing convictions. In May 2009, Computer Weekly broke the story about problems with Horizon, and in September 2009 subpostmaster Alan Bates launched the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA). In 2012, following pressure from campaigners and a number of Members of Parliament, led by James Arbuthnot, the Post Office appointed forensic accountants from the firm Second Sight to conduct an investigation into Horizon. Second Sight concluded that Horizon contained faults that could result in accounting discrepancies, but the Post Office nevertheless insisted that there were no systemic problems with the software.

In 2017, 555 subpostmasters led by Bates brought a group action in the High Court against the Post Office. After the judge ruled in 2019 that the subpostmasters' contracts with the Post Office were unfair and that Horizon contained bugs, errors and defects, the case was settled out of court for £58 million, which left the claimants with about £20,000 each after legal costs. The government later agreed to supplement their awards. The judge's rulings in the case paved the way for subpostmasters to challenge their convictions in the courts and led to the prime minister Boris Johnson's announcement in February 2020 that the government would establish an independent inquiry into the scandal. The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry was set up later that year, and was converted into a statutory public inquiry in June 2021.

Courts began to quash convictions from December 2020. By February 2024, 100 of the subpostmasters' convictions had been overturned in court. In January 2024, plans for a blanket exoneration were announced by the government. Those wrongfully convicted became eligible for compensation from the Post Office, as did more than 2,750 subpostmasters who had been affected by the scandal but had not been convicted. By January 2024, the Post Office had paid out £153 million to claimants, with 64% of all those affected by the scandal having received full and final compensation.

A four-part television drama, Mr Bates vs the Post Office, was broadcast on ITV in January 2024, after which the scandal became a major news story and political issue. The same month, Sunak announced that the government would introduce legislation to exonerate wrongly convicted subpostmasters. As of January 2024, most of those wrongly convicted are still waiting to have their convictions overturned, the public inquiry is ongoing, and the Metropolitan Police is investigating individuals from the Post Office and its software provider, Fujitsu. In January 2024, claims emerged that a previous Post Office accounting system known as Capture, used by some post offices in the 1990s, had caused similar problems to Horizon.

Post Office[edit]

Main articles: Royal Mail, General Post Office and Post Office Limited

Post Office prosecutions 1995 - 2014[edit]

The Post Office and the statutory authorities of the UK, the CPS, the PSNI, and the COPFS proceeded against subpostmasters and some post office workers in criminal prosecutions in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court,[1] and with civil actions.[2] In 2000, there were six shortfall convictions that relied on Horizon data. Forty-one subpostmasters were prosecuted in 2001, and sixty-four in 2002.[3] In all, between 1999 and 2015, about 4,000 subpostmasters were accused of financial wrongdoing, with over 900 of them being convicted, although It is unclear how many will end up eligible to receive compensation.[4] Of those convictions 236 people went to prison.[5] Once the Post Office had a criminal conviction, it would attempt to secure a Proceeds of Crime Act order against convicted subpostmasters, allowing it to seize their assets.[6] According to press reports, these actions caused the loss of dozens of jobs, bankruptcy, divorce, prison sentences and at least four suicides.[7][8][9] In 2014 a Glasgow prosecutor rejected a case because of "issues" with the Horizon computer system. The Post Office continued to threaten the two sisters over a £34,000 shortfall but failed to tell Jacquie El Kasaby and Rose Stewart the reason for the failed prosecution. The sisters, who were fired, agreed to pay £10,000 to settle the debt even though they had not taken the money. Chartered accountant Bill Cleghorn, the sisters' adviser, told the BBC he would never have let them settle the case if they had known about the failed prosecution. The Post Office said it would not be appropriate to comment on the allegations.[10]

Alex Hern wrote in the The Guardian: "A 1984 act of parliament ruled that computer evidence was only admissible if it could be shown that the computer was used and operating properly. But that act was repealed in 1999, just months before the first trials of the Horizon system began. When post office operators were accused of having stolen money, the hallucinatory evidence of the Horizon system was deemed sufficient proof. Without any evidence to the contrary, the defendants could not force the system to be tested in court and their loss was all but guaranteed."[11] In evidence submitted to Parliament's Justice Committee in July 2020, barrister Paul Marshall wrote: "The Post Office knew that its evidence was unsatisfactory but, because it failed to comply with its duty to disclose documents, the fact that its evidence was flawed and unreliable was known to neither the defendant SPMs nor to the court, and thus constituted no impediment to it securing convictions against its (thereby) disadvantaged SPMs. The unsatisfactory nature of the Post Office evidence was only exposed in the Bates v Post Office 'Horizon Issues' trial in March 2019 (judgment 16 December 2019)."[12]

At the time of the prosecutions, the Post Office had no different standing in law from that of any other private prosecutor in the British legal system. It acted as a private prosecutor in England and Wales. In Scotland, it reported allegations of crime to a procurator fiscal, and in Northern Ireland to the Public Prosecution Service.[13] The Post Office's unique position, with a history as a prosecutor going back to 1683, gave the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) the greatest cause for concern upon its referral to the Court of Appeal; historically, Royal Mail had been a public authority.[14]

The Post Office is not a typical private prosecutor. The Private Prosecutors' Association questioned whether the Post Office was conducting private prosecutions at all and was in fact a "publicly-owned entity and a public prosecutor" during the relevant period. The CCRC, in its written submission to the Commons Select Committee, questioned whether any organisation with the Post Office's combined status, as victim, investigator and prosecutor, would be able to take decisions on investigations and disclosure "appropriately free from conflict of interest and conscious or unconscious bias".[15] Paul Marshall, counsel to three appellants, in written evidence to the parliamentary Justice Committee, rejected the notion of the private nature of the prosecutions as the single cause of the scandal.[12]

Jo Hamilton. First noticed problems with the Horizon system in 2005[16] and lost £36,000; she pleaded guilty to false accounting after trying to hide the resulting incorrect deficit.[17] She was originally charged with theft, but was told that if she repaid the money and pleaded guilty to 14 counts of false accounting, she would be less likely to go to prison.[18] At the time, she was told that she was the only person who had had these problems.[18] She pleaded guilty, and, under the terms of her contract, she paid her wages for the next ten months to Post Office Ltd, and had to remortgage her house to pay the money.[18][19]

Noel Thomas, a man who had worked for the Royal Mail for 42 years, went to prison as a result of the errors.[20]

Sarah Burgess Boyd, said she lost her life savings in repaying an incorrect shortfall.[21]

Rubina Nami was jailed for 12 months in 2010 for false accounting of £43,000.[22] She and her husband fell behind on mortgage payments and in February 2013 bailiffs seized their home and changed the locks.[16][22] They slept in their van for six weeks before being given a one-bed flat by the local council.[22][23]

Peter Huxham pleaded guilty to fraud by misrepresentation in 2010 at Torquay magistrates' court. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. He died in 2020 and his son applied to have his case reviewed by the CCRC in 2021.

Roderick Dundee pleaded guilty to false accounting at Cambridge magistrates' court in 2005 and was given a community punishment order of 240 hours. He applied to the CCRC in 2020 but died the following year. His daughter has pursued the application on his behalf.[24]

Post Office Ltd v Castleton – January 2006[edit]

This was a civil case in which the Post Office sued Lee Castleton. The case was heard before judge Richard Havery in December 2006 and January 2007. The defendant represented himself and counterclaimed damages in the sum of £11,250 on the ground that the Post Office wrongfully determined the contract as a subpostmaster following his suspension. The judge found for the Post Office on the claim for £25,858.95. He found the deficiencies were real, the business was not properly managed and that Castleton was therefore in breach of his contract with the Post Office. "Moreover, the losses must have been caused by his own error or that of his assistants. The counterclaim was dismissed."[25] Unable to afford the losses and the £321,000 in legal costs, Castleton declared himself bankrupt.[26]

The Post Office knew Castleton would not be able to pay if he lost, but the state-owned company wanted to "show the world" that it would defend the Horizon system. Lawyers for the Post Office opted not to tell the subpostmaster about thousands of issues raised about the Horizon IT system. The Post Office pursued him through a week-long trial which resulted in his bankruptcy. As the case continued, the motivation of the Post Office changed. It was less about making an example of Castleton and more about sending a message that they were willing to defend the Fujitsu Horizon system. Asked by Counsel for the inquiry, 'Looking back, do you think the brinkmanship and the tactics were appropriate?' Stephen Dilley replied 'Yes.' Asked if he could and should have made wider disclosure, Dilley responded 'No'.[27][28]

R v Seema Misra – October 2010[edit]

Seema Misra was prosecuted at Guildford Crown Court and sent to prison.[29] In written evidence to Parliament's Justice Committee, the barrister who had started her representation at her appeal in the Hamilton case said, that at "Mrs Misra's criminal trial, on ... three separate occasions, the defence applied to three separate judges to have the prosecution stopped on the basis that the disclosure given by the Post Office was woefully inadequate and the prosecution an abuse of process..."[12] The submissions at Guildford Crown Court were dismissed and Misra was charged with one count of theft, to which she pleaded not guilty, and six of false accounting to which she pleaded guilty. In an application that the trial be stopped, K. Hadrill, for Misra, said of the prosecution's expert witness, "He operates under a restriction because he is an employee of Fujitsu who are under contract to the Post Office and he can only comply with his contractual terms as best he can and there is no suggestion his integrity is anywhere at fault as to what he is permitted to do, bearing in mind this is a Post Office prosecution. I don't go behind that but it is not an independent prosecution at arm's reach from the loser company and Mr Jenkins, so we have to have concerns as to the quality of his evidence and the best he has done in regard to the restrictions he operates under." The application was again unsuccessful. The prosecution told the jury, "In a Post Office case it is a Post Office investigator who conducts the interview because of course they are familiar with Post Office procedures in a way a Police Officer would not necessarily be."[30] Seema Misra, recalling the moment when she was sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2010, said, "It's hard to say but I think that if I had not been pregnant, I would have killed myself."[31]

Management structure[edit]

The Post Office business, along with the Royal Mail delivery service, were formerly part of the General Post Office, tracing its origins back to 1516. It became a statutory corporation after the passage of the Post Office Act 1969. A gradual business restructuring process started in 1969 and was completed in 2012, after the Postal Services Act 2011 placed Royal Mail under separate ownership.[32] Post Office Limited became and has remained a single share government-owned entity with government represented at board level.

Oversight of Post Office Limited was assigned to what later became the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As well as a succession of junior post office ministers, ultimate control was held by civil servants including Brian Bender, Simon Fraser, Martin Donnelly and Alex Chisholm. From 2003, Royal Mail (and thus the post office business) came under the management of the Shareholder Executive, which in 2016 was merged into UK Government Investments.[33]

In July 2023, Parliament debated Post Office management culture. The then government representative, Tom Cooper, a senior civil servant, had been heavily criticised and had resigned following a scandal concerning Post Office bonuses and the slow disclosure of documents to the Horizon Inquiry. "That is not a great look for the Government and it raises real questions about the governance of Post Office Ltd." said Marion Fellows MP.[34] Marina Hyde, writing in July 2023 said "It remains something of a downer that the most widespread injustice in British legal history doesn't get the full-spectrum fever coverage that is lavished on more frivolous news – but then, the forces formerly known as The Man have always wanted this one covered up. .....Wyn Williams's long-awaited and tirelessly fought-for inquiry is hearing evidence, except on the days it can't, because the Post Office is continually failing to hand over evidence."[35] On 27 January 2024, Post Office chairman Henry Staunton was dismissed by Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch, who said that his departure was about more than just the Horizon scandal, but concerned the governance of the Post Office more generally. [36] In February 2024 it was reported that the government would meet representatives of post office operators to discuss the possibility of handing them ownership of the Post Office.[37]

Post Office IT systems[edit]

Bracknell

A precursor of the Horizon system, named Capture had been rolled out to 300 post offices in 1995. The Post Office is refusing to answer detailed questions about the system known as Capture.[38] The Horizon accounting system was developed by ICL Pathway, owned by the Japanese company Fujitsu. [39] The original version, introduced in 1995 is sometimes referred to as 'Legacy Horizon' and the current version, known as 'Horizon Online', is sometimes referred to as “HNG-X”.[40] In 1999, the Post Office started to roll out the new software to its branches and sub-post offices, the latter managed by subpostmasters on a self-employed basis under contracts with the Post Office.[38]

Installation and roll-out[edit]

Horizon is the outcome of the Pathway project, and a procurement process that commenced in August 1994,[41] and was announced by social security minister Peter Lilley at the 1995 Conservative Party conference.[42] A computer system named 'Capture' was in use.[38].[43] The original goal was to computerise the payment of benefits at post offices, replacing Girocheques and paper benefit books with swipe cards. It was thought this would reduce benefit fraud by £150 million per year,[42] at the same time as improving efficiency at post office counters, increasing footfall at small branches and enabling them to offer new services. The £1.5 billion project was funded by the private finance initiative; the successful bidder would develop the system and train some 70,000 Post Office staff and subpostmasters to use it, and recover its costs from transaction-based charges.[42]

The contract to create the system for the Post Office and the Benefits Agency was awarded in May 1996 to ICL Pathway Limited,[39] a subsidiary created for the purpose in 1995 by British computer company ICL, which was itself majority-owned by Fujitsu of Japan.[44] Fujitsu's British headquarters is in Bracknell, Berkshire.[39]

By 1998, the Pathway project was two years behind schedule, costs had increased, and there were concerns that magnetic swipe cards were becoming obsolete. Labour had come into power in 1997 and Stephen Byers, one of the responsible government ministers, later called the working relationships between the contracted parties "dysfunctional".[45] The government considered cancellation, but Fujitsu pressured the government to sign off on the IT system[46] and after lengthy negotiation it was agreed in May 1999 that the Department of Social Security would withdraw and the benefit payment card would be abandoned.[41] The project continued with a reduced scope under the Horizon name at a cost of up to £900 million, in order to replace the paper-based system used in post offices.[47]

In 1999, the Post Office commenced the national roll-out of Horizon,[48] which reached 10,000 branches by August 2000,[49] and over 13,000 by 2001.[47] By 2013, Horizon was used by at least 11,500 branches and was processing some six million transactions every day.[50] It cost over £1 billion to install and eventually affected 18,000 post offices throughout the UK.[51]

Problems with the software[edit]

Subpostmasters, who are self-employed and run branch post offices under contract to the Post Office,[52] began to report balancing errors to the Post Office within weeks of the Horizon system being installed, via the helpline the subpostmasters were instructed to use. The Post Office denied the subpostmasters' reports of faults in the system, insisted that the subpostmasters make up any shortfall of money, and in many cases untruthfully denied that any other subpostmasters had reported problems.[53][54] In May 2002, shopkeeper Baljit Sethi raised concerns with the press that there were errors in Horizon, after his wife Anjana was notified that her subpostmaster contract would be terminated.[55] The Post Office responded that it "totally refuted" that the system was faulty, and that it had "sent experts... to check it twice".[55]

In around 2000, problems with the system were reported by Alan Bates, the subpostmaster at Craig-y-Don from March 1998 until November 2003. In 2003, Bates had his contract as subpostmaster terminated when he refused to comply with Post Office policy.[54][56] He reported his concerns to Computer Weekly in 2004; sufficient evidence had been gathered by 2009 to publish.[57] A campaign group, Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA), was formed by Bates and others in September 2009.[53] By 2012, concern in the media, and amongst a number of members of parliament, had grown. As a result, an independent investigative firm, Second Sight, was commissioned by the Post Office to conduct an independent inquiry in 2012.[58][50][53] During this period the chief executives of Royal Mail Group were John Roberts, Adam Crozier and Moya Greene, and then Paula Vennells, who became chief executive of Post Office Limited when it separated from Royal Mail in 2012.[59]

On 8 April 2021, after the software problems had caused a scandal, Post Office chief executive Nick Read announced that the Horizon system would be replaced by a new IT system that would be "more user-friendly, easier to adapt for new products and services, and cloud-based to ensure easy maintenance and ready interoperability with other systems", and presented a plan to share Post Office profits with postmasters.[60][61]

During the period of public concern and increased press coverage of the Post Office scandal after the transmission of 'Mr Bates vs the Post Office, in January 2024, there have been complaints of ill-treatment by the Post Office of subpostmasters during a period preceding the 'Horizon' system. A computer system named 'Capture' was in use and is now alleged to have created false accounting information that led to prosecutions. Kevan Jones MP has highlighted evidence of injustices caused by a computer system used in Post Office branches prior to the introduction of the controversial Horizon system. A lawyer has said there is no reason to believe the Post Office treated unexplained shortfalls on systems prior to Horizon any differently to the way it dealt with unexplained Horizon shortfalls. Jones has written to the post office minister demanding answers about what the Post Office knew about Capture errors and why some subpostmasters were “persecuted and prosecuted“ based on the Capture-generated data. “We know that the Capture software was faulty, resulting in corrupted data. We also know that the Post Office knew about these faults at the time, as it openly communicated with subpostmasters about them.” The Post Office is refusing to answer detailed questions about the system known as Capture, leaving uncertainty around how many subpostmasters could be affected.[38].[43] At least two subpostmasters using the system were accused of fraud, but protests that the accounting problems were a "glitch in the system" were ignored.[62]

Investigating Post Office IT problems[edit]

Second Sight reports[edit]

Whilst it is widely reported that Second Sight were appointed and paid for by the Post Office, the firm itself, in 2012 claimed to have been "appointed jointly by a small group of MPs and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (‘JFSA’) in order to conduct an independent investigation into Post Office Horizon." [63] Second Sight agreed to investigate “only if they convinced us that they were going to join forces in a search for the truth, not withhold papers, and let us off the leash to do what we thought appropriate.” Eventually Second Sight's contract was terminated, but not before Warmington had contemplated “sacking” his client. [64]

Second Sight issued an Interim Report on 8 July 2013,[65] a briefing report (part one) on 25 July 2014, a briefing report (part two, version one) on 21 August 2014, and a briefing report (part two, version two) on 9 April 2015.[66][67] The report, titled Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme and marked as confidential, states that it was first appointed by the Post Office at the request of members of parliament in July 2012. Undertakings were given by the Post Office to satisfy MPs that Second Sight would be able to conduct an independent investigation.[66] The report described the Horizon system as, in some cases, "not fit for purpose".[52][68] Its lead investigator said that there were about 12,000 communication failures every year, with software defects at 76 branches and old and unreliable hardware.[69] The system had, according to the report, not been tracking money from lottery terminals, Vehicle Excise Duty payments or cash machine transactions – and the initial Post Office investigation had not looked for the cause of the errors, instead accusing the subpostmasters of theft.[52] The report was dismissed by the Post Office.[70] In September 2014 it was leaked to the BBC. The BBC's article on the report also said that training on the system was not good enough, that "equipment was outdated", and that "power cuts and communication problems made things worse".[52]

During this period the Post Office commenced 'Project Sparrow", the codename given by the Post Office to its interactions with the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, MPs and Second Sight (independent investigators) between 2013 and 2015.[71] The project first became publicly known during the Bates & Others case under the name of the 'X Working Group'. The Post Office claimed privilege in respect both of the name of the project and some of the contents of a document referred to as the 'X Action Summary'.[72] The Evidence Based Justice Lab Post Office Scandal Project at Exeter University noted that the judge criticised "POL for what appears to be excessive redaction, which includes concealing the name of a working group called “X” [Project Sparrow is our assumption] and other redactions which the judge appears to regard as more serious and, “not quite so easily explained”.[73] In January 2024, the BBC Economics correspondent Andy Verity published meeting minutes of the ad hoc group in an article headed "Post Office accused of cover-up over secret Horizon documents". They also reveal the government had knowledge of the decision, taken by a Post Office board sub-committee, codenamed "Project Sparrow". The sub-committee was led by Post Office chair Alice Perkins and included chief executive Paula Vennells, alongside the Post Office's most senior internal lawyer, general counsel Chris Aujard, and Richard Callard, a senior civil servant at UK Government Investments, then a division of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.[74]

Clarke advice, CK sift review, Altman review[edit]

Advice to the Post Office in 2013 by Simon Clarke, a barrister engaged by Cartwright King (CK), a solicitors' firm instructed by the Post Office in relation to the Post Office prosecutions. In the first advice, written in July 2013, Clarke reminded the Post Office of their obligations as a prosecutor regarding disclosure and of the duties of an expert witness and expressed a view that several trials had been misled as to the reliability of the Horizon system. He said that Fujitsu employee Gareth Jenkins, even though he was aware of bugs in the system, had given expert evidence to the court attesting to Horizon's accuracy.[75]: 81–90 [76] This advice prompted Cartwright King carry out the "CK Sift Review", which was then reviewed by Altman for the Post Office. The sift review "raised the prospect of at least 26 potential miscarriages of justice and caused the immediate cessation of four prosecutions. It was concluded in 2014."[77][78] The second piece of advice was written in August 2013, after Clarke became aware that the Post Office had given instructions to shred minutes of a conference call about Horizon bugs, and again reminded the Post Office of prosecution disclosure obligations.[75]: 81–90 . These documents became referred to as the 'Clarke advice' during litigation against the Post Office and protected by claims of professional privilege by the Post Office.[75]: 81–90 [79] It remained unpublished until 2022[80][81] It was described by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, former head of the judiciary, as a likely "smoking gun".[82][83]

In 2020, Vennells, who stood down from her Post Office role in 2019, said of the 2013 report that "it concluded, while it had not found evidence of system-wide problems with the Horizon software, there were specific areas where Post Office should consider its procedures and operational support for sub-postmasters".[58] Ron Warmington of Second Sight had said in 2019 "if the Post Office Board had believed ... and acted on ... what Second Sight reported ... instead of being led by the nose by its own middle management and in-house and external legal advisors, huge amounts of money, and human suffering, would have been avoided".[84] In July 2013, Second Sight issued an interim report and the Post Office admitted that software defects with Horizon had indeed occurred, but said that nevertheless the system was robust. The review concluded that in 2011 and 2012 the Post Office had discovered two defects which had caused discrepancies at 76 Post Office branches, with the largest shortfall being £9,800 and the largest surplus being £7,044.[65] The BBC reported that the Post Office later made good those losses and the subpostmasters were not held liable.[50] More than 150 subpostmasters continued to raise problems with the system, which they said had, in error, put them in debt by as much as tens of thousands of pounds, and that in some cases they had lost their contracts or gone to prison.[50][52] In 2019, Warmington said:[85]

the Post Office has improperly enriched itself, through the decades, with funds that have passed through its own suspense accounts. Had its own staff more diligently investigated in order to establish who were the rightful owners of those funds, they would have been returned to them, whether they were Post Office's customers or its Subpostmasters. When is the Post Office going to return the funds that, in effect, belonged to its Subpostmasters? ... It also seems to be clear now that some of those funds could have been generated by Horizon itself, or by errors made by the Post Office's own staff, or by those of Fujitsu. They weren't "real" losses at all. They were phantom discrepancies.

The Post Office then went into mediation with some of the affected subpostmasters.[52] By December 2014, MPs had criticised it for the handling of the subpostmasters' claims, and 140 of those affected had withdrawn their support for the Post Office-run mediation scheme.[86] 144 MPs had been contacted by subpostmasters about the issue, and James Arbuthnot, the MP leading on the matter, accused the organisation of rejecting 90% of applications for mediation.[86] The Post Office said that the claims by Arbuthnot were "regrettable and surprising".[86] Arbuthnot further said that the Post Office had been "duplicitous", and said that:[87]

I do not want to build up hopes that the other methods are going to be more successful than the current ones, so I will not be specific – but it will involve legal and political campaigns.

In February 2015, Computerworld UK, a trade magazine for IT managers, reported that the Post Office was obstructing the investigation by refusing to hand over key files to Second Sight.[69] Angela van den Bogerd of Post Office Ltd said in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee hearing of 3 February 2015[88][89][90] that the Post Office has "been working with Second Sight over the last few weeks on what we agreed at the outset. We have been providing the information", but the lead investigator for Second Sight, when asked by Adrian Bailey MP if that were the case, said "No, it is not", as he had not been given access to prosecution files, which he needed to back up his suspicions that Post Office Ltd had brought cases against subpostmasters with "inadequate investigation and inadequate evidence".[69] He said that these files were still outstanding 18 months after they had been requested.[87]

Exposing the IT problems[edit]

Throughout the prosecutions by the Post Office of subpostmasters and the civil case of Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd, the Post Office did not disclose its knowledge of its IT bugs and errors. Mrs Misra, on no less than four separate occasions in the course of her prosecution, requested that the court order disclosure by the Post Office of Horizon error records. Three different judges dismissed each of Mrs Misra’s applications.  In the last application, at the end of her trial, her defence counsel submitted that she couldn’t have a fair trial without further disclosure.  The trial judge disagreed and said she could have a fair trial without it. [91] [92]

In 2004, Bates approached Computer Weekly investigative journalist Tony Collins over suspicions about the Horizon IT system. Five years elapsed before the journalists felt able to 'stand up' the story.[93] Horizon was legally declared unreliable in Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd, in 2018. The unlawful nondisclosure of knowledge by the Post Office in its prosecution cases was established in law in the case of Hamilton & Others and Post Office Ltd , in 2021.

In 2015 Baroness Neville-Rolfe, on behalf of the government, told the incoming Post Office chairman Tim Parker to properly review the Horizon situation. He commissioned a barrister in private practice, colloquially known as the Treasury Devil', to investigate. The resulting document, written by two authors, became known as the Swift Review. It has been critically analysed separately by Paul Marshal, and by the Evidence Based Justice Lab Post Office Scandal Project, University of Exeter.[94][95][96] The report was written in 2016 but was not revealed until August 2022, "and was relied upon by Mr Parker to allay government anxiety about potential miscarriages of justice". In a later email to Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Mr Parker wrote: “The Post Office has previously taken advice from solicitors and leading counsel expert in criminal law on the adequacy of the Post Office’s policy and practice on disclosure where it acts as prosecutor. Based on that I am satisfied that Post Office has adopted a proper approach to disclosure such that it satisfies its duty as prosecutor.” The Swift review addresses a massive review of criminal prosecutions by the Post Office from 2010 by Cartwright King between 2013 and 2014, the subject of “oversight and advice from Brian Altman QC”. This process was not revealed to the Court of Appeal in 2021. Mr Altman was the Post Office’s lead counsel on the 2021 appeals. "Mr Swift, in my view, fails to sufficiently highlight that Cartwright King was a firm routinely used by the Post Office as its prosecuting solicitors/agents and consequently lacked proper independence"   ......    "One has the distinct impression of wool being pulled over Mr Swift’s eyes or else that he didn’t know what he was looking at or for."[94] Exeter University, in its analysis said "The Swift Review revealed to the PO Chairman that secret remote access to Horizon was possible in 2016. The Chairman discussed the review with PO’s General Counsel (Macloed). The Bates litigation, roundly criticised by the High Court judge dealing with it for being misleading, was founded in part, until 2019, on the basis that secret remote access was not possible. Given Macloed and Parker were involved in the litigation, and it appears to have been run on an incorrect basis that was or ought to have been known to them, the extent of that involvement it needs investigation."[96]

The extent to which the government was aware of the Post Office's defence in the Bates case was questioned during the parliamentary debate on 19 March 2020. David Jones MP said, "Of course the Post Office has a non-executive director appointed by the Government. One must assume that that non-executive director is reporting to Ministers." Kevin Jones MP replied, "If I had been the Minister, I would have had that person in and scrutinised what was going on ... That would certainly have applied in the past few months, given the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been spent defending the indefensible." Bambos Charalambous MP said, "The Post Office seemed to have unlimited funds at its disposal to fight this action, ... The Post Office is an arm's length organisation, but there seems to be no accountability ...". Chi Onwurah MP said, "Its only shareholder is the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so more should have been done to address the scandal before it was allowed to fester to this extent."[97] Arbuthnot, sitting in the House of Lords as Baron Arbuthnot of Edrom, in a written question asked, "... whether the Accounting Officer with responsibility for the Post Office has played any role in advising ministers on the Government's policy in relation to ... (3) the sub-postmasters' litigation against the Post Office".[98] In March 2015, Private Eye magazine reported that the Post Office had ordered Second Sight to end its investigation just one day before the report was due to be published, and to destroy all the paperwork that it had not handed over.[7][87] The Post Office then thwarted the independent committee set up to oversee the investigation, as well as the mediation scheme for subpostmasters, and published a report which cleared itself of any wrongdoing.[7] Of the 136 cases, 56 had been closed, and the Post Office would put the rest forward for mediation, unless a court ruling prevented them from doing so.[87] After ending the inquiry, the Post Office said that there were no wide-scale problems, and that, "This has been an exhaustive and informative process that has confirmed that there are no system-wide problems with our computer system and associated processes. We will now look to resolve the final outstanding cases as quickly as possible".[87][99]

In 2024 Andrew Bridgen said in parliament, "I was in the original Post Office review group. By 2015, a whistleblower from Fujitsu had come forward from the boiler room, as they called it. He had been altering accounts without the knowledge of the sub-postmasters. The MPs in the review group knew. The investigator from Second Sight, Ron Warmington, knew. The Post Office knew that the convictions were unsafe, as did the Government, yet it took another five years of very expensive litigation from the 555 before justice was done".[100]

Court cases against Post Office[edit]

As the mediation process broke down, the subpostmasters began to consult and combine their efforts into legal action. The action taken against the Post Office took the form first of group litigation in the name of Bates and others, a civil action in the High Court by some 555 people. There were six 'lead claimants', and 23 'common issues' were identified and agreed to enable the court to examine the 555 cases. The case was settled mid-trial by consent and without judgment as to costs; Post Office costs have been estimated as £100m[101] and the subpostmasters' as £47m.[102] The Post Office agreed to pay the subpostmasters £58 million, but after legal costs the claimants were left with £12 million to share.[103] During the trial, which had been divided into six sub-trials, those acting for the Post Office attempted to persuade the judge to recuse himself. This was later described by Richard Moorhead, Professor of Law and Professional Ethics, University of Exeter Law School, as a "highly suspect tactical manoeuvre".[104] Joshua Rozenberg said "Surely the Post Office was right to take the very best advice it could on such an important issue? It might have been expensive but it could have saved public money in the long run."[105] Nick Wallis, commenting on the two very senior lawyers who had advised the Post Office Board on the strategy, described it as "misuse (of) a very serious instrument designed to aid fairness as a weapon purely for their wealthy client's benefit."[106] At the Horizon inquiry, a former Post Office manager admitted that the ultimately lost case was seen by the Post Office as a way of "killing off" challenges to the Horizon system.[107] Kathleen Donnelly,, a barrister involved on the Bates case said "It is obvious that the Post Office had a strategy to withhold material until they were forced to produce it. This caused delay, disruption and ran up costs. We only received significant documents after a battle and were left with little time to review them, sometimes just days before a witness was cross-examined. It was exasperating".[108] [109]

Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd[edit]

Rolls Building

On 22 March 2017, Senior Master Fontaine made a group litigation order with the approval of the President of the Queen's Bench of the High Court and, on 31 March, the then Mr Justice Fraser was nominated managing judge in Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd,[110][111] brought by 555 claimants.[112][113] At the start of the proceedings, the Post Office unsuccessfully opposed the making or the existence of a group litigation order.[112] The Post Office had set up a litigation sub-committee, attended on 24 April 2019 by Tim Parker, Tom Cooper, (director of UK Government Investments),[114] David Cavender, Alisdair Cameron, Ben Foat, staff from Womble Bond Dickinson and from Herbert Smith Freehills.[115] There was an unsuccessful application by the Post Office that the judge recuse himself, an appeal, and two separate submissions described by judges as attempts to put the courts in terrorem. At the Judgment No. 6 the judge said:[67]

The recusal application was issued the day after Mr Godeseth's cross-examination had made it clear, not only that this remote access existed, but after he was taken in careful cross-examination through specific examples of Fujitsu personnel manipulating branch accounts, and leading to discrepancies in branch accounts. I am aware that criticism of the Post Office and Fujitsu in this respect may prove to be controversial, as earlier criticism of certain aspects of the Post Office's case in Judgment (No. 3) was not well received by it. However, if criticism is justified, I consider it would be detrimental to proper resolution of the group litigation if that criticism were to be withheld simply because it might lead to a further negative reaction by the Post Office. It is also an inherent part of the judicial function in any litigation to make findings, which may include criticisms where justified, that may be contrary to a litigant's own view of the merits of their case. Some litigants are so convinced of the righteousness of their own position that they consistently refuse to accept any possible view of the litigation other than their own. Such a blinkered view is rarely helpful, and would be particularly unhelpful from a publicly owned institution.

The subpostmasters were financed by a litigation fund, Therium.[116] The high cost of High Court battles means that some cases may not make it to court without them.[117] The matter ended by consent when the Post Office agreed to pay costs of £58 million, without admitting liability, and compensation was therefore not awarded.[118] Of that payment, £46 million went to the financial backers.[117]

Paula Vennells, the then-Post Office chief executive, in December 2019, after Post Office Ltd conceded the court cases, apologised to workers affected by the scandal, saying: "I am truly sorry we were unable to find both a solution and a resolution outside of litigation and for the distress this caused."[119] Her letter to the Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee says "The message that the Board and I were consistently given by Fujitsu, from the highest levels of the company, was that while, like any IT system, Horizon was not perfect and had a limited life-span, it was fundamentally sound" (Answer 11).[58] She said "I raised this question repeatedly, both internally and with Fujitsu, and was always given the same answer: that it was not possible for branch records to be altered remotely without the subpostmaster's knowledge. Indeed, I remember being told by Fujitsu's then CEO[120] when I raised it with him that the system was 'like Fort Knox'" (Answer 54).[58]

During the case, six separate judgments were handed down:[118]

Judgment No 1 Applications to alter timetable – November 2017[edit]

Referring to costs and delay, the judge said, "Fitting hearings around their availability has all the disadvantages of doing an intricate jigsaw puzzle, with none of the fun associated with that activity."[121]

Judgment No 2 Application to strike out evidence – October 2018[edit]

This decision followed a case management hearing and dismissed an application to strike out roughly one-quarter of the lead claimants' evidence – more than 160 paragraphs. Mr Justice Fraser said "The application by the defendant to strike out this evidence appears to be an attempt to hollow out the Lead Claimants' case to the very barest of bones (to mix metaphors), if not beyond, and to keep evidence with which the defendant does not agree from being aired at all."[112] The judge commented that adverse publicity for Post Office was not a matter of concern for the court if the evidence was relevant and admissible. He also warned against the aggressive conduct of litigation, particularly in a group action of this nature.[122] The application was dismissed.

Judgment No 3 Common Issues – March 2019[edit]

Main article: Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 3)

The subpostmasters and the Post Office had identified 23 issues relating to the contractual relationship between them and about which they disagreed. The judge made findings on each so that obligations under all iterations of the contracts would be settled, both retrospectively and prospectively.[123] Of the 23 issues, 16 were decided in the subpostmasters' favour. The parties agreed that broadly the claimants were more successful.[124]: 33&34  Issue 1 was later described by the judge as important.[118] He found subpostmasters' contracts are relational contracts. "This means that the Post Office is not entitled to act in a way that would be considered commercially unacceptable by reasonable and honest people."[123]

In court, Fraser criticised testimony given by Post Office witnesses. The judge said Angela van den Bogerd (Head of Partnerships, Post Office) "did not give me frank evidence, and sought to obfuscate matters, and mislead me."[125] Fraser commented on the evidence given by Stephen Parker, Head of Post Office Application Support, Fujitsu:

I do not consider that Mr Parker was interested in accuracy in any of his evidential exercises. ... I do not consider his evidence in his witness statements to have been remotely accurate, even though he stoutly maintained that it was.[126][67]: par. 495–498

Of the evidence of one Post Office witness, the judge said, "The Post Office appears, at least at times, to conduct itself as though it is answerable only to itself. The statement that it is prepared to preserve documents – as though that were a concession – and the obdurate to accept the relevance of plainly important documents, and to refuse to produce them, is extremely worrying."[118]: 523  Fraser said in the Horizon Issues trial,[67]: 64.2

the possibility of future (as opposed to current) criminal prosecutions, or the potentially criminal impact upon individual subpostmasters, did more than hover in the background to the Horizon Issues trial. Some claimants who gave evidence in this trial were expressly accused by the Post Office of criminal offences in cross-examination in this trial, something which had also occurred in the Common Issues trial.

When the judgment was delivered, the Post Office said it would appeal. On 23 May, the judge refused the Post Office permission to appeal and set out his reasons on 17 June.[127] The Post Office applied for permission to appeal that refusal. During the Horizon Issues evidence, just as the judge returned to court for the final afternoon, Joshua Rozenberg reported, "he was told that the Post Office had served an application for his recusal ... Counsel representing Post Office on the Horizon issues had apparently not seen it. He made no mention of it that morning".[128]

Permission to appeal Judgment No 3 – November 2019[edit]

Lord Justice Coulson refused permission to appeal judgment No 3 and handed down his written reasons on 22 November.[129] Before dealing with the 26 grounds that formed the basis of the application the judge set out a number of reasons that he felt militated against granting the Post Office permission to appeal. The application was refused.

Judgment No 4 Application for recusal – April 2019[edit]

The Post Office brought in Lord Grabiner to make an application to Fraser that he recuse himself. Grabiner is widely described as a 'legal heavyweight'.[130][128][131] Statements supporting the recusal application alleged that paragraphs 22 to 25 of Judgment No 3 were findings, or observations that fell outside the scope of the Common Issues trial. Paragraph 24 of that judgment gave the clear impression that the judge has already formed a firm view on these matters that will prevent him from taking an impartial view when they are revisited at subsequent trials.[132]: 17, 18  The statement further alleged that the judgment contained critical invective directed at the Post Office and that parts harshly criticised the Post Office's witnesses on irrelevant matters. The subpostmasters argued that the Post Office was insufficiently specific and the judge required the Post Office to identify the relevant paragraphs of Judgment No 3. In response, the Post Office cited 110 paragraphs.[132]: 116

The recusal application was dismissed on two grounds, no bias, and waiver due to delay by the Post Office.[133] Lord Grabiner had been asked to explain the delay in making the application. He replied "It was made at board level within the client and it also involved the need for me to be got up to speed from a standing start. And I am not the only judicial figure or barrister that has looked at this with a view to reaching that conclusion. It has also been looked at by another very senior person before the decision was taken to make this application. The delay, such as it is, is very, very tiny".[132]: 279  This submission was rejected.[132]: 280  The judge decided the issue of waiver as a result of the delay in making the application for recusal.

Even if I had found that there were grounds of apparent bias on the face of Judgment No. 3, I would not have recused myself. This is because of the fact that the Post Office waited until almost two weeks after it had received Judgment No. 3 before it did anything in respect of making an application to recuse.[132]: 274

The recusal application was opposed by the subpostmasters[132]: 24  and dismissed by the judge.[132]: 289

Permission to appeal Judgment No 4 – May 2019[edit]

Lord Justice Coulson refused the Post Office permission to appeal the refusal to recuse.[133][134] Coulson said that the subpostmasters had submitted "that the strike-out application arose because the PO wished to adduce extensive factual evidence in their favour but objected to any evidence to the contrary from the SPMs [subpostmasters]. As they put it 'the Post Office wanted the case decided all one way'. There remains a distinct flavour of that approach within the recusal application."[134] "The application by the defendant to strike out this evidence appears to be an attempt to hollow out the Lead Claimants' case to the very barest of bones (to mix metaphors), if not beyond, and to keep evidence with which the defendant does not agree from being aired at all." Counsel for the subpostmasters, in a written submission that was quoted and accepted by the judge, said the application "appears to be an attempt by Post Office to secure an advantage at the Common Issues Trial by selectively tailoring the evidence which the Court is to consider."[112]

Of the submission by Lord Grabiner, that he was not the only judicial figure or barrister who had looked at the decision to seek recusal, Coulson said at paragraph 48: "Such a comment, presumably made in terrorem, should not have been made at least without proper explanation of its relevance."[134] In her legal analysis of the case Kate Beaumont said, "Recusal applications are extremely serious. They are not a tactic to be strategically deployed by a losing party." She quotes Coulson as saying "Without making any finding, he stated that he at least understood the claimants' submission that the recusal application and the permission to appeal application were made in an attempt to de-rail the litigation as a whole."[133]

The application was refused.

Judgment No 5 Common Issues costs – June 2019[edit]

The issuing by the Post Office of the recusal application on 21 March 2019 caused significant disruption to the Horizon Issues trial which had started on 11 March 2019, and to the Group Litigation as a whole. The subpostmasters applied for the costs of that application; the Post Office sought that the judge reserve costs, in the following terms:[124]

the court can't be sure that things will happen in the future that will affect and alter its view about incidence of costs. It simply cannot do so. If it does so now, in my submission as a matter of principle, that would evidence a predetermination or would go towards suggesting the court has reached a view about matters as to how things are going to pan out in the future.

The judge was troubled by this submission. Inherent was a veiled or implied threat that the Post Office will say that the overall outcome of the litigation, or other future issues, has been decided. The Post Office was attempting to put the court in terrorem again. After asserting no predecision he said, "I do nonetheless consider that it is appropriate that I consider whether to make a costs order now ..." After considering cases cited, the application by the Post Office to reserve costs was dismissed. "The claimants would not be on an equal footing with the Post Office, a publicly funded body, if I reserved the costs of the Common Issues trial until the very end of the litigation ... I do not however consider that the presence of litigation funding should sway this decision one way or the other. I agree with Mr Cavender that the presence of such funding should not put a claimant in a better position vis-à-vis the correct stage in litigation at which costs should be addressed, compared to a non-funded party. However, regardless of who is funding litigation, a funder or an individual litigant, cash flow is a relevant consideration for most litigants. It is a consideration that might weigh less heavily upon publicly funded bodies such as the Post Office, but even such entities are likely to be concerned to some extent with cash flow."[124] Of the subpostmasters' submissions that their award of costs should not be reduced, the court rejected them.[132][124]

Judgment No 6 Horizon issues – December 2019[edit]

This judgment concerns the operation and functionality of the Horizon system itself. The hearings took place in March, April, June and July 2019. The hearings were interrupted by the Post Office's application for the judge to recuse, to appeal his refusal to recuse (judgment 4), and his judgment 3. The judgment was published in December 2019. Twenty-nine bugs, errors and defects were identified[135] and analysed. Witnesses for the subpostmasters and for the Post Office submitted statements and gave oral evidence. Documents that had been submitted, and further documents, the submission of which had been resisted were, after argument and rulings, submitted. These included the 'Known Error Logs' and the 'PEAKs', a browser-based software incident and problem management system used by Fujitsu for the Post Office account. Permission, for two IT experts to be called, one for the claimants (Jason Coyne) and one for the Post Office (Robert Worden)[67]: par.6

The important judgment was about whether the Horizon computer system worked and was "robust", which the Post Office said it was. Again, the judge found overwhelmingly in favour of the subpostmasters and that the original version of Horizon was "not robust" and, as to the later version, "its robustness was questionable, and did not justify the confidence placed in it by the Post Office in terms of its accuracy."[136]

During this trial, the Post Office issued an application that the judge recuse himself. That led first to Fraser's Judgment No. 4, and then to an application for permission to appeal that judgment. The applications and the appeal failed but caused considerable delay.[67]: par.5–7

Appeals against convictions[edit]

In December 2019, Mr Justice Fraser stated that he had concerns regarding the veracity of evidence given by Fujitsu employees to other courts about the known existence of bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system.[14] In March 2020, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) referred for appeal the convictions of 39 Post Office applicants. The commission said it would be referring all those cases which involve convictions for theft, fraud and false accounting, on the basis that each prosecution amounted to an abuse of process.[137] In May 2020, the CCRC referred a further eight such convictions, bringing the total to 47.[14][138] In January 2021, the CCRC decided to refer a further four convictions, bringing the total to 51.[139] In May 2021, Helen Pitcher, chair of the commission, told MPs that the organisation was 'not adequately resourced' if 200 cases were to be brought forward for review. She told the justice committee that a shortage of case review managers would take months to address, and that talks were ongoing with the Ministry of Justice about extending funding.[140] The linked appeal cases, first of R v Christoper Trousdale & Others in the Crown Court, and then of Hamilton and Others in the Court of Appeal, (Criminal Division) followed.

Further cases since the Hamilton appeal have been heard and further appeals and civil claims are expected. The Financial Times headlined an article "sub-postmasters set to file UK lawsuits for malicious prosecution".[141] The CCRC is calling on more subpostmasters to come forward to have their convictions reviewed[142] and, as of April 2023, 86 people have had their convictions quashed.[143]

Magistrates' courts are not courts of record. An appeal against a conviction in a magistrates' court is to the Crown Court by way of a rehearing, or by way of case stated (but only where the appeal raises a point of law) to a Divisional Court of the High Court. As of July 2021, the number of convictions obtained by the Post Office, directly or via public prosecution in magistrates' courts, is unknown or unpublished. On 30 June 2021, the Post Office issued a statement setting out its position in respect of convictions in the Magistrates' Courts.[144]

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has posthumously referred the convictions of two former Post Office workers to the Crown Court – the first such referral in its history. The commission has statutory powers to refer Crown Court cases to the Court of Appeal, but not from the magistrates' to the Crown Court.

R v Christopher Trousdale & Others – December 2020[edit]

The first subpostmaster appeals against convictions were at Southwark Crown Court before circuit judge Taylor, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court. The cases were from magistrates' court convictions in London, Luton, Basingstoke, Oxford, Burton-upon-Trent and Scarborough between 2004 and 2012. "The Post Office is currently reviewing around 800 prosecutions made between 1999 and 2014, where Horizon data was used in evidence."[145][146] The six appealed against their convictions. The appeals were unopposed; the respondent, the Post Office, offered no evidence, the appeals were allowed and not guilty verdicts were entered. Little if any mention was made of the distinction between unsafe convictions and prosecutions that should not have been brought.[145]

This case was heard before submissions about ultra vires or wrongful prosecutions were made in Hamilton & Others. Just three months later, it was known publicly that these submissions were to be made and that the Post Office intended to oppose them in Hamilton.[147] Five of the six appellants were represented by counsel – one was unrepresented and had been advised by the court that she need not attend. Costs were awarded to the appellants.[145] At the end of the hearing the judge said, "I am sure that all of the appellants are grateful for the approach that the Post Office has taken finally to this matter and that it can be put to rest for them."[148]

Hamilton & Others and Post Office Ltd – April 2021[edit]

In April 2021, after an appeal before three judges, Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Picken and Mrs Justice Farbey, thirty-nine of the convicted former postmasters had their convictions quashed,[75] with a further twenty-two cases still being investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.[149] The case was heard over four days in March 2021. The forty-two appellants were represented by seven teams of barristers; the Post Office representatives were led by Brian Altman QC.[75]

At the commencement of the case, three of the applicant subpostmasters were represented by Paul Marshall and Flora Page, his junior. In December 2020, Marshall and Page resigned from the case under threat from the court of contempt proceedings. That threat was lifted at a hearing in April 2021 before Lord Justice Fulford.[150][151][152] It was Marshall and Page who led the charge on the critical second limb of the appeal, that it was an "affront to the public conscience for the appellants to face prosecution."[153][154][155]: 17

Forty-two historical convictions of dishonesty were referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to the Court of Appeal. "The CCRC referred the cases because it considered that two cogent lines of argument in relation to abuse of process were available to each appellant: first, that the reliability of Horizon data was essential to the prosecution and conviction, and it was not possible for the trial process to be fair; and secondly, that it was an affront to the public conscience for the appellant to face criminal proceedings."[75] Each of the forty-two cases was considered individually. Of the forty-two, just two had previously appealed, unsuccessfully.

The Post Office accepted Fraser's findings of the unreliability of the Horizon systems and, in some cases, of inadequate investigation, and/or of insufficient disclosure. In these cases, the Post Office did not resist the appeal on Ground 1 but it would oppose Ground 2. The Post Office divided the appellants into three groups; A, 4 cases where it asserted that both categories 1 and 2 abuse of process applied, group B, 35 cases where category 1 applied, but not category 2, and group C, where neither category applied. The Post Office would not seek a retrial of any appellant whose appeal is allowed.

The Attorney General instructed counsel as advocate to the court, Marshall and Page were succeeded by L. Busch and S. Fowles, and the court addressed "the issue of whether an appellant whose appeal was not resisted by the Post Office on Ground 1 was entitled to argue Ground 2."[75]: 79  All counsel at the December hearing agreed that no appellant is entitled as of right to argue Ground 2. An earlier written submission to the contrary was not pursued. Busch and Fowles went on to argue that "... the court must act judicially. It would be wrong in principle for the court to permit the respondent (the Post Office) effectively to preclude argument on Ground 2 by its concession that Ground 1 is not opposed. ... The appellants have suffered very severely as a consequence of their prosecutions, and a finding in their favour on Ground 1 alone would not fully vindicate them. ... She (Busch) pointed out that there has been an important disclosure since the Commission referred the cases, and submitted that the public interest required consideration of the complete picture."[156][157]

For the other applicants, it was submitted all were concerned about delay; only three of the whole group had actively sought to argue Ground 2 ... appellants would be content to have their appeals allowed on Ground 1 alone ... however, appellants do contend that Ground 2 is made out in their cases ... if the court concluded that argument should be heard on Ground 2, they would wish their submissions on Ground 2 heard.[156][157]

The court ordered that, "... in the exercise of the court's discretion we would permit argument on Ground 2 by any appellant who wished to advance it. In the event, each appellant did wish to do so."[75] The court set out its reasoning and highlighted four factors of particular importance:[156][157]

1. abuse of court process is an important matter to the parties and the public, notwithstanding that the appellants had not previously applied for leave to appeal.

2. Ground 1 presupposes that there should be a prosecution. The public may legitimately feel ... that a finding in the appellant's favour on Ground 2 adds materially to a finding in his or her favour on Ground 1. ... If in fact an appellant should never have been prosecuted at all, ... the court should make that determination.

3. We are ... satisfied that case management can avoid any risk of these appeals becoming an open-ended exercise in finding facts.

4. Fourthly, we do not accept the submissions that consideration of Ground 2 will cause undue delay in the determination of these appeals.

At the April hearings, after considering the submissions of the subpostmasters and the Post Office, the court stated, "In those circumstances, we are satisfied that a fair trial was not possible in any of the 'Horizon cases' and that Ground 1 accordingly succeeds in each of those cases."[75]: 126  The court then set out its reasoning in respect of Ground 2. In short, the court decided that Ground 2 succeeds in each of the "Horizon cases".[75]: 127–138

By 2 February 2024, 100 Horizon convictions had been overturned.[158] The number of those affected by other types of abuse by the Post Office, torts, breach of contract, coercion etc., has not been tabulated or published. The prosecutions, civil actions, and extortions resulted in criminal convictions, false confessions, imprisonments, defamation, loss of livelihood, bankruptcy, divorce, and suicide.[159][160][161][162]

In September 2020, the Post Office declared it would not oppose 44 postmasters' appeals against conviction,[163] but it unsuccessfully opposed their appeals against improper prosecution. In December 2020, six summary jurisdiction convictions were quashed,[164] and in April 2021 the Court of Appeal quashed a further 39 convictions. The court found that the Post Office had acted in such a way as to subvert the integrity of the criminal justice system and public confidence in it. The prosecutions were found to be an abuse of process and an affront to the conscience of the court.[165] By this relatively rare finding the appellants were completely exonerated.[162][166][75]: 137  The BBC called the convictions "the UK's most widespread miscarriage of justice".[149]

Felstead & Others and Post Office Ltd – April 2021[edit]

At paragraphs 79 and 80 of the substantive Hamilton judgment,[75] the court referred to a directions hearing on 18 November. That hearing led to further hearings in November, December, and January. The court addressed three issues:

- information from Brian Altman, counsel for Post Office, alleging potential contempt of court by Page, junior counsel for three appellants (all in group B), by improper disclosure of the 'Clarke advice';

- "the issue of whether an appellant whose appeal was not resisted by POL on Ground 1 was entitled to argue Ground 2;"[75]: 79

- an application by journalist Nick Wallis for the release of the 'Clarke advice'. Wallis' application failed.

Altman's information to the court on 19 November led to hearings on 3 December 10 December and 15 January before the present court, and to Marshall and Page resigning from the case. On 3 December, Altman said, "I am confident that the court understands why we brought these matters to the court's attention. ... For the avoidance of any doubt, I should like to make clear that the Post Office has not made application for anyone's committal for contempt. ... We have sought to assist the court as we were invited to do," referring to signed undertakings, "... the court suggested that all legal representatives sign an express undertaking not to use disclosed material other than for the proper conduct of these proceedings." Lord Justice Holroyde interjected, "I thought you suggested that," and Altman replied, "Ultimately, my Lord, I think it was at the suggestion of the court but that is what has happened and that is what has been done."[167]: 137–141 [168]

The court issued a brief judgment. "... we direct that the question of whether any contempt proceedings are to be initiated against Mr Marshall and/or Miss Page and, if so, whether by the Post Office or by the Court of its own initiative, must be adjourned for consideration after the appeals have been concluded. ... we direct that all further hearings must be before a different constitution."[169] On 15 January 2021, the court set out its reasons.[155] It led to Marshall and Page facing the possibility of an action against them, either by the court or by the Post Office, for contempt of court. By 4 December, barristers Paul Marshall and Fiona Page had resigned from the Hamilton case. Marshall had written two letters to the court. Of the second, Nick Wallis said, "It makes for troubling reading."[153] In April 2021, the matter came before Lord Justice Fulford, Mrs Justice Cutts and Mr Justice Saini when it was declared no further action to be taken. Mr Marshall said "the threat of contempt proceedings from the outset was seriously questionable as a matter of law".[152]

Compensation[edit]

Eligibility for compensation depends on the circumstances of an individual's case. There are three main schemes, for groups of victims who had different experiences of the scandal.[170][171] As of 11 January 2024, approximately £153 million had been paid to over 2,700 claimants across these three schemes,[172] with 64% of all those affected by the scandal having received full and final compensation.[173] It is estimated that more than 4,000 people have been told they are eligible for compensation.[174]

The Horizon shortfall scheme, originally named the historic shortfall scheme, was established by the agreement between the Post Office and the 555 subpostmasters in Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd. It was designed to compensate subpostmasters who had lost money due to shortfalls caused by Horizon, but had not taken part in the group action and had not been convicted. The scheme is administered by the Post Office.[175] By 15 January 2024 the scheme had received 2,753 eligible claims and paid out £93 million to over 2,172 claimants.[172]

In December 2019, at about the time of the high court verdict in Bates & Others v Post Office, the government decided this group could not apply for compensation through the historical shortfall scheme.[176] The details of the settlement between the subpostmasters and the Post Office were not made public until August 2020. In February 2022, MPs from parliament's Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) committee expressed concerns about the time taken to make settlements to former Post Office operators who were wrongfully convicted as a result of errors in the company's computer accounting system and warned that compensation needed to be concluded urgently, as many of those affected by the long-running scandal are elderly, some having died while awaiting redress, while others remained at risk of losing their homes.[81]

In April 2021, Nick Read, Post Office chief executive, urged the government to provide funding for compensation, saying "The Post Office simply does not have the financial resources to provide meaningful compensation."[177] Shortly afterward, the government promised "fair and speedy" pay-outs for the 555 victims of the Horizon IT scandal who had been excluded from the Post Office's compensation scheme.[178]

In July 2021, the government announced that subpostmasters wrongly convicted of offences would get interim compensation of up to £100,000.[179]

On 22 March 2022, a government scheme was launched to compensate the 555 subpostmasters at the same level of compensation as subpostmasters who had had their convictions overturned..[180]

In December 2022, the Horizon Inquiry heard that postmasters made bankrupt after being wrongly prosecuted were receiving a fraction of what they were due. One applicant ran a successful postmaster business for 20 years before his life was ruined by a false conviction which led to his mental health deteriorating and his being unable to pay his mortgage. In another case, a victim's award of £25,000 was reduced to £4,500 after deductions paid to the official receiver. It appears that the shortfall scheme takes no account of whether the root cause of the bankruptcy was or may have been generated by the Horizon software. Tim Moloney said "Compensation is intended to put the claimant in the position they would have been if they had not been adversely affected... many of the debts accrued by these people which led to bankruptcy were caused by the shortfalls [wrongly flagged up by Horizon]". The compensation award is then "swallowed up" by legal obligations to repay debts.[181][182]

In September 2023, the government announced that subpostmasters who have had their convictions on the basis of Horizon evidence overturned would be offered compensation of £600,000 in full and final settlement of their claim.[183] In March 2023, The Law Society Gazette had stated "Journalist Nick Wallis, who wrote The Great Post Office Scandal, tweeted today that 27 claimants who would have qualified for the group litigation scheme have died waiting for compensation."[184] In January 2024, postal affairs minister Kevin Hollinrake told the Commons the families of the 60 people who died before receiving any compensation will be able to apply for compensation in their place.[170]

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry[edit]

On 26 February 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson committed to hold an independent inquiry.[185] Evidence about the case was also heard by parliament's Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on 10 March 2020.[186][187] On 19 March 2020, in a debate in the House of Commons, Kevan Jones MP criticised former Post Office CEO, Paula Vennells, for her role in the scandal.[97] Arbuthnot said in November 2019:[70]

My own suggestion is that the government should clear out the entirety of the board and senior management of the Post Office and start again, perhaps with the assistance of consultancy services from Second Sight, who know where the bodies are buried.

In a written ministerial statement on 10 June 2020, Paul Scully, Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets, announced the scope of the independent review into the Post Office Horizon IT system and trials.[188] Of the review's terms of reference, Lord Arbuthnot said in the House of Lords chamber on 6 October, "Yet the Government are expressly excluding from the scope of their inquiry the Post Office Ltd prosecution function, the Horizon group damages settlement and the conduct of current or future litigation. ... why have the Government excluded these most important things?" The minister replied that the settlement agreed in December was full and final and therefore excluded from the scope of the inquiry ... the Post Office is not conducting any private prosecutions and has no plans to do so ... only the courts can decide on criminal matters, such as whether to overturn the postmasters' convictions, so it would not be appropriate for the inquiry to look at these questions, especially when the court process is still ongoing.[189]

The non-statutory inquiry, now titled The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry by the government and led by Sir Wyn Williams, began work in autumn 2020 and issued a call for evidence on 1 December 2020. The first public hearing session took place on 15 January 2021.[190] The Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA) refused to take part in the inquiry, described it as a whitewash and called for a full public inquiry.[191]

Neil Hudgell, of solicitors for subpostmasters said, "Now Post Office officials must face criminal investigation for maliciously ruining lives by prosecuting innocent people in pursuit of profits," and called for the prime minister to convene a judge-led inquiry.[192] After the subpostmasters' successful appeals on both grounds 1 and 2 abuse of process, in an article headed "Calls grow for SRA and police to investigate Post Office lawyers", Hudgell is quoted as saying the Post Office engaged in "legal gymnastics to seek to persuade the court away from finding a clear systematic abuse of process of the criminal law." In the same article, Richard Moorhead said "the SRA and BSB should investigate whether anyone should be held to account amid professional concerns about who was responsible for disclosure issues."[193] Solicitors for subpostmasters wrote to the government (DBEIS) asking it to re-establish the inquiry on a statutory footing and to consult again on the terms of reference. "The department should be called as witnesses under oath, not have effective control of the inquiry," ... "The Post Office wrongly prosecuted so many upstanding pillars of the community and its owners want to mark (their) own homework – that is unconscionable."[194]

On 19 May 2021, the government announced that an extended, statutory inquiry into the computer scandal would deliver its conclusions in autumn 2022. Witnesses could now be compelled to give evidence. Scully said he and Sir Wyn had agreed that the context of the events had changed after convictions were quashed and hundreds more were expected to follow. Boris Johnson said:[195]

We must stand with postmasters to get to the bottom of what went wrong in the Post Office Horizon IT dispute. I heard first-hand the irreparable impact it has had on their lives. That's why, in light of the recent Court of Appeal judgment, we're stepping up our independent inquiry by putting it on a statutory footing, so we can get the answers they deserve.

On 19 May 2021, Wyn Williams said that in the following weeks, the inquiry would produce a statement of approach and that, in September 2021, a further statement of approach would set out all relevant details.[196]

On 28 July, the government (DBEIS) issued its fourth statement of approach, which included the inquiry terms of reference. After setting out preliminary and organisational matters – the appointment of solicitors and counsel to the inquiry, establishment of a website and of premises, etc., – the statement set out terms of reference, in essence:

A: Understand and acknowledge what went wrong and key lessons that must be learned.

B: Obtain all available relevant evidence from the Post Office, Fujitsu, BEIS and UKGI to establish the failings of Horizon and the Post Office's use of information from Horizon.

C: Assess whether the Post Office has learned and has delivered or made good progress on the changes necessary.

D: Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office Ltd have been properly delivered.

E: Assess whether processes and information provided by the Post Office to postmasters are sufficient.

F: Examine the historical and current governance and whistleblowing controls are now sufficient to ensure that these failures do not happen again.

"The Inquiry will consider only those matters set out in the preceding sections A-F. The Inquiry will not consider any issue which is outside the scope of the powers conferred upon the Inquiry by the Inquiries Act 2005. The Horizon group damages settlement (albeit the Inquiry may examine the events leading to the settlement), and/or the engagement or findings of any other supervisory or complaints mechanisms, including in the public sector, are outside the Inquiry's scope."[197]

During the non-statutory inquiry, two public hearings were held in early 2021. A preliminary hearing on the provisional List of Issues was held on 8 November 2021.[198] The Human Impact Hearings opened on 14 February 2022, at Juxon House, in the City of London.[199] The Phase Two hearings, covering the Horizon IT System procurement, design, pilot, roll out and modifications, started in October 2022.[200] They were streamed online, as are the later phases of the inquiry.[201] That body also investigated whether the Post Office and ICL's owner, Fujitsu, knew about the faults.[199][197][202]

Richard Moorhead made written and oral submissions to the Williams inquiry. Moorhead, in an oral submission to the Williams inquiry, said:[203]

If I can end by putting the case metaphorically for a moment. Considering the Horizon saga without considering the lawyering, and without lifting professional privilege, would be a bit like considering Watergate without considering the White House Tapes. Essential, telling, [and] perhaps vital information will be missing. The abuse of power, the injustice, who did it and why, will not be properly understood. Sir, you must, to discharge the Inquiry's remit, you must do the equivalent of listening to the tapes.

Immediately after the November hearing, Williams said he would ask Post Office Limited, IT supplier Fujitsu, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and the UK government to waive privilege in respect of material relevant to the inquiry's terms of reference, and he set a deadline for response.[204] On 16 November, Wyn Williams reported that all four parties had responded within the timescale specified and added "The response of POL, on any view, goes a very long way towards meeting the request I made of them. It is clear to me that in respect of many of the most crucial lines of investigation for the Inquiry POL has waived legal professional privilege."[205] The Post Office published its response to the request on 15 November 2021.[206] Government (BEIS) said that it was its "firm position that the inquiry should not be obstructed by the assertion of legal privilege", but the government-owned Post Office was more cautious. It agreed to a limited waiver over relevant material but would maintain privilege over documents relevant to ongoing litigation/remediation activities. The Post Office maintained privilege over documents relevant to the ongoing group litigation claim in the Employment Tribunal. It maintained privilege over legal advice related to the Historical Shortfall Scheme and to current and anticipated claims from individuals whose criminal convictions have been or will be quashed. This could have wide-reaching ramifications for the inquiry; if advice is withheld on the basis that it is relevant to current and anticipated claims from those who have had their convictions quashed, this may lead to gaps in the inquiry.[207]

On 13 February 2022, in a report prior to the start of the Wyn Williams hearings, the BBC quoted a prosecuted, jailed and subsequently cleared subpostmaster: "I want someone else to be charged and jailed like I was." This request was later repeated by several other subpostmasters.[208][209][210]

The inquiry issued an interim report on 17 July 2023. The recommendations were as follows:[211]

- The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board (HCAB) should not be prevented from monitoring individual cases

- HCAB shall produce written reports in respect of each of their meetings

- Membership of HCAB should be increased to ensure that it has sufficient capacity

- The government should within 28 days seek directions under section 306 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to ensure that compensation payable to bankrupt claimants is not diverted to insolvency practitioners

- The government should publish proposals for ensuring that applicants to all schemes are treated equally and fairly

- The government should ensure that legislation is enacted to allow compensation under group litigation orders to be made to applicants after midnight on 7 August 2024

- No applications for compensation to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme should be entertained after such date as agreed by the minister

The government accepted the recommendations in full or in part on 26 October 2023.[212]

Criminal investigation[edit]

When handing down the Horizon issues judgment in December 2019, Fraser said he had passed a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to evidence given by Fujitsu employees in actions brought by the Post Office.[213] In January 2020, at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Metropolitan Police initiated a criminal investigation into potential offences of perjury and perverting the course of justice during the investigations and prosecutions carried out by the Post Office.[214] Two former Fujitsu expert witnesses were interviewed under caution.[215] The Metropolitan Police confirmed in January 2024 that they were investigating possible additional offences of fraud in relation to "monies recovered from sub-postmasters as a result of prosecutions or civil actions"; as of January 2024, there had been no arrests.[214]

Regulatory action[edit]

On the 19 January 2024, the Solicitors Regulation Authority confirmed that it is continuing to investigate "live cases into a number of solicitors and law firms who were working on behalf of the Post Office/Royal Mail Group".[216] The Bar Standards Board (which regulates barristers) is currently a core participant of the public inquiry, and says that no evidence heard by the Inquiry currently "indicates that any members of the Bar present an ongoing risk to the public that requires the BSB to act immediately".[217]

A public interest investigation by the computer scientist Junade Ali in January 2024 found that Gareth Jenkins, who gave evidence in court attesting to the accuracy of the Horizon system (and later became a person of interest to the Metropolitan Police[218]), solely relied upon qualifications obtained by the British Computer Society to be accepted by the court as an expert, despite the British Computer Society being obligated by the Engineering Council UK to uphold the conduct of its members. Whilst the British Computer Society later published a press release saying they would take action only after the public inquiry and legal processes had been completed, Ali however had found evidence that Jenkins' membership with the Society had long expired raising questions as to whether any regulatory action was possible and the BCS' conduct to date as a regulator.[219][220]

The Post Office is also regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and research by Tussell has found the FCA was one of numerous governmental organisations who also had a contract with Fujitsu.[221][222]

Call for reform on digital evidence[edit]

In May 2021, the British Computer Society, a professional body for those working in IT in the UK, called for reconsideration of courts' default presumption that computer data is correct.[223][224]

The presumption that computer evidence is correct is based on a naïve and simplistic understanding of software systems. Large systems are complex and lay people cannot discern whether these systems are reliable or be confident that they can spot errors as they happen. It is difficult even for experts to judge the reliability of systems or detect any but the simplest errors.[225]

If the legal system and wider society are to have any confidence in computer evidence the providers of such evidence must be able to demonstrate that they are managing their systems responsibly.[226] This was not the case at the Post Office and Fujitsu. Horizon was not subjected to a full, rigorous system audit.[227] In 2010, senior Post Office management took a decision that Horizon would not be subjected to an independent review because:

If one were commissioned – any investigation would need to be disclosed in court. Although we would be doing the review to comfort others, any perception that POL doubts its own systems would mean that all criminal prosecutions would have to be stayed. It would also beg a question for the Court of Appeal over past prosecutions and imprisonments.[228]

No independent review was conducted until Second Sight was commissioned in 2012; their contract was terminated abruptly before it could formally report. The Post Office have not offered any evidence that their own internal auditors conducted an appropriate system audit.[227]

Proposed legislation[edit]

This is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation's history. People who worked hard to serve their communities had their lives and reputations destroyed, through absolutely no fault of their own. The victims must get justice and compensation.... But today I can announce that we will introduce new primary legislation to make sure that those convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal are swiftly exonerated and compensated.

Rishi Sunak, Hansard, volume 743, column 289, 10 January 2024.[229]

On 10 January 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the government's intention to introduce legislation to exonerate wrongly convicted Post Office branch managers and said there would be a "new upfront payment of £75,000 for some of those affected".[230] However, the new legislation will aim to ensure that any subpostmaster guilty of criminal wrongdoing is still subject to prosecution. Kevin Hollinrake, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, said that all those claiming compensation would have to sign a "statement of truth" to confirm they had not committed the crimes of which they were accused. He explained "Anyone subsequently found to have signed such a statement untruthfully will be putting themselves at risk of prosecution or fraud."[230][231] Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters had been prosecuted based on faulty information provided by Horizon, with 700 of those prosecutions brought by the Post Office.[48] By mid-January 2024, 95 of those convictions had been overturned.[48]

The BBC described the proposal as 'unprecedented', with a number of possible problems that might make implementation difficult.[232]

Media[edit]

Investigative reporting[edit]

A Computer Weekly article written by Rebecca Thomson in July 2013 listed over 300 articles on the scandal published by the magazine, since it first broke the story in May 2009 with seven case studies.[233][234][235] This first article was read by a Welsh BBC reporter, and in May 2009 BBC Wales went on to report that "an investigation by a respected technical journal ... appeared to be calling into question the integrity of the Post Office Horizon system". On 8 September 2009, the jailing of Anglesey subpostmaster Noel Thomas was covered on the S4C current-affairs programme Taro Naw, making the claims of problems with Horizon, and interviewing Alan Bates, Lee Castleton and Jo Hamilton, who had featured in the Computer Weekly article. The programme also uncovered a further nine subpostmasters who had been affected.[236][237][238]

In November 2010, the husband of Surrey subpostmistress Seema Misra, who had been jailed while pregnant, spoke to Nick Wallis, then the presenter of the breakfast programme on BBC Radio Surrey, who after some research and discovering the prior mentions, used his contacts to get the issue reported on 7 February 2011 on both BBC Radio Surrey, and regional BBC One television current affairs programme Inside Out.[239][240][241][242] Wallis also shared his information with Private Eye magazine, which ran many articles on the scandal, starting in September 2011.[243][235][244][245][246][242] A former Fujitsu employee saw the BBC South report and decided to blow the whistle to the JFSA, and later to BBC Panorama.[235]

Starting in 2012, other BBC news and current affairs programmes and national newspapers began to cover the scandal, with the Daily Mail in 2015 publishing a double-page spread entitled "Decent lives destroyed by the Post Office".[235][247][248]

From 2018, former BBC journalist Nick Wallis, following on from his work on Panorama and in Private Eye, started reporting the trial on a specially-set up journalism blog, postofficetrial.com, having raised £9,000 through crowd-funding.[247][249][242]

In 2020, Private Eye published online a special report co-authored by Richard Brooks and Nick Wallis titled "Justice Lost In The Post".[245][247] A BBC Radio 4 series about the scandal, The Great Post Office Trial, presented by Nick Wallis and produced by Whistledown Productions, was named "Best News and Factual Radio Programme" in 2020 by the Voice of the Listener & Viewer, and won two gold awards in the 2021 New York Festivals Radio Awards.[250][251][252] In November 2021 a book, The Great Post Office Scandal, written by Nick Wallis, was published by Bath Publishing.[247][242]

Dramatisation[edit]

A four-part television drama, Mr Bates vs the Post Office, starring Toby Jones as Alan Bates, was broadcast on ITV from 1 January 2024.[253] The drama brought the scandal to the centre of public and political attention.[254] During the period of broadcast, an additional fifty victims contacted lawyers, five of whom seek to get criminal convictions quashed.[215] As of 9 January, it was reported that over a hundred further potential victims had contacted lawyers following the broadcast.[255]

Following the broadcast, a petition to strip Vennells of her CBE passed one million signatures.[256] On 9 January 2024, she announced that she would hand back her CBE.[256] However, this will have no formal effect as only the monarch, on the advice of the Honours Forfeiture Committee, can revoke honours.[256][257]