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.
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.
Though there is no statute that expressly provides for the Crown court to hear appeals on behalf of deceased persons, the CCRC said there is 'a real possibility' that such power exists under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
CCRC chairman Helen Pitcher called the review into both convictions ‘legally challenging and complex’. She added: ‘These two decisions differ from previous posthumous referrals in Post Office Horizon cases in that the convictions of Mr Huxham and Mr Dundee occurred in magistrates’ courts.
‘There is no current legislation which expressly allows posthumous appeals from a magistrates’ court to the Crown court. Given that we have seen successful posthumous appeals from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal in Post Office cases, the disparity is difficult to justify.
‘After careful analysis of the law, we believe there is a reasonable argument that the Crown court is able to hear an appeals on behalf of a deceased person if the case is referred to it by the CCRC.
‘We feel it is important for this issue to be considered by the Crown court and for the families of the deceased men to have an opportunity to appeal against the convictions of their loved ones.’
The CCRC has referred 70 cases related to Post Office convictions or sentences to the appellate courts, making it the ‘most widespread miscarriage of justice the organisation has ever reviewed’. It is believed there are more unchallenged, and potentially unjust, convictions.
