Former Post Office GC allowed to face tribunal remotely

The former general counsel for the Post Office who refused invitations to give evidence to the public inquiry will be allowed to attend her own disciplinary proceedings remotely.

Jane MacLeod has been charged by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with failing to co-operate with the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, after she declined to appear in 2024 either in person or remotely.

MacLeod, who lives in Australia, instead sent a written statement and said any further evidence would not be useful due to the passage of time.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard submissions on whether MacLeod should be allowed to give evidence remotely at her substantive disciplinary hearing. The SRA said it would be ‘unconscionable’ to allow this given the basis for the proceedings, while MacLeod’s representative maintained the proceedings would still be open and transparent even if she was not physically present.

The tribunal said it wanted to ensure the most likely way to secure MacLeod’s attendance which enabled her to participate fully, and it granted her application to appear remotely.

The four-day substantive hearing is set to start on 25 January and is the first involving a former Post Office lawyer. Proceedings will finish no later than 2pm each day to accommodate the time difference with Australia.

MacLeod was general counsel from 2015 to 2019, overseeing the entirety of the Bates vs The Post Office litigation which culminated in a series of judgments from Mr Justice Fraser criticising the organisation’s conduct and disclosure policies. MacLeod also helped to advise leading figures at the Post Office about their response to questions about Horizon from MPs, and was in post when the Post Office made the doomed application for Mr Justice Fraser to recuse himself.

Sir Wyn Williams, chair of the inquiry, said MacLeod had ‘made it clear’ she would not co-operate beyond providing a witness statement.

Opposing the application today, Paul Ozin KC for the SRA, said there was a ‘symmetry’ between MacLeod effectively asking not to attend the tribunal hearing in person and declining to give oral evidence to the inquiry.

‘Again it is being said that the tribunal and all of those attending the tribunal and all who have a stake in its outcome should be inconvenienced quite considerably on a daily basis by short sitting hours in order to accommodate the respondent’s remote attendance in Australia and to make sure she is not too greatly inconvenienced,’ said Ozin.

The barrister submitted that the ability to interpret MacLeod’s evidence would be greatly improved by her attending in person.

During the inquiry, Ozin argued, MacLeod showed a ‘complete disregard’ for the inquiry’s requests and processes.

‘There is a symmetry between the gravamen of the allegations brought against her in relation to [the application to appear remotely at the tribunal] and putting her own convenience and the adverse impact to her above that of all other considerations,’ he added. ‘Remote attendance from a comfortable distance has the potential in such cases to diminish accountability – this consideration does not count for nothing and is not outweighed by inconvenience and cost to the respondent.’

Patrick Hill, representing MacLeod, questioned whether there was true symmetry between the inquiry and tribunal proceedings, pointing out that the position was different here in that there was no question of her appearing in some capacity.

‘Her attendance [remotely] does not close the hearing to anyone and deprives nobody of open justice – she will be seen and heard throughout with all the considerations of demeanour and nuance.’

The inquiry closed at the end of 2024 and the second part of Sir Wyn Williams' report has yet to be published.