Post Office leaders dealing with a second wave of potential quashed convictions have been accused of ‘shifting responsibility’ for unpopular decisions onto lawyers.
The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board also publicly questioned whether those same lawyers making decisions about conviction appeals are suitable for the task given their history with the original scandal.
The Post Office has accepted that Capture, the computer system which predated the Horizon system adopted in 2000, contained a number of flaws which meant that convictions relying on it were unsafe.
Both Capture-related cases referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission are being contested by the Post Office.
The organisation chair Nigel Railton told the business and trade select committee in January that he wanted all Capture convictions to be quashed.
But the Post Office insists that its role is to bring any legal and factual issues to the court’s attention which require further scrutiny, and that in both cases referred to the Court of Appeal, this is necessary.
The HCAB, an independent advisory board of politicians and academics overseeing compensation issues relating to the Horizon scandal, said the Post Office’s stance is ‘inexplicable and unconscionable’.
Read more
In a letter from HCAB chair Christopher Hodges last month addressed to Railton, he said the rationale being given is excessively legalistic and avoids making decisions based on what he described as ‘sound human values’ and its effect on victims.
Hodges said Railton appeared to be trying to ‘shift responsibility for the decision towards your legal advisers’. These lawyers on which the Post Office relies ‘have been involved for some time and were involved in the [previous Horizon] defence of convictions, in ways which properly provoked some controversy’.
The letter added: ‘Some [advisers] come from the same chambers as counsel now under the spotlight through the PO Inquiry for matters of significant concern. Without in any way questioning the propriety of their decision-making, we do wonder if they come to these matters with the appearance of sufficient independence when advising on matters with a considerable history where they have played an active role.’
Hodges said any decision to contest or oppose appeals should be taken by the Post Office board, with the advice of lawyers treated as advice rather than a binding decision and based on a degree of common sense.
Post Office says it has to act in accordance with its legal duties as the original prosecutor and approaches any appeal in accordance with the law and evidence. A review of the two live appeals, involving former sub-postmaster Steve Marston and the late sub-postmistress Patricia Owen, has identified issues that do require this scrutiny. It also highlights that responses to Capture-related appeals are decisions of the remediation committee of its board, supported by legal advice.
It is understood the organisation is satisfied that it is receiving advice from senior regulated professionals and has no reason to believe that any of them are acting with a conflict of interest.
A Post Office spokesperson said: ‘We want all unsafe convictions to be overturned and are doing all we can to ensure appeals are heard as quickly as possible. This is entirely a decision for the court once they have considered all relevant information, and Post Office will welcome their considered guidance.
‘We will continue to participate fully and transparently in the process of assisting Mr Marston, Ms Owen’s family and the court where we can, and we look forward to a hearing date being set by the court as soon as they are able to do so.’
