Kevin Hollinrake said: 'I cannot tell the House that all of those prosecuted were innocent or even that it was 90%, or 80%, or 70%. Without retrying every case, we cannot know.'
He's wrong, however, as we can make an intelligent guess.
According to a Post Office FOI statement obtained by Nick Wallis in 2020 and passed on to me by Alan Bates, the number of subpostmasters convicted in 1991 to 1998 averaged 6 per year. After Horizon, from 2000 to 2013, that number rose to 51 per year.
Assuming there was no sudden frenzy of criminality among the country's subpostmasters, we might reasonably assume, from those figures, that roughly 88% of those convicted were innocent.
Whilst I fully sympathise with the lives of SPMs that have been destroyed by the PO and faulty 'Horizon' software, I feel a parliamentary automatic quashing of all convictions sets a worrying precedent. What if we have a very right-wing, populist government? Is there no way of quickly distinguishing between previous convictions that involved Horizon - and those that did not? We also need to find a quick way of providing adequate compensation (in the hundreds of thousands for the heroic SPMs that won judgements in their favour but - after legal costs were deducted - ended up with a paltry £20000 odd compensation. And what exactly is the role of the Ministry of Justice? Do they have one? They do nothing that I can see about the PO scandal, the Windrush scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, the Grenfell Tower scandal . Why are they called the Ministry of Justice when all these scandals take place on their watch and they do and say NOTHING. Should they be prosecuted?
Joshua, I greatly enjoy this substack, and the current Post Office case (which I have followed for years in Private Eye) illustrates the importance of judicial matters to the lives of ordinary people - when they are involuntarily caught up in the criminal justice system. My recent experience has led me to believe that there is an evolving problem caused as an unintended consequence of government action. I am sorry to be cryptic, but I cannot see a way of contacting you directly. If you respond to this post I can provide more detail.
Joshua, watching the ITV drama I was struck that the Post Office has the power to take a criminal prosecution in its own name. I’m sure there are other examples of this but in this case due to the scale of the prosecutions it seems to have led to a severe case of group think and lack of independence which in no way reflects well on the prosecution lawyers to name just one party in the saga. I would have thought the Post Office had there go to briefs trying the same cases on a regular basis with I think 700 prosecutions in total. Do you know if there is any inquiry into the role of the prosecuting lawyers in all of this? For one thing they must have seen the same defence being put forward by numerous unrelated defendants time and time again and carried on regardless.
I entirely agree. But I'm not sure about "tightly defined". You could set a start date (when Horizon was introduced into that postmaster's post office and possibly an end date (when the PO stopped doing its own prosecutions — though I don't think that was the end of its malfeasance). But it will surely be for ministers to decide, on advice, which names to add to the list.
I feel, Joshua, with all due respect, that given, as Professor Richard Moorhead points out "The levels of trauma [suffered by the postmasters] are horrifying" it is worth, on balance, the exoneration of a few unworthy cases for the peace of mind for the vast majority.
I have been a litigant myself. I have acted for High Street claimants and defendants. I have worked in more significant cases involving City law firms. I have been a corporate client. I have reported on high-end commercial and criminal litigation for close to 16 years.
Think about what that means to the postmasters. Think about what it means to have to live with that trauma. Many of your followers work on significant commercial or criminal cases and are inured to the tactics deployed by the Post Office, its law firms, and the Bar.
The postmasters were not, in any way, experienced litigants. They were ordinary people. I think, gently, that we who report the courts sometimes forget of the impact of such experiences on those who live with the scars - emotional, mental, financial - of that trauma. They do not wish to revisit the courts, ever again, in their lifetimes, many now short.
The government and the judiciary understand this. To do a great good, a little wrong cannot be avoided.
This has become a truly remarkable situation given the public clamour and it is starting to have unfortunate consequences. For example, several newspapers attacking Starmer for being DPP during part of the time (now the CPS have conceded they brought some prosecutions). Regardless of people's views on him as leader of the opposition, it stretches credibility that people think he should have personally reviewed these cases.
One difficulty here is Parliament setting a precedent. While it obviously has the power to do this, it has not done so before. What is to stop a PM with a large majority deciding along with dissolution honours we should have dissolution quashing of convictions? Presumably the House of Lords is the guard against that, but one looks at how presidential pardons are dealt with in the USA and shudder.
You are right to point out some are guilty and ticking a box is unlikely to put them off. It is very doubtful anyone will later examine the papers. They will be left alone given the damage caused to innocent people.
I can't help thinking they could have done this judicially but quicker. Perhaps employing a couple of retired Lord Justices of Appeal to look at the cases on paper to see whose convictions they could quash quickly administratively (requiring legislation admittedly) and who needed to be referred to the Court of Appeal.
But, it's an election year and it was a very popular documentary, so we just need to hope it is defined tightly and Parliament doesn't get a taste for this.
These people were traumatised by the theft by the Post Office on the Horizon software. They lost their cash, businesses, pensions, homes, ability to work, health, lives, reputations, legal costs and the politicians want to give them up to £600,000! For decades they have been fighting against documents not disclosed to the defence lawyers, and even as the learned Judge said in a broadcast, possible perjury, and who knows what else the Post Office officials have done, or have hidden with the mention also of documents having been shredded! When the Post Office officials have operated with such malfeasance how can even one person now be assumed to be guilty?
Kevin Hollinrake said: 'I cannot tell the House that all of those prosecuted were innocent or even that it was 90%, or 80%, or 70%. Without retrying every case, we cannot know.'
He's wrong, however, as we can make an intelligent guess.
According to a Post Office FOI statement obtained by Nick Wallis in 2020 and passed on to me by Alan Bates, the number of subpostmasters convicted in 1991 to 1998 averaged 6 per year. After Horizon, from 2000 to 2013, that number rose to 51 per year.
Assuming there was no sudden frenzy of criminality among the country's subpostmasters, we might reasonably assume, from those figures, that roughly 88% of those convicted were innocent.
Whilst I fully sympathise with the lives of SPMs that have been destroyed by the PO and faulty 'Horizon' software, I feel a parliamentary automatic quashing of all convictions sets a worrying precedent. What if we have a very right-wing, populist government? Is there no way of quickly distinguishing between previous convictions that involved Horizon - and those that did not? We also need to find a quick way of providing adequate compensation (in the hundreds of thousands for the heroic SPMs that won judgements in their favour but - after legal costs were deducted - ended up with a paltry £20000 odd compensation. And what exactly is the role of the Ministry of Justice? Do they have one? They do nothing that I can see about the PO scandal, the Windrush scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, the Grenfell Tower scandal . Why are they called the Ministry of Justice when all these scandals take place on their watch and they do and say NOTHING. Should they be prosecuted?
Joshua, I greatly enjoy this substack, and the current Post Office case (which I have followed for years in Private Eye) illustrates the importance of judicial matters to the lives of ordinary people - when they are involuntarily caught up in the criminal justice system. My recent experience has led me to believe that there is an evolving problem caused as an unintended consequence of government action. I am sorry to be cryptic, but I cannot see a way of contacting you directly. If you respond to this post I can provide more detail.
Joshua, watching the ITV drama I was struck that the Post Office has the power to take a criminal prosecution in its own name. I’m sure there are other examples of this but in this case due to the scale of the prosecutions it seems to have led to a severe case of group think and lack of independence which in no way reflects well on the prosecution lawyers to name just one party in the saga. I would have thought the Post Office had there go to briefs trying the same cases on a regular basis with I think 700 prosecutions in total. Do you know if there is any inquiry into the role of the prosecuting lawyers in all of this? For one thing they must have seen the same defence being put forward by numerous unrelated defendants time and time again and carried on regardless.
I entirely agree. But I'm not sure about "tightly defined". You could set a start date (when Horizon was introduced into that postmaster's post office and possibly an end date (when the PO stopped doing its own prosecutions — though I don't think that was the end of its malfeasance). But it will surely be for ministers to decide, on advice, which names to add to the list.
I feel, Joshua, with all due respect, that given, as Professor Richard Moorhead points out "The levels of trauma [suffered by the postmasters] are horrifying" it is worth, on balance, the exoneration of a few unworthy cases for the peace of mind for the vast majority.
I have been a litigant myself. I have acted for High Street claimants and defendants. I have worked in more significant cases involving City law firms. I have been a corporate client. I have reported on high-end commercial and criminal litigation for close to 16 years.
Think about what that means to the postmasters. Think about what it means to have to live with that trauma. Many of your followers work on significant commercial or criminal cases and are inured to the tactics deployed by the Post Office, its law firms, and the Bar.
The postmasters were not, in any way, experienced litigants. They were ordinary people. I think, gently, that we who report the courts sometimes forget of the impact of such experiences on those who live with the scars - emotional, mental, financial - of that trauma. They do not wish to revisit the courts, ever again, in their lifetimes, many now short.
The government and the judiciary understand this. To do a great good, a little wrong cannot be avoided.
This has become a truly remarkable situation given the public clamour and it is starting to have unfortunate consequences. For example, several newspapers attacking Starmer for being DPP during part of the time (now the CPS have conceded they brought some prosecutions). Regardless of people's views on him as leader of the opposition, it stretches credibility that people think he should have personally reviewed these cases.
One difficulty here is Parliament setting a precedent. While it obviously has the power to do this, it has not done so before. What is to stop a PM with a large majority deciding along with dissolution honours we should have dissolution quashing of convictions? Presumably the House of Lords is the guard against that, but one looks at how presidential pardons are dealt with in the USA and shudder.
You are right to point out some are guilty and ticking a box is unlikely to put them off. It is very doubtful anyone will later examine the papers. They will be left alone given the damage caused to innocent people.
I can't help thinking they could have done this judicially but quicker. Perhaps employing a couple of retired Lord Justices of Appeal to look at the cases on paper to see whose convictions they could quash quickly administratively (requiring legislation admittedly) and who needed to be referred to the Court of Appeal.
But, it's an election year and it was a very popular documentary, so we just need to hope it is defined tightly and Parliament doesn't get a taste for this.
These people were traumatised by the theft by the Post Office on the Horizon software. They lost their cash, businesses, pensions, homes, ability to work, health, lives, reputations, legal costs and the politicians want to give them up to £600,000! For decades they have been fighting against documents not disclosed to the defence lawyers, and even as the learned Judge said in a broadcast, possible perjury, and who knows what else the Post Office officials have done, or have hidden with the mention also of documents having been shredded! When the Post Office officials have operated with such malfeasance how can even one person now be assumed to be guilty?