Post-office
What lies in store for the PO’s former GC?
A former general counsel at the Post Office is facing disciplinary proceedings for refusing to cooperate with the recent public inquiry into the unjustified prosecution of postmasters. Jane MacLeod was the Post Office’s senior in-house lawyer from 2015 to 2019. Her case has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by the solicitors’ regulator.
MacLeod, who was born in Australia, returned to live there in 2020. She refused an invitation two years ago to give oral evidence to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, either in person or through a video-link. Because she was abroad, the inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams was unable to compel her attendance.
MacLeod declined to comment in 2024 when she was doorstepped in Sydney by the BBC.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority decided to take action against MacLeod last November but disclosed this only yesterday. It generally announces a referral only after the tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer
A glance at its most recent regulatory announcements reveals that only a small proportion of disciplinary actions are referred to the tribunal; most are dealt with by the Solicitors Regulation Authority itself. The tribunal has some wider powers than the regulator: it can impose larger fines as well as prohibiting solicitors from practising.
Cases are referred to the tribunal only where there is realistic prospect of the tribunal making an order and it would be in the public interest to make the application, according to the regulator. The tribunal will not make an order unless the conduct complained of is found to be serious enough and is proved on the balance of probabilities.
Although the regulator refers to this as a “prosecution”, it does not bring criminal proceedings. While MacLeod remains outside the United Kingdom, it is hard to see how the tribunal could require her to attend a hearing in London or pay any fine it may impose.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority also announced proceedings against Nick Gould. He was not a Post Office lawyer but represented former postmasters wrongly accused of dishonesty.
Gould is accused by the regulator of failing to provide adequate information about costs relating to work done for unnamed clients.
He is also accused of sending inappropriate correspondence and breaching a duty of confidentiality. He declined to comment yesterday when approached by reporters.
Jonathan Peddie, executive director of investigations, enforcement and litigation at the regulator, said:
We have referred two cases to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The cases refer to conduct that took place in the period after the main events of the Post Office Horizon scandal.
Our wider investigations are still ongoing. This includes issues relating directly to the Horizon scandal, where we are working closely with the inquiry team and the Metropolitan Police. We can and will act if we find that solicitors we regulate fail to meet our standards.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority is investigating 20 cases involving prosecutions of postmasters by solicitors, The Times reported in April. The Bar Standards Board was said to have 10 investigations on the go relating to barristers. No announcements relating to these cases have yet been made, presumably because regulators are waiting for the outcome of police investigations or publication of the inquiry’s final report.
Update 1130: a reader has alerted me to R (UCPI Designated Lawyer Officers Core Participant Group) v Sir John Mitting, in which the High Court held on 9 June that an inquiry chair has power under the Inquiries Act to require the attendance of a witness who is abroad. It does not follow, however, that this power can be enforced if the witness remains out of the jurisdiction.
Surely if she refuses to co-operate, the answer is indefinite suspension or strike-off?