Post Office chairman Nigel Railton has told an influential group of peers and academics that the Post Office’s controversial decision to contest Capture appeals is in “accordance with the rules and requirements” of the judicial system.
But his explanation was described as “unconvincing” by Horizon Compensation Advisory Board (HCAB) member peer James Arbuthnot.
On 1 May, HCAB chair Christopher Hodges, an emeritus professor of justice systems at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at the University of Oxford, wrote to Railton expressing the group’s concerns over the Post Office’s decision to contest appeals against convictions based on technology that predates the controversial Horizon system.
“Whatever the reason, we note the entirely understandable public reaction, which we fully share, that, whether the reasons may be technical or not, it is inappropriate and harmful for the Post Office to object to overturn applications,” wrote Hodges.
Three appeals, known as pre-Horizon cases, have been sent to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) so far. Two of these are convictions based on the Capture system, and one is regarding a conviction based on a system known as the Automatic Payment Terminal (APT).
The CCRC is also reviewing around 30 more cases of prosecutions based on software that pre-dates Horizon.
Also read: Post Office Horizon scandal explained: Everything you need to know
Railton’s response to the HCAB’s concerns came on the day the Post Office confirmed it would contest the appeal of former subpostmaster and Capture user Steve Marston. It said the same was the case for the other two pre-Horizon appeals, a posthumous appeal for Capture user Patricia Owen, and that of Gareth Snow, who used the APT system.
Hodges’ 1 May letter said: “Our view is that such action presumably reflects technical legal advice, but the outcome gives entirely the wrong impression to the public and especially to those victims whose appeals are concerned.”
The HCAB includes peers James Arbuthnot and Kevan Jones, who have campaigned for subpostmasters affected by the Horizon scandal for a decade and a half.
Changing face
Railton, when asked in a business and trade select committee hearing in January whether, as with Horizon-related convictions, legislation should be used to overturn them en masse, said “yes”.
In his response to the HCAB letter, he wrote that he understands the advisory board’s concerns, but that the “Post Office must nevertheless act in accordance with the rules and requirements of the independent judicial system and our legal duties as the original prosecutor – which, given past mistakes, Post Office takes very seriously”.
He said outside the usual legal routes of appeal, “the only path to quashing all qualifying Capture-related convictions would require the government to decide to introduce legislation to overturn qualifying Capture convictions as was done with Horizon”.
Unconvincing response
HCAB member Arbuthnot said the advisory group would continue to demand answers on what it sees as a contradictory stance from the Post Office. “I find Nigel Railton’s letter unconvincing, and I expect the HCAB will be pursuing this further. The Post Office’s public stance, as expressed to the select committee, is that these convictions should be overturned. It is quite peculiar that they seem to be arguing to the Court of Appeal that they should not be.”
In March 2024, the government introduced legislation to overturn around 900 convictions based on evidence from the Horizon system. This came in May 2024, at a time when the UK government faced public outrage after the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
The HCAB has already called for legislation to overturn Capture convictions, and in March, MPs demanded “urgent legislation” for this and warned that “unsafe” convictions based on other pre-Horizon systems were yet to be unearthed.
Computer Weekly asked the Post Office who had made the decision to contest Steve Marston’s appeal. It said: “In line with our duties to the court and the appellant in this appeal, Mr Marston, we have filed a Respondents’ Notice to assist the court in addressing the legal and factual issues that may be relevant to their consideration of the first Capture-related appeals.
“We want all unsafe convictions to be overturned and are doing all we can to ensure appeals are heard as expeditiously as possible and in line with our legal duties as the original prosecutor.
“Our response to these appeals are subject to extensive legal advice, and our role is to assist the Court of Appeal’s deliberation of the unique legal and factual issues that prosecutions that may have involved the Capture software require.”
Solicitor Neil Hudgell of Hudgell Solicitors, which represents many former Capture users appealing convictions, said: “The Post Office continues to repeat its failings of the past. Understandably, subpostmasters say they continue not to trust them. Like Patricia Owen, they contest Steve Marston’s appeal. They are entitled to do that, but what they ought to do is have the decency to say so rather than hide behind mealy-mouthed words from an unnamed spokesperson that distort the full picture. We will continue the fight in the Court of Appeal next week and beyond.”
Computer Weekly first exposed the scandal in 2009, with the stories of seven subpostmasters who suffered due to faulty accounting software – our full coverage of the scandal since that time is shown in the timeline below.
