One aspect of the Post Office Scandal that This Writer does not understand is why the sub-postmasters who were wrongly convicted haven’t already had their names cleared by the courts and been awarded large compensation packages.

What’s the hold-up?

The BBC is suggesting that lengthy court cases have to take place:

Ministers could advise the King to grant Royal Pardons, once reserved for the condemned as they faced the gallows.

But these would be largely symbolic acts because the government can’t, at the stroke of a pen, quash a conviction. That’s because the courts are constitutionally independent – and that means a second option could be difficult too.

Parliament could pass an act declaring that all the Horizon convictions be quashed, but that would be an unprecedented meddling in the work of judges – and it would pave the way for politicians to do it again.

The third option is a mass appeal with a crystal clear submission to Court of Appeal judges that the state no longer believes the convictions should stand. There’s a precedent for this – 39 post office cases were overturned in one go in 2021.

But running such a case would not be easy – and it could still take years to resolve.

Why is any of this necessary?

The case that sub-postmasters were wrongly-accused, en masse, has already been proved in court.

In that case, even if one or two had been fiddling the figures – and there is no ground for believing that any of them were (unless because they were trying to make them present an accurate account of the financial situation in their branches), then the charges against them should be cleared en masse.

There is a famous principle in justice, known as Blackstone’s ratio, which states that

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

And the message that government and the courts must err on the side of bringing in verdicts of innocence has remained constant throughout UK legal history since Anglo-Saxon times.

So what’s holding everything up?

To This Writer’s way of thinking, it can only be that Post Office Limited is dragging its feet. Is this firm saying it won’t allow all the wronged sub-postmasters to be exonerated in case one or two villains go free? That flies in the face of Blackstone and against natural justice; the Post Office was at fault and the Post Office should rectify it.

But I wonder whether there is another reason for the Post Office’s reluctance.

Is it because exonerating hundreds of former sub-postmasters would mean the money they were wrongly forced to pay to the firm to “balance” their accounts would have to be paid back – and that they would all have to be compensated?

Tough. The Post Office’s executives and owner – that’s the UK government, by the way – should have thought of that before.

One sticking-point is that this would mean the public purse would foot the bill, and it is not right that the people of the UK – including the wronged sub-postmasters – should pay this compensation.

It seems to me that, if anybody should pay, it should be the individuals within the Post Office’s hierarchy at the time who made the decision to prosecute people they knew at the time were innocent – and it should be Fujitsu, the corporation that produced software that was faulty and insecure, and whose employees (allegedly) used the system’s insecure nature to break into sub-postmaster’s accounts and fraudulently make it appear that they had stolen money.

If that allegation is true, then it is Fujitsu that caused the problem. It has plenty of cash to splash because, years after the facts became clear, the UK’s Tory government is still giving that firm billions of pounds for its worthless products.

To me, the way forward is clear: establish with the Post Office the principle that all sub-postmasters who were prosecuted because of Horizon should be exonerated and that “fast-track” cases should be put before the courts for that purpose, uncontested by the firm.

Then, establish with the Post Office and Fujitsu the principle that they must pay back the money that was wrongly taken from sub-postmasters, and provide appropriate compensation. Fujitsu will almost certainly protest in the courts, so a counter-measure against delaying actions may need to be established also.

Perhaps that’s a naive reading of the situation, but it seems a clearer course of action than anything being put forward by those in a position to act.

What do you think should be done?

---

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:

The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: