The Post Office Scandal – Where Now?

It would be a glorious apotheosis of the great big Post Office scandal if all the defendants stood trial together in a specially constructed cage, like those used for Mafia trials in Sicily  – investigators, lawyers, consultants, accountants, Board members, civil servants, Ministers, the whole damned lot of them.  Sadly, it ain’t gonna happen. It would not be very British, and in any case, there isn’t a cage or court room big enough. The numbers must run into the many tens, if not hundreds. So as the Inquiry draws to a close, how might the judicial process unfold?

There are four aspects.

1.     What are the possible offences?

Perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (or attempting to do so) are the obvious offences, but these have multiple layers:

a)     Perverting offences, in relation to many of the SubPostMasters who were prosecuted not just on the basis of false Horizon data but also false statements about their liability to pay under contracts, false statements about evidence of theft, and possible improper pressure to get confessions. This would net a lot of the lower level investigators and lawyers.

b)    Specific falsehoods and witness statements/evidence and non-disclosure about bugs and Horizon generally in relation to specific trials. More lawyers, investigators and Mr Jenkins of Fujitsu.

c)     Perverting the course of justice post-conviction because of the failure to disclose the bugs, what they knew about the flawed ‘Expert Witness’, misleading the Court of Appeal and the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission). This would likely net most of the senior and external lawyers, Angela van den Bogerd, Paula Vennells and Alice Perkins.

d)    Perverting the course of justice in relation to the Bates litigation – again this would likely encompass Ms van den Bogerd, Ms Vennells, Jane MacLeod (former PO General Counsel), and possibly some civil servants.

2.     The Police Investigation

The Inquiry is focusing on its own terms of reference, not just evidence of criminal offences, so there will be much material that we are not seeing on our TV screens. The Met should be reviewing now all the material, with the benefit of advice from criminal lawyers, so that when the Inquiry Report is published they are ready to take the final steps and charge people.

3.      Timing

As things stand, we are looking at 2026 minimum before trials can begin. Gareth Jenkins, the flawed witness and former Fujitsu employee, is already in his 70s, so they need to get a move on. Are the Met starting their work now and not waiting for publication of the Report? Otherwise there will likely never be any prosecutions.

4.       Strategy

The cases are complex. Do the CPS go for one mega trial, lengthy and complex and with the risk of failing?  Or do they have a series of smaller clear trials and actual convictions?  Some of the stuff to do with lawyers should be dealt with by regulators – assuming the SRA and Bar Standards Board realise the importance of starting to rebuild trust in their profession. Jarnail Singh and Jane MacLeod would be amongst the more obvious candidates for striking off. Ditto the directors who failed in their duties – if the Business Department can take its fingers out of its ears. Civil and criminal actions could and should be taken against many Board members. At a minimum, none should have any sort of public role again.

And what of the Post Office now? The whole company has been irretrievably ruined and only a wholesale cleansing of the Augean Stables will do. Would a Starmer Government have the cojones? Who knows? 

Few seem to appreciate that this scandal, the blood contamination case, the Andy Malkinson case (and other similar ones), the endless NHS and Police scandals are all symptomatic of a shredded administrative and political class lacking in competence, integrity and either the ability to admit to or willingness to correct mistakes. It is a failure of politics and governance in the widest sense. It needs intensive repair work, assuming enough people notice and care sufficiently to do anything about it. This runs to the very heart of our democracy, and what we are as a people.   

If those in power are reluctant to take on the challenge, why should we pay taxes and obey laws?  If the State behaves like an out-of-control mafia, abusing its powers, corrupt, assisting only itself and its chums, indifferent to the harm it has caused and unwilling to put it right, why should we trust it? Our society, our democracy cannot work with robber barons in charge.

Cyclefree & Peter the Punter

(Note: This came out of an offline discussion between @PeterThePunter and @Cyclefree. For a more detailed analysis of recent evidence at the Inquiry, see the following posts: History Rhymes, A Deceitful Strategy, The Government’s Role.)