INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT
Inquiry
Chairs Progress Update on Issues relating to
Compensation
15 August 2022
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
OGL
© Crown copyright 2021
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.
To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the
Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email:
Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the
copyright holders concerned.
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at:
POSecretariat@postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
Contents
Executive Summary. 4
Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation 8
Introduction 8
The existing and proposed schemes for providing compensation 10
The Historical Shortfall Scheme (“HSS"” or “the Scheme”) 10
Interim and Final Compensation payments for persons whose convictions have been
quashed (“Overturned Historical Convictions Scheme”) 24
Further Payments to the Claimants in the Group Litigation (“Group Litigation Scheme”)
28
Written Submissions by Mr Paul Marshall 31
Conclusions 32
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
Executive Summary
1.
Over the last two years, representatives of Post Office Limited (“the Post Office”) and
Ministers‘ on behalf of the United Kingdom Government and/or the Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) have asserted that sub-postmasters?
who have suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses as a consequence of data
produced by the Horizon IT System (“Horizon”) should receive compensation which is “full
and fair” and that it should be delivered promptly. Since the settlement of the litigation
between Bates and others v Post Office Limited (“the Group Litigation”) two schemes have
been put in place by the Post Office and/or BEIS with a view to achieving those stated aims
and a third is currently being developed. The schemes in existence are: (i) the Historical
Shortfall Scheme (“HSS” or “the Scheme”); and (ii) a scheme to provide interim and final
payments for sub-postmasters convicted on the basis of evidence generated by Horizon
whose convictions have been quashed, sometimes referred to now as “the Overturned
Historic Convictions Scheme” (a phrase which I will adopt in this Summary). The scheme
under development is a scheme to provide further compensation for all the Claimants in the
Group Litigation who are not eligible for compensation under the Overturned Historic
Convictions Scheme which I will refer to as “the Group Litigation Scheme”.
During Human Impact Hearings in February, March and May 2022 I became concerned
that some of the features of HSS and the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme might be
impacting adversely upon the twin goals of delivering full and fair compensation payments
to all those entitled to such payments and also delivering them promptly. Accordingly, on 9
May 2022, after receiving written submissions on behalf of those Core Participants
represented by Howe+Co Solicitors (“Howe+Co”) and Hudgell Solicitors (“Hudgells”), the
Post Office and BEIS, I published my provisional view upon certain issues relating to
compensation which I had identified as being, apparently, anomalous. I also announced
that I intended to hold hearings at which Core Participants and/or their recognised legal
representatives could make oral submissions about my provisional views and, further,
address a number of issues which I identified in a separate document entitled “Submissions
on Issues of Compensation” (“the Compensation Issues”) which I published on 10 May
2022.
. In advance of the hearings, I received a number of very detailed written submissions. I
heard oral submissions over 2 days on 6 July and 13 July 2022. I did not hear evidence at
these hearings, although many references were made to aspects of the evidence already
provided to the Inquiry in written and oral form.
. Between 13 July 2022 and 5 August 2022, I received written submissions and
communications from individuals and on behalf of institutions which I had not invited. To a
very limited extent these communications and submissions provide information about
events or announcements which have occurred since 13 July 2022. However, much of their
content consists of argument upon contentious issues which were fully debated in writing
and orally at the hearings. As it happens, however, nothing which has been sent to the
Inquiry since 13 July 2022 has deflected me from the conclusions which I had reached on
1 The word “Minister”, in the context of ministerial announcements, is used to mean either the Secretary of State
for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or other Ministers within that Department.
2 The term sub-postmaster is used to mean sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses, their managers and assistants
and any person employed by the Post Office or its predecessor companies who claim to have suffered loss by
reason of the Horizon IT System unless the context dictates otherwise.
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
the basis of the information available to me as of 13 July 2022. On 12 August 2022, I
received a short letter from the legal representatives of BEIS containing purely factual
information relating to interim payments to applicants under the Group Litigation Scheme.
I have always understood that I cannot reach definitive conclusions about all the relevant
issues relating to compensating sub-postmasters without hearing evidence. However, I was
confident that I could reach conclusions upon many important issues relating to the three
schemes identified above on the basis of the evidence already provided to the Inquiry and
the written and oral submissions I anticipated receiving. As it happens, my confidence has
not been misplaced and, as will appear, I have reached a number of conclusions about
these schemes. I must stress, however, that there will be a further detailed investigation of
issues relating to compensation in Phase 5 of the Inquiry at which evidence will be heard.
My key conclusions in respect of HSS, the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme and
the Group Litigation Scheme are as follows.
The HSS
7.
I welcome the express commitment within the Scheme to provide fair compensation even if
that means departing from established legal principles. However, I will be able to judge
whether that crucial objective has been achieved only after I have completed my
investigations in Phase 5 of the Inquiry.
7.1. Both the Post Office and BEIS accept that there have been avoidable and, therefore,
unwarranted delays associated with the Scheme. The Post Office and BEIS have
formally apologised for unnecessary delay in the implementation and administration of
the Scheme.
7.2.I accept that the pace of making offers of compensation has quickened considerably
during the course of the last 12 months. Ultimately, there is a balance to be struck
between speed of decision-making and ensuring that offers which are made are full and
fair.
7.3.1 know of no proper explanation for the delays in determining whether those
applications which were made after 27 November 2020 should be rejected or accepted
into the Scheme. The delay in determining many if not all of these applications is wholly
unacceptable, and, in my view, it remains largely unexplained.
7.4.1 am also very concerned that under the Scheme it is the Post Office which makes the
definitive and final determination as to whether a late application is accepted or
rejected. In my view, any applicant whose claim is rejected by reason of it having been
made after 27 November 2020 should have the right to have that decision reviewed by
the Independent Advisory Panel and the Scheme should be amended to make that
clear.
7.5.1 am not persuaded that I should characterise the process for determining the offers of
compensation payments to applicants as lacking in independence. The process is
capable of delivering full and fair offers to applicants. Whether it has done so will be
under investigation in Phase 5.
7.6. In any event, if an offer is not acceptable to an applicant, he/she need not accept it, and
there are processes open to applicants in which a person or body other than the Post
Office determines the amount of compensation which should be paid. In my view, this is
5
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
a sufficient safeguard for applicants provided that they are able to obtain legal
assistance when appropriate.
7.7. Save in one respect, I do not consider it likely that the application form used in HSS
would have been unduly difficult for applicants to understand and complete. If
necessary, however, this can be the subject of investigation in Phase 5.
7.8. My reservation in relation to the application form relates to how Question 24 would
have been understood in the absence of guidance as to its meaning. On any view, it is
most unfortunate that there was no guidance upon answering this question until
sometime in September 2020. Whether the failure to issue the Guidance at the proper
time had the effect of causing applicants to omit legitimate heads of claim can only be
determined after hearing evidence. No doubt that issue can be examined in Phase 5
together with any other evidence, if any, tending to show that applicants failed to
present all their legitimate claims when answering this question.
7.9. Appropriate legal assistance and advice in respect of most of the higher value claims
yet to be determined is likely to be essential. The fees allowed for advising on offers
which are made henceforth should be increased to levels commensurate with the work
reasonably carried out by an applicant's lawyer. Further, in all cases in which an offer is
rejected, the Post Office should, thereafter, fund the applicant's reasonable cost of
obtaining legal advice, assistance and representation as the dispute resolution process
unfolds. The Scheme should be amended to provide for payment of reasonable legal
fees as described in this paragraph.
7.10. The provision of funds for instructing lawyers henceforth cannot, of course, remedy
any instances of injustice which have already occurred through lack of legal funding.
Whether there have been instances of injustice on account of the absence of funding
for lawyers must await Phase 5.
7.11. The Scheme’s Terms of Reference should be amended to make express provision for
the making of interim payments in cases where the personal circumstances of the
applicant justify such a payment or when there are agreed and quantified heads of loss
which can be paid over while the process of determining other claims proceeds.
The Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme
8. This is not a formal remediation scheme. If applicants are aggrieved by decisions of the
Post Office, at present, they must engage in dispute resolution processes or resort to
litigation. That situation has some unfortunate consequences — see below.
8.1.1 am pleased to report that, in the vast majority of cases, interim payments have been
made within 4 weeks or thereabouts of applications being made to the Post Office. That
is in accordance with assurances which were given at or about the time this Scheme
was announced.
8.2. Interim payments have been refused in 3 cases. I have reservations about the decision
making in these cases for reasons I express at paragraph 93 of the Update.
8.3. The Post Office should not be the final arbiter of applications for interim payments if the
claim is rejected. A person or panel, independent of the Post Office, should be
appointed to determine such claims. That person or panel could also have a role in
relation to final compensation payments — see paragraph 8.5 below.
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
8.4. Claimants in the Group Litigation who were acquitted of Horizon related offences
should now be included in the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme and be eligible
for interim payments.
8.5. There should be contingency planning now as to how disputes about final
compensation payments are to be resolved in the event that negotiated settlements are
not possible. There is a need either for a formal remediation scheme or at minimum an
independent advisory panel as an intermediate step before litigation or formal dispute
resolution.
8.6. If appropriate contingency planning occurs so that appropriate methods of resolving
disputes are in place, there is no need for persons whose convictions have been
quashed to have the option to have their claims determined within the Group Litigation
Scheme.
The Group Litigation Scheme
9. This Scheme is in its infancy. It is anticipated by all concerned, however, that a remediation
scheme will be necessary.
9.1. This Scheme will emerge after discussions and negotiations between a number of
parties. It is vital that these discussions and negotiations are undertaken within weeks
and should not stretch over many months.
9.2.1 welcome the agreement between Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (“JFSA”) and
BEIS relating to interim payments for eligible Claimants in the Group Litigation.
9.3. If Claimants in the Group Litigation who were acquitted of Horizon related offences are
not included in the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme, they should receive
interim payments in the Group Litigation Scheme which takes account of those
circumstances as well as their calculated share of the fund of £19.5m made available
by the Government.
9.4.1 welcome the commitment to make final compensation payments to the Claimants in
the Group Litigation which are equivalent to that available to sub-postmasters who were
not part of the Group Litigation and the willingness to make available funds to pay the
reasonable fees of lawyers engaged to promote and advise upon the claims put
forward.
9.5. The Group Litigation Scheme should be administered expeditiously. Self-evidently,
there is a clear and compelling need to finalise and pay further compensation to the
Group Litigation Claimants as quickly as reasonably possible.
10. This document is a Progress Update relating to one, albeit important, aspect of the Inquiry’s
work. It contains my views on the steps which BEIS and POL are taking and have taken to
fulfil commitments to provide compensation which is “full and fair”. I will follow closely the
extent to which the views I have expressed are acted upon and, in particular, whether they
are acted upon promptly. If it becomes clear in the coming weeks that progress is too slow
— in particular in finalising a Group Litigation Scheme and/or making payments thereunder -
I will very likely determine that I should deliver to the Minister an interim report pursuant to
section 24(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 containing specific recommendations. Further, I
might very well conclude, then, that I should convene a further hearing relating to
compensation issues at short notice.
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
Progress Update on Issues relating to
Compensation
Introduction
1.
4.
Over the last two years, representatives of Post Office limited (“the Post Office”) and
Ministers* on behalf of the United Kingdom Government and/or the Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) have asserted that sub-postmasters*
who have suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses as a consequence of data
produced by the Horizon IT System (“Horizon”) should receive compensation which is “full
and fair” and that it should be delivered promptly. Since the settlement of the litigation
between Bates and others v Post Office Limited (“the Group Litigation”) two schemes have
been put in place by the Post Office and/or BEIS with a view to achieving those stated aims
and a third is currently being developed. The schemes in existence are: (i) the Historical
Shortfall Scheme (“HSS” or “the Scheme”); and (ii) a scheme to provide interim and final
payments for sub-postmasters convicted on the basis of evidence generated by Horizon
whose convictions have been quashed, sometimes referred to now as “the Overturned
Historic Convictions Scheme’ (a phrase which I will adopt in this Update). The scheme
under development is a scheme to provide further compensation for all the Claimants in the
Group Litigation who are not eligible for compensation under the Overturned Historic
Convictions Scheme (“the Group Litigation Scheme’).
. During the Human Impact Hearings in February, March and May 2022 I became concerned
that some of the features of HSS and the Convictions Scheme might be impacting
adversely upon the twin goals of delivering full and fair compensation payments to all those
entitled to such payments and also delivering them promptly. Accordingly, on 9 May 2022,
after receiving written submissions on behalf of those Core Participants represented by
Howe+Co Solicitors (“Howe+Co”), Hudgell Solicitors (“Hudgells”), the Post Office and BEIS,
I published my provisional view upon certain issues relating to compensation which I had
identified as being, apparently, anomalous. I also announced that I intended to hold
hearings at which Core Participants and/or their recognised legal representatives could
make oral submissions about my provisional views and, further, address a number of
issues which I identified in a separate document entitled “Submissions on Issues of
Compensation” (“the Compensation Issues”) which I published on 10 May 2022.
In order to facilitate the management of these hearings, I indicated that any Core
Participant who wished to make oral submissions at the hearings should first file written
submissions by a specified date5 which addressed the issues I had identified.
I received written submissions on behalf of the following Core Participants -
e Core Participants represented by Howe+Co.
3 See footnote 1 in the Executive Summary.
4 See footnote 2 in the Executive Summary.
5 Originally the specified date was 31 May 2022, but a number of Core Participants sought and were granted
extensions of time for filing their submissions.
8
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
e Core Participants represented by Hudgells.
e Core Participants represented by Hodge Jones & Allen.
e The National Federation of Sub-postmasters (“NFSP”).
e The Post Office.
e BEIS.
e United Kingdom Government Investments (“UKGI”).
All the Core Participants listed above, save one, indicated that their advocates of choice
would make oral submissions at the hearings I had indicated would take place. The
exception was NFSP; their Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Calum Greenhow, indicated that
NFSP would rely upon their written submissions.
5. I also received written submissions on behalf of named persons (all of whom are now Core
Participants) drafted on their behalf by a barrister, Mr. Paul Marshall and a letter dated 30
May 2022 from Freeths LLP, the solicitors who had acted for the Claimants in the Group
Litigation. Mr Marshall is not the recognised legal representative of the persons for whom
he submitted written submissions, but his submissions were made with their knowledge and
consent.
6. All these written submissions together with supporting documents were disclosed to all
Core Participants and they have all been published on the Inquiry’s website. Further, a
Bundle of Documents was prepared for use at the hearings and the index for that Bundle
has, also, been published.
7. The hearings took place on 6 and 13 July 2022. On 6 July, I heard oral submissions from
Leading Counsel to the Inquiry, Leading Counsel for the Post Office, Counsel for UKGI and
Leading Counsel for those Core Participants represented by Howe+Co. On 13 July I heard
oral submissions from Counsel for BEIS, Leading Counsel for the Core Participants
represented by Hudgells, Counsel for the Core Participants represented by Hodge Jones &
Allen, and, very briefly for a second time, from Leading Counsel for the Core Participants
represented by Howe+Co.
8. The dates of the hearings were chosen to enable the Core Participants to be represented
by their advocates of choice. However, because there was a gap of a week between the
two hearings, it was inevitable that the Inquiry would be provided with further written
material in the days between the two hearings. All these documents, save for the emails
from 2 individual Core Participants, have been disclosed to all Core Participants and
published on the Inquiry’s website. As I indicated at the hearing on 13 July, I decided
against publishing the emails from the 2 individual Core Participants; however, as I also
explained, the substance of the emails constituted a request to me that I continue to involve
myself in all issues relating to compensation.
9. The hearings on 6 and 13 July 2022 were open to the public and they were broadcast on
the Inquiry’s YouTube channel.
10.1 am grateful to all those who provided me with written and oral submissions. I have
considered them all. I have been able to refresh my memory of the oral submissions from
the transcripts of those submissions.
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
11.The written submissions I received did not simply address those issues I had identified on
10 May 2022 in the Compensation Issues or the provisional views I had expressed on 9
May 2022. Further, between my announcement of the hearings and their taking place and,
indeed, during the week between the two hearings, events took place and announcements
were made which impacted significantly upon some of the issues I had identified in the
Compensation Issues. Accordingly, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate in this
Update simply to address the responses to my provisional views and the submissions
which relate specifically to the contents of the Compensation Issues. Instead, I have
decided to take this opportunity to consider and reach conclusions upon whether, as of
now, the stated aims of the Post Office and BEIS to provide full and fair compensation
promptly are being fulfilled. I appreciate that I will return to consider this aspect of the
Inquiry’s work during Phase 5 when I will receive significant written and oral evidence about
all aspects of delivering compensation. In my view, however, an assessment of whether the
stated aims of the Post Office and BEIS are being delivered cannot wait until I produce my
final report. If there are flaws in the processes which have been or will be set up to deliver
compensation it is far better that I identify them now and indicate, where that is possible,
what should be done to remove them.
12. It will come as no surprise to anyone to read that, even after the oral hearings closed on 13
July 2022, I received written communications from some of those who have an interest in
this Update. All relevant communications sent to me since 13 July 2022 will be disclosed to
Core Participants, and, in due course, published on the Inquiry’s website.
The existing and proposed schemes for providing
compensation
The Historical Shortfall Scheme (“HSS’ or “the Scheme”)
A description of the Scheme
13.HSS is a voluntary remediation scheme which came into existence following the settlement
of the Group Litigation. The Deed of Settlement which brought an end to the litigation laid
the foundation for the Scheme® and the Scheme itself was published by the Post Office on
1 May 2020.
14. In its written submissions of 8 April 2022, the Post Office say that HSS was designed and
set up “to deal with particular types of claims, most notably claims for shortfalls and related
losses such as those arising from suspensions and terminations as well as associated
consequential loss, arising out of the judgments of the High Court in the Group Litigation”
(paragraph 20). It suggests that it was also designed to allow offers of compensation to be
made to applicants “on a fair and principled basis, following existing judicial guidance given
in the Group Litigation, in a more streamlined way” (paragraph 22) In paragraph 6 of its
submissions of 31 May 2022, the Post Office explain that as well as being designed to be
“streamlined” the Scheme was also designed to be “user-friendly”. The Post Office stress
that from the outset offers of compensation made under the Scheme would be determined
with regard to applicable legal principles, including the judgments handed down in the
6 See Clauses 9.4, 9.5 and Schedule 6 of the Settlement Deed.
10
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
Group litigation, but would not be constrained by them. Rather, offers of compensation
could and would be made “in line with broad considerations of fairness”.
15.From its inception, HSS had specific eligibility criteria. It was open only to applicants who
were or had been in direct contractual relations with the Post Office. The application had to
relate to shortfalls which had arisen in respect of “previous versions of Horizon (sometimes
referred to as Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online or HNG-X).” Only certain categories of
persons were entitled to bring a claim on behalf of others e.g. it was necessary for a
personal representative to make an application on behalf of a deceased person. The
applicant had to agree to be bound by the Terms of Reference of the Scheme.
16.The eligibility criteria also contained specific exclusions. Claimants in the Group Litigation
were excluded from being eligible to seek compensation under HSS as were all persons
(including the Group Litigation Claimants) who had been convicted of criminal offences
related to their time with the Post Office. As at the opening date of the Scheme persons
were not eligible for compensation if they had entered into any settlement agreement with
the Post Office other than as part of the “Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme”
which had commenced in 2013 or as a result of “Network Transformation or other scheme”.
However, after the Scheme had been open for some time the provision which excluded
persons who had entered settlement agreements with the Post Office was changed so that
the only operative exclusion related to persons who had entered into settlement
agreements after 16 December 2019 (the date of the Horizon Issues judgment handed
down by Fraser J).
17.In its original manifestation (i.e. the version published on 1 May 2020) HSS consisted of two
documents which were published on a discrete website. They were an application form and
the Scheme’s Terms of Reference.
18.The original application form began by setting out information about how applications were
to be made. It then set out the eligibility criteria for the Scheme in 6 numbered paragraphs
in bold type (summarised in paragraphs 15 and 16 above).
19. The remainder of the form comprised a series of questions/requests for information. The
first 18 questions were designed to elicit relevant personal information about the applicant,
his or her branch and other details referable to his/her time with the Post Office. Questions
19 to 23 were designed to provide information about shortfalls suffered by the applicant,
whether the shortfall had been paid to the Post Office and what action had been taken by
the Post Office in respect of shortfalls. Question 24 was as follows: -
“Have you experienced any other losses that are directly related to the alleged shortfall(s)
in respect of which you would like to claim?”
If the answer to that question was Yes, the applicant was asked to provide a description of
the nature of the alleged loss and the date thereof and specify how the loss arose because
of the alleged shortfall and the value/size of the loss. Questions 25 to 28 related to what
were called “Miscellaneous matters”. Question 29 asked applicants to describe why they
believed that they had been treated unfairly by the Post Office and question 30 was, in
effect, a request to produce any documents held by applicants to support their claim. The
application form concluded with a space for applicants to provide any further relevant
information not covered in the previous questions and a “Statement of Truth” followed by a
space for the applicant’s signature.
11
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
20.No part of the application form made any specific reference to any time limit for making an
application. In fact, however, there was a time limit; applications had to be submitted by
midnight on 14 August 2020 i.e., applicants had a little more than 3 months in which to
make an application.
2
. This time limit was to be found in the Scheme’s Terms of Reference. Paragraph 3 provided:
“All applications to join the Scheme must be received by the Post Office by midnight on
Friday 14 August 2020. If they are not, Applicants will not be eligible to join the Scheme
unless Post Office agrees otherwise.”
22.In June 2020 the Post Office published a revised application form. This form incorporates
the Scheme’s Terms of Reference which, hitherto, had been contained in a separate
document. As a consequence, the time limit for making an application is referred to within
the application form itself. As of that date, the time limit for submitting an application was
still said to be midnight on Friday, 14 August 2020. Save for the incorporation of the Terms
of Reference into the form, the revised application form published in June 2020 is identical
(or, if not identical, very similar) to the application form published in May 2020.
23.HSS did not close on midnight of 14 August 2020. The Post Office decided that it should
remain open to applicants for a further period of 15 weeks, i.e. until 27 November 2020.
The Post Office explain that decision as being a consequence of there being a change in
the eligibility criteria to permit applications from sub-postmasters (other than Group
Litigation Claimants) who had entered into settlement agreements with the Post Office prior
to the settlement of the Group Litigation.’
24.Since 1 May 2020, the Post Office has produced and published additional documents
relating to HSS. They are documents entitled:
I. “Eligibility Criteria”;
ll. “Terms of Reference of the Historical Shortfall Scheme Independent Advisory Panel”
(the “IAP Terms of Reference”);
Ill. “Consequential Loss Principles and Guidance” (“the Guidance”); and
IV. “Questions and Answers’.
25.The document entitled “Eligibility Criteria” reflects the change in the criteria to which I
referred in paragraph 23 above and, presumably, this was published in the summer of
2020. The IAP Terms of Reference which the Post Office disclosed to the Inquiry for the
purpose of the hearings on 6 and 13 July is a version of the document which was approved
on 3 February 2022, but I have seen nothing at this stage of the Inquiry to suggest that any
earlier version was substantially different. The Guidance is undated. Leading Counsel for
the Post Office, in her oral submissions, said:
“Now the Guidance was introduced on 1 October 2020 at which point Post Office wrote to
all applicants to the Scheme at that stage to communicate that update and the availability of
the Guidance. Post Office also published a press release about the Guidance and
7 See Written Submissions on behalf of the Post Office, dated 31 May 2022, paragraph 23 and footnote 17
thereof.
12
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
published it on the Scheme website, so any applicants who hadn't applied by that point
would be made aware of it from the website itself.”
In his oral submissions, Counsel for BEIS told the Inquiry that the Guidance was sent to all
applicants in October 2020 and was published and signposted on the front page of the HSS
website during September 2020.
26.The document entitled “Questions and Answers’ is also undated. It is reasonable to infer
that this document was published (although at this stage I do not have definitive evidence
to confirm that) and it is also reasonable to infer that it was produced prior to 14 August
2020, since the document refers to that date as being the date by which Post Office were to
receive all applications under the Scheme.
27.Not surprisingly, both in written submissions and during the course of the oral submissions
on 6 and 13 July, very significant attention was paid to the terms of the application form, the
Scheme’s Terms of Reference, the IAP Terms of Reference and the Guidance. I have
described the application form already in some detail; I turn next to describe the main
features of the Scheme’s Terms of Reference, the IAP Terms of Reference and the
Guidance.
28.As I have already explained, the Scheme’s Terms of Reference requires that all applicants
“agree” the Terms of Reference and submit their applications to the Post Office by the
specified date(s). Clause 7 of the Terms specifies, in summary, the process to be followed
upon receipt of an application. First, it is screened for eligibility. Second, assuming the
application meets the eligibility criteria, it is investigated, and the result of the investigation
is provided to an independent advisory panel in the form of a written report. That panel
then recommends an offer of compensation to the Post Office and, assuming the Post
Office accepts that recommendation, the offer is communicated to the applicant.
29.In the event that an offer is accepted, a legally binding settlement agreement is concluded
between the Post Office and the applicant. In the event that an applicant is dissatisfied with
an offer, a “Dispute Resolution Procedure” can be invoked by the applicant as provided by
paragraph 8 of the Scheme’s Terms of Reference. In summary, this process begins with a
“good faith meeting” between the applicant and a representative of the Post Office. If the
dispute is not resolved at that meeting, an “escalation meeting” between the applicant and
a member of senior management of the Post Office takes place. If the dispute is still not
resolved, it is referred to a specified mediation service. Paragraph 8.5 of the Scheme’s
Terms of Reference specifies that all good faith meetings, escalation meetings and
mediations are carried out on a confidential and “without prejudice” basis to ensure each
party is able to engage in an open and meaningful fashion, and paragraph 8.6 specifies that
any settlements which result from these processes will be on a full and final basis, and will
not be capable of being reopened, save in the event of fraud.
30.Paragraph 8.7 contains two clauses which deal with the situation in which the dispute
between the parties is not resolved by any of the stages so far described. Paragraph 8.7.1
provides that disputes relating to sums totalling not more than £10,000 will be resolved by
recourse to civil proceedings in the County Court pursuant to the Small Claims Track, and
paragraph 8.7.2 provides that disputes relating to sums totalling more than £10,000 will be
referred to and finally determined by arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996.
31.1 should also mention paragraphs 6 and 10 of the Scheme’s Terms of Reference.
Paragraph 6 provides: -
13
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
“Once an application has been made, either party may write to the other to request relevant
information. The parties shall cooperate with one another in providing any information
which the other party may reasonably request. Information obtained and provided in
relation to each application should be proportionate to the circumstances of that
application.”
Paragraph 10 contains a commitment by the Post Office to act in good faith.
32.Under the IAP Terms of Reference, the “Historical Shortfall Scheme Independent Advisory
Panel’ was constituted to “assess eligible claims”. The Terms of Reference included an
overriding objective in the following terms:
“1. The task of the Panel is to assess and recommend to Post Office a fair outcome for
Eligible Claims made to the Scheme for shortfall losses and consequential losses.
2. The Panel's objective is to assess Eligible Claims by applying the principles and
standards set out in Section E below.
3. The Panel will aim to assess and recommend outcomes on Eligible Claims in a timely
manner, having regard to the need to ensure sufficient care and consideration is given to
each claim to provide a fair recommendation.”
33.The Independent Advisory Panel consists of a number of legal specialists, forensic
accounting specialists and retail specialists. Each individual application is considered by a
panel of three comprising one each of those specialists which then makes a
recommendation to the Post Office. In advance of a panel meeting a case assessor will
have produced a written report upon the application under consideration which will contain
a suggested offer of compensation. The case assessor attends the meeting of a panel as a
“case presenter”. Having considered the case assessor’s report and any oral observations
made by the case assessor the panel makes its recommendation to the Post Office.
Thereafter, the Post Office, acting through a committee known as the “Historic Shortfall
Scheme Approvals Committee” considers the recommendation and makes an offer of
compensation to the applicant.
34.If a panel considers that a claim requires further investigation prior to the making of a
recommendation, it can refer the claim back to the investigation stage for further enquiries
to be made — see paragraph 26 of IAP Terms of Reference. If it requires expert assistance
to make a recommendation, the Panel may recommend to the Post Office that such expert
assistance is obtained at the Post Office’s expense — see paragraph 27 thereof.
35.Section E of the IAP Terms of Reference (paragraphs 28-32) provides guidance as to the
principles which should be applied when assessing an application. It is worth quoting
paragraphs 30, 31 and 33 in full:
“30. In formulating its recommended offer, the Panel may recommend the making of an
offer to the Postmaster if, guided by broad considerations of fairness, the Panel considers
that doing so would produce a fair result in all the circumstances of a particular case. For
the avoidance of doubt, in doing so, the Panel's discretion will not be confined solely to the
specific heads of Consequential Loss claimed by the Postmaster, but will take into account
any facts and matters which the Panel considers will produce a fair result on the facts of a
particular case.
14
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
31. Many Eligible Claims will relate to Shortfall Losses and Consequential Losses suffered
a significant number of years ago. In order to draw a line under the issues caused by
previous versions of Horizon and treat Postmasters who have been affected fairly, the
Scheme (including the Panel) will not apply the laws of limitation in its assessment of
Shortfall Losses or Consequential Losses, but shall deal with each claim on the basis that it
is not barred by the expiry of any relevant limitation period. Post Office’s rights to rely on
limitation defences outside the Scheme (including in any subsequent litigation or arbitration
proceedings commenced under the Dispute Resolution Process) are strictly reserved.
Given the large number of applicants to the Scheme, claims may take some time to
investigate and assess. Post Office is therefore willing to agree, in respect of each
applicant, that time will not run for limitation purposes from the date the applicant joined the
Scheme to the date on which the applicant receives their offer letter.”
“33.Where:
a. there is evidence that the shortfall in question existed and was paid; and
b. there is no evidence that the shortfall was caused by something other than a potential
issue with Horizon, for the purposes of this Scheme the presumption is that the shortfall is a
Horizon Shortfall.”
36.Finally, in relation to the IAP Terms of Reference, I draw attention to paragraphs 34 and 35.
Paragraph 34 specifies that a panel should apply the Guidance when considering losses
other than Shortfall losses. Paragraph 35 provides discrete guidance in respect of personal
injury claims where insufficient evidence has been provided for a claim to succeed without
further medical and / or expert evidence. In those circumstances, a panel may recommend
the making of an offer to the applicant which the Panel considers to be fair. In the event
that this occurs, the applicant will have the option of accepting the offer or obtaining such
further evidence as may be necessary in order to pursue a personal injury claim “in
accordance with the ordinary legal standards relevant to such claims, including as to proof
of causation and assessment of damages”.
37.Both the IAP Terms of Reference and the Guidance contain definitions of the phrases
“Shortfall Loss” and “Consequential Loss”. Shortfall Loss is defined to mean the amount of
a Horizon shortfall that the Postmaster has repaid or is regarded by the Post Office as still
owing. Consequential Loss is defined to mean financial or non-financial loss that is not a
Shortfall Loss. The Guidance consists of five sections. For the purposes of this Update, it
is necessary to mention only two, namely Section 3 headed “Key Principles” and Section 5
headed “Type of Loss”. The Key Principles are:
e “Applicants bear the burden of proving on balance of probabilities the consequential loss
which they claim, although
e Where an applicant is unable to satisfy the burden of proof in relation to their claim, it
may nonetheless be accepted in whole or in part if that outcome is considered to be fair
in all the circumstances.
e Claims which are supported by evidence are more likely to be successful.
e Greater weight will be attached to contemporaneous evidence and / or factual evidence
that is undisputed or verifiable.
15
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
e When assessing a claim, the Panel will take into consideration any relevant evidence
held by the Post Office.
e /Inassessing a claim, the findings of the Common Issues Judgment and the Horizon
Issues Judgment which are relevant to the claim will be applied together with any
relevant legal and accounting principles applicable to the assessment of damages for
breach of a legal duty.”
38.Section 5 recognises that there is no exhaustive list of the types of consequential loss
which may be claimed by an applicant. However, it highlights the following potential types
of loss, together with the nature of the evidence which might be expected to exist to support
such a claim. The types of loss identified are loss of earnings, loss of profits, loss of
property, loss of opportunity/loss of chance, penalties/general or increased costs of
financing, bankruptcy/insolvency, incurred legal and professional fees, stigma/ damage to
reputation, and personal injury/harassment.
39.In written and oral submissions, Leading Counsel for the Post Office provided more detail
as to the personnel involved in various stages of the process described above.®
40.The task of determining whether an application meets the eligibility criteria of the Scheme is
undertaken by a case assessor who is member of staff of Herbert Smith Freehills, the
solicitors appointed by the Post Office. If an application fails to meet the Eligibility Criteria,
the applicant is so notified, and his/her application is rejected. The Independent Advisory
Panel has no role at this stage.
4
.If the case assessor is satisfied that an application meets the eligibility criteria, it is then
referred to a person who is a member of the Specialist Case Review Team at the Post
Office i.e. an employee of the Post Office. That person undertakes an investigation of the
application and provides a written report to the case assessor.
42.The case assessor considers the investigation report and provides “an initial assessment
and recommendation based only on applicable legal principles, which is then presented to
[an] Independent Advisory Panel for their consideration” — see paragraph 31.d. of the
Written Submissions on behalf of the Post Office, dated 31 May 2022.
43.As well as the recommendation of the case assessor, an advisory panel is provided with
the initial investigation report compiled by an employee of the Post Office and a complete
set of supporting documents. The panel members then undertake their own assessment of
the application and submit a recommended outcome to the Post Office, i.e. it makes a
recommendation about whether and, if so, how much compensation should be offered to an
applicant.
44.Following receipt of the panel’s recommendation, the Post Office (through its Approvals
Committee) decides the outcome of the application. An outcome letter is prepared by
Herbert Smith Freehills and in the higher value cases the outcome letter is reviewed by the
panel so as to ensure that they agree with its terms.
45.The outcome letter sent to an applicant lists all the documents which were considered by
the panel prior to the formulation of an offer of compensation. Prior to acceptance or
rejection of an offer the applicant can seek disclosure of all or any of the documents so
® These processes are those which are used in higher value claims; a more truncated procedure is used for
claims categorised as “lower value” the definition of which can be found at paragraph 49 below.
16
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
listed if he/she is so minded. This is the first time, in the process, when disclosure of
written material is given to an applicant unless an applicant has invoked paragraph 6 of the
Scheme’s Terms of Reference and made a written request to the Post Office for documents
or information earlier in the process.
Progress under the Scheme
46.By the extended closing date of 27 November 2020, the Post Office had received 2,523
applications. Of those, 2,368 applications met the eligibility criteria; 155 applications did
not. I assume (since I have received no information to the contrary) that the unsuccessful
applicants to the Scheme were notified of the decisions made in their cases and they have
accepted that they do not qualify for compensation under the Scheme.
47.At the hearing on 6 July 2022 the Inquiry was informed by Leading Counsel for the Post
Office that, as of that date, 1,659 applicants had been made offers of compensation under
the Scheme. Of those, 1,300 applicants had accepted offers in settlement and 92
applicants had rejected the offers made to them. According to the HSS website, as of 2
August 2022, 1,729 applicants had been made offers and 1,360 applicants had accepted
the offers made to them.
48.As of 6 July 2022, 115 applicants have engaged the Dispute Resolution Process. 31 of
those applicants had reached agreement with the Post Office on the amount of
compensation. None of the 115 applications had reached the stage of mediation by 6 July.
As of 2 August 2022, there were 100 applicants who were engaged in dispute resolution.
49.1 note that the Post Office decided to consider, first, those applications which were
comparatively simple to understand and involved claims for compensation involving a
shortfall of up to £8,000, with an additional claim for distress and inconvenience — referred
to in the written and oral submissions as “Jower value claims”. By 6 July 2022, offers of
compensation in 688 lower value claims had been made, of which all but 10 had been
accepted.
50.Very few applicants have, to date, availed themselves of the opportunity to take legal
advice at the expense of the Post Office in respect of offers of compensation made to them.
Paragraph 19 of the IPA Terms of Reference specifies that the sum of £400 is available
towards the cost of legal advice where the Post Office offers to pay an applicant’s claim in
full or ‘argely in full’; in all other cases Post Office contributes £1,200 if a contribution is
sought. Of those who have accepted offers of compensation, two applicants obtained legal
advice at the expense of the Post Office. Of those who have rejected their offers in
compensation, 13 have obtained such legal advice.
5
.Leading Counsel for the Post Office acknowledged in her oral submissions that those
claims which remain to be determined and/or are already the subject of dispute, are those
which are more complex and potentially more valuable and, therefore, likely to be difficult to
resolve. She accepted that the take-up of legal advice at the expense of the Post Office
may increase when offers in settlement are made in these more contentious cases.
52.Leading Counsel acknowledged, too, that there have been significant delays since HSS
was first launched in May 2020. The reasons for delay are now well documented. First, the
Post Office underestimated the numbers of applications. It was expected that applications
would be numbered in the hundreds, whereas, as I have said, applications within the
extended specified time limit exceeded 2,500. Second, the number of applications was
17
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
such that Post Office could not provide “full and fair compensation” from its own resources.
It had to seek and obtain further funding from HM Treasury. That funding was not arranged
and announced until March 2021. Third, it became clear to the Post Office that it had
recruited insufficient numbers for the Independent Advisory Panel, with the consequence
that further members had to be sought and appointed. Fourth, the claims for compensation
made by applicants have a very wide range in terms of their value and complexity. The
lowest claim advanced under the Scheme is £15.25, whereas the highest claim is put at
several million pounds. Inevitably, there has been a need to develop appropriate
procedures and practices for handling such wide-ranging and different claims.
53.However, the Post Office contends that delay, in the main, has been confined to periods in
2020 and 2021. It argues that progress during 2022 has been much more encouraging. It
has set itself a target of making offers in 95% of the eligible applications by the end of 2022.
Given that most applications in which no offer in settlement has yet been made are
complex in nature, that is an ambitious target. Nonetheless, both in its written submissions
and in the oral submissions made by Leading Counsel, the Post Office expressed
confidence that it can reach that target.
54. That brings me conveniently to the role played by BEIS and UKGI in the administration of
the Scheme. BEIS has set the Post Office the target of making offers in settlement in
respect of every application made and accepted under the Scheme by 31 December 2022.
In oral submissions on behalf of BEIS, Counsel was at pains to stress that it is one of the
department's central objectives to ensure that all applicants are “promptly, fully and fairly
compensated for their financial losses, distress and the hardship they have experienced
over many years’. In order to explain the role which BEIS has assumed in relation to the
Scheme, Counsel relied upon part of the written responses of the Government to the
Report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, entitled “Post Office and
Horizon — Compensation Interim Report”. The Report itself was published on 17 February
2022 and the Government's response, published on 14 April 2022, contains the following
paragraph:
“Government's Role
The Government has responsibility for providing the funding for settlement payments,
agreeing significant decisions in relation to the settlement strategy and monitoring the Post
Office’s progress towards reaching final settlements. BEIS, supported by UKGI, has been
involved in the design of the compensation programme and holds regular monitoring,
decision making and working group meetings, both internally and with the Post Office. This
includes sign off on processes, principles and oversight on initial cases. This is to ensure
that negotiations are advancing in line with the Government's desire to see timely and fair
compensation delivered to Postmasters.”
55.At first blush, that passage might be thought to be referable to compensation schemes
involving sub-postmasters and others whose convictions were quashed, but in his oral
submissions Counsel for BEIS relied upon that passage as accurately describing the role of
BEIS in respect of all compensation schemes.
56.In its written submissions dated 31 May 2022 (paragraph 19), BEIS accepts that offers in
response to applications under HSS during 2021 were made more slowly than initially
intended and anticipated. The reason for that situation, maintained Counsel, was as
described by the Post Office (summarised by me at paragraph 52 above).
18
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
57.Like the Post Office, however, BEIS maintains that progress during 2022 has been
satisfactory and, as I have said, it has set the Post Office the very ambitious target of
making offers of settlement in all cases which have met the eligibility criteria by 31
December 2022.
58. The role of UKGI in the HSS is encapsulated by paragraph 4 of its written submissions,
dated 1 June 2022. I quote:
“4. UKGI supports BEIS in its handling of the compensation schemes and wider processes,
including in its interactions with POL, as part of its role as shareholder representative for
POL. UKGI also regularly meets with and provides challenge to POL on operational and
strategic issues concerning compensation, including in relation to (i) the Historical Shortfall
Scheme (“HSS”), in respect of which, a UKGI representative attends meetings of the BEIS
Steering Committee as an observer...”
59.As I mentioned at the hearing on 6 July 2022, the role of UKGI will be scrutinised more
closely during Phase 5 of the Inquiry at hearings which will take place next year.
60.Neither the Scheme’s Terms of Reference nor the IAP Terms of Reference make specific
provision for the making of interim payments of compensation. Nonetheless, as of 6 July
2022, the Post Office had made 28 such payments. Leading Counsel for the Post Office
told me that such payments had been made to some elderly applicants, to applicants who
had demonstrated severe financial or personal hardship and to applicants who were
suffering from terminal illness.
6
.By 6 July 2022, the Post Office had received 186 applications for compensation under the
Scheme which had been delivered to the Post Office after midnight on 27 November 2020.
It has yet to determine, definitively, whether to accept some or all these applications. At
paragraph 23 of its written submissions of 31 May 2022, the Post Office explain that it is
“actively considering how best to address” these applications. When Leading Counsel for
the Post Office made her oral submissions, she was unable to provide me with any update
as to how the Post Office intended to deal with these applications. That state of affairs was
still subsisting on 13 July 2022 when Counsel for BEIS was addressing me.
62.As is clear from the Scheme’s Terms of Reference, the Post Office quite deliberately
retained, and still retains, the ability to accept an application notwithstanding that it was
made after 27 November 2020. The Scheme is silent, however, about the principles or
criteria which the Post Office will apply when determining whether to accept an application
which is late.
63.During the Human Impact Hearings, I read evidence and heard oral evidence to the effect
that some applications for compensation under the Scheme had been rejected on the basis
that they had been submitted after the closing date of 27 November 2020. It is not yet clear
to me how many, if any, late applications have been finally accepted or rejected but in each
case the numbers are likely to be very small at the moment. At the oral hearings on 6 July
and 13 July 2022, there was no attempt by the Post Office or BEIS to explain how the very
many late applications still undetermined are to be treated going forward.
Criticisms of HSS and the response thereto
64.In the written submissions filed on behalf of the Core Participants represented by
Howe+Co, a number of criticisms were made about the Scheme. Some of these criticisms
19
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
were emphasised during oral submissions by Leading Counsel at the hearing on 6 July
2022. The main criticisms advanced were as follows although not in any order of priority.
65.First, the Scheme makes no specific provision for the making of interim payments and, as a
matter of fact, interim payments have been made in very few cases. It is strongly suggested
that in relation to those applications which are still undetermined in which there is potential
for protracted delay by reason of disputed heads of claim, and/or in those applications in
which certain heads of claim are agreed, prompt interim payments should now be the norm.
66.Second, applicants to HSS have been confronted with an onerous process which was
difficult to navigate. In practice, applicants have been expected to provide documentary
proof to substantiate heads of claim when, as must have been well known to the Post
Office, many of their losses occurred years, if not decades, ago and documentary evidence
would very likely be unavailable to them. Indeed, in many instances an applicant’s failure to
have relevant documentation to support a claim was compounded by the fact that
documents had been taken from them by the Post Office and not returned. Further,
Question 24 on the application form (which concerned losses other than shortfall losses —
see paragraph 19 above) is unclear in its terms and no guidance was published about the
type of losses which would be regarded or accepted as “consequential losses” until
September/October 2020, i.e. at a time when very many applications had already been
made.
67.Third, offers of compensation are determined by the Post Office and, accordingly, the
Scheme is not truly independent. The recommendations made to the Post Office by a
panel are not binding and it matters not that, to date, the Post Office has never rejected a
recommendation made by a panel.
68.Fourth, the Scheme does not provide for the reimbursement of reasonable legal expenses
incurred by applicants in formulating claims for compensation and/or undertaking necessary
investigation and evidence gathering. The level of fees allowed for obtaining advice about
compensation offers is far too low. The Scheme should, from the outset, have provided for
an applicant's reasonable legal fees to be paid by the Post Office in addition to the
compensation paid to an applicant.
69.Fifth, and linked to the absence of proper provision for the funding of appropriate legal
services for applicants, it is suggested that many eligible applicants have failed to make
applications to the Scheme because “they felt powerless” to challenge the Post Office in the
event of a dispute.
70.Sixth, the suggestion is made that applicants to the Scheme may have accepted offers in
settlement which did not reflect the true value of their claims. That came about, so it is
said, because of the combined effect of applicants feeling inhibited about challenging the
Post Office and feeling unable to do so without appropriate legal advice and assistance.
7
-During the hearing on 6 July 2022, Leading Counsel emphasised most of the points which I
have summarised above. Additionally, he developed a detailed argument to seek to
demonstrate that there had been unwarranted and unconscionable delay in the rolling out
and administration of the Scheme. He pointed out, in particular, that the Settlement Deed
was concluded on 10 December 2019, that the Scheme was rolled out on 1 May 2020, and
yet it is only now, more than two years later, that those administering the Scheme are
beginning to grapple with the most complex and challenging cases.
20
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
72.Hudgells act for nearly all the Core Participants who have had convictions quashed.
However, it is apparent that they are also acting for, or at least assisting, many of the
applicants to HSS. In the Written Submissions presented on behalf of the Core Participants
represented by Hudgells, there were a number of similar criticisms of the Scheme to those
which had been advanced on behalf of the clients of Howe+Co. The Written Submissions
contended that these criticisms were based upon an analysis of “a cohort of approximately
70 cases” (see paragraph 4 of the Submissions) and upon their assessment of some of the
evidence given during the Human Impact hearings.
73.In his oral submission on 13 July 2022, Leading Counsel instructed by Hudgells made a
number of discrete points in criticism of HSS. First, he suggested that the Scheme made
no proper provision for applicants to obtain expert evidence at the expense of the Post
Office when that was reasonably necessary to advance their claims. This problem has
been and is particularly acute, he maintained, in respect of those applicants who wish to
pursue claims for compensation for personal injuries. Second, he argued that paragraph
31 of the IAP Terms of Reference (see paragraph 35 above) was drafted in such a way that
there was at least a possibility that if an applicant rejected an offer made by the Post Office
and pursued dispute resolution to a contested arbitration, the Post Office might seek to rely
upon a limitation defence in respect of losses which had crystallised many years previously.
He suggested that this would be unfair and a clear disincentive to an applicant to reject an
offer in settlement and pursue dispute resolution processes in order to obtain a more
favourable outcome. Third, he drew attention to the plight of those applicants who had
been made bankrupt because of apparent shortfalls generated by Horizon. Leading
Counsel pointed out that neither the Guidance nor any other published document gave any
real clue as to how this thorny issue would be dealt with in formulating a compensation
offer. A redacted letter was produced to the Inquiry to demonstrate that in many cases a
Trustee in Bankruptcy might have first call on that part of any compensation payment which
related to financial losses and the argument advance that it would be most unfair if large
parts of compensation payments were swallowed up in an applicant's bankruptcy when
many, if not all, of the applicants who were made bankrupt claimed that their bankruptcy
was a direct consequence of reliance upon Horizon data. A fourth criticism advanced by
Leading Counsel was that the outcome letter sent to applicants simply listed the documents
which had been relied upon to formulate the offer of compensation. He maintained that the
letter should always be accompanied by all the documents relied upon and which
underpinned the offer of compensation. It should not be incumbent upon an applicant to
request such disclosure of information. The fifth criticism of the Scheme was that there was
no express provision within it for making interim payments of compensation. Further,
although, as a matter of fact, a small number of interim payments had been made no
criteria had been published as a guide to those who might wish to pursue an application for
such a payment. Additionally, many applications for compensation were broken down into
a number of different heads of loss. In cases where certain heads of loss were agreed, but
others disputed, there was no good reason why the agreed heads of loss could not be paid
as an interim payment. While it might be appropriate to focus upon final offers in settlement
in the lower value claims, or where the claims were easily justified or rejected (as the case
may be), it was not appropriate to withhold any payments of compensation in the more
complex cases until a final amount could be agreed when agreement was possible in
respect of some of the heads of claim.
74.Leading Counsel was also at pains to point out and emphasise delay in decision making on
the part of the Post Office and/or BEIS. He complained, in particular, of delay in
determining whether applications for compensation made after 27 November 2020 would
be rejected on the grounds that the Scheme had closed before the applications were made
21
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
or determined on their merits. He complained, too, of delay in reviewing whether
reasonable legal costs would be paid to applicants whose claims under the Scheme
remained unresolved. He asked me, in effect, to express disapproval of these delays given
the actual and potential adverse impacts upon individuals which had been and would be
occasioned by such delays.
75.Finally, Leading Counsel raised concerns about what he called the “operational
independence” of the independent advisory panels. He suggested that there was, at the
very least, a possibility that the panels would be unduly influenced by recommendations
made to them by the case assessors, especially since there was a need to deal with
applications promptly and the case assessors acted as “presenting officers” at panel
meetings. It was suggested that the Inquiry should investigate how often Independent
Advisory Panels had made recommendations to the Post Office in a sum which was greater
than the case assessor had suggested.
76.Hodge Jones & Allen now represent 5 Core Participants who have, by any measure,
suffered a great deal as a consequence of decisions made in reliance upon Horizon data.
None of those 5 Core Participants were eligible to make applications under HSS since they
were claimants in the Group Litigation and three of them were convicted of criminal
offences in reliance upon evidence generated by Horizon. That being so, and entirely
understandably, the written submissions filed on behalf of these Core Participants and the
oral submissions made by Counsel on 13 July 2022, did not relate specifically to HSS.
77.The written submissions filed on behalf of the NFSP explained that they were not involved
in any of the discussions which preceded the rolling out of HSS. Nonetheless, NFSP has
provided assistance to current and former members in making applications to the Scheme
and it has contacted the Post Office on behalf of current and former members about the
progress of their claims. Additionally, being concerned about the delays in the
administration of the Scheme, in December 2021 Mr Greenhow made an enquiry of the
Post Office as to whether such delays had been occasioned by the departure from the Post
Office of Mr Declan Salter, who had held a senior oversight position. Mr Greenhow had
been assured that Mr Salter’s departure had not caused or contributed to any delay.
78.NFSP was also concerned about the level of legal fees payable by the Post Office to
applicants who sought legal advice about whether they should accept offers of
compensation. I regard it as implicit in the submissions made on behalf of NFSP that they
consider it important that applicants to the Scheme should be reimbursed the reasonable
cost of obtaining necessary legal advice about offers in settlement which are made to them
rather than be provided with a fixed sum regardless of the complexity of the particular case.
79.Both the Post Office and BEIS acknowledged and apologised for the delays which have
occurred in administering HSS. In summary, they both accept that there was a significant
delay following the opening of the Scheme on 1 May 2020 before any offers of
compensation were made and that many of the offers which were made in the early stages
were in respect of lower value claims which were comparatively easy to process and
assess. They acknowledge that, in the main, those applicants with very substantial claims
and/or difficult claims to assess are still waiting for offers of compensation notwithstanding
that more than 2 years has elapsed since the opening of the Scheme. However, both the
Post Office and BEIS maintain that the rate at which offers of compensation have been
made over the last year or so has accelerated and, as I have said the Post Office have a
target of making offers of 95% of cases by 31 December 2022 and BEIS expects that offers
will have been made in all cases which satisfy the eligibility criteria by that date.
22
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
80.The available data supports the view that there has been an increase in the rate at which
offers of compensation have been and are being made. When I published my first Progress
Update on 15 September 2021, I reported that 474 offers of compensation had been made
by 13 August 2021 of which 447 had been accepted. In the Government’s Response to the
Report of the BEIS Committee, it was reported that, as at 25 of March 2022, 1,106 offers in
settlement had been made of which 911 had been accepted. The figures for July and
August this year are as set out at paragraph 47 above.
8
-Neither the Post Office nor BEIS have advanced any reason (either in written or oral
submissions) why it has taken so long to determine whether applications for compensation
which were made after 27 November 2020 should be rejected or accepted. A decision on
this issue is said to be “under review” but, to date, no substantial information has been
provided to the Inquiry about the process for determining these late applications.
82.Neither the Post Office nor BEIS rule out the possibility that an amendment to HSS will be
made, going forward, to permit applicants whose claims are unresolved to claim the
reasonable cost of obtaining legal advice and assistance over and above the £1200
currently on offer for advice about offers of compensation. A decision on this issue is also
said to be under review.
83.In respect of the other criticisms made of HSS, the Post Office and BEIS, in the main, reject
them. They reject the criticisms made of the application process itself. They hold to the view
that the Scheme is user friendly (or at least sufficiently so) and that it can be navigated
sensibly by non-lawyers. They argue that the settlement rate is very high, as a proportion of
offers made, which supports their view that the Scheme is understood by lay people. When
expert opinion is considered necessary, there is a mechanism for obtaining such evidence
at the expense of the Post Office in which the applicant whose claim is under consideration
has a role® and each panel is made up of persons with wide-ranging expertise. The very
low take-up, to date, of the funding for legal advice in respect of offers of compensation is a
further indicator that the Scheme and the principles for assessing compensation are
understood by very many applicants. They maintain that the process for determining each
application is fair and submit that decision-making on offers of compensation is
independent of the Post Office. Both the Post Office and BEIS point out that all the
members of the Independent Advisory Panel are distinguished experts in their field and
very capable of making decisions based on their own collective judgment. It is very unlikely
that panel members would be improperly influenced by case assessors. The Inquiry was
told that all offers of compensation made by the Post Office to date were in the sum
suggested by the independent advisory panels and that in some instances the panels had
suggested a higher sum than that which had been recommended by the case assessor.
There is no need for all the documentation provided to panels to be provided, automatically,
to applicants when an outcome letter is sent to them. It is sufficient that applicants are
alerted to their availability. The making of interim payments (except to alleviate very
substantial hardship or provide some compensation to the very elderly) would be
inconsistent with the aim of providing full and fair compensation promptly.
84.The Post Office draw particular attention to those provisions of the Scheme which mandate
the Post Office to make offers which are fair - even to the extent of departing, where
appropriate, from settled legal principles relating to compensation if fairness so demands.
They also emphasise the presumption contained within paragraph 33 of the IAP Terms of
Reference (see paragraph 35 above) as demonstrating the commitment to ensure that
° See IPA Terms of Reference paragraph 27.
23
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
applicants to the Scheme are treated fairly. Overall, both BEIS and the Post Office maintain
that HSS has delivered and is delivering full and fair compensation albeit for some, at least,
this had not been delivered promptly.
Interim and Final Compensation payments for persons whose
convictions have been quashed (“Overturned Historical
Convictions Scheme”)
85.As at the date hereof, 81 people convicted of criminal offences of dishonesty in reliance
upon evidence adduced from Horizon have had their convictions quashed. The convictions
of 64 people have been quashed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on appeal from
Crown Courts around England and Wales. 17 people have had their convictions quashed
at Southwark Crown Court on appeal from Magistrates’ Courts around England and Wales.
86.On 22 July 2021, the Minister announced that funds would be made available to the Post
Office so that interim payments of compensation of up to £100,000 per person could be
paid to those whose convictions for offences of dishonesty, which were reliant upon
evidence generated by Horizon, had been quashed.
87.Shortly after that announcement had been made, Herbert Smith Freehills, on behalf of the
Post Office, produced an application form which was used by applicants to claim an interim
payment. It is widely accepted that all claims for interim payments have been determined
promptly and that payments have also been made promptly. The Post Office say that in
most cases payments have been made within 28 days of receipt of the application and
there is no reason to suppose otherwise.
88.As of 6 July 2022, 69 applications for interim payments had been considered and, as I
understand it, all applications, save for the three discussed at paragraphs 91 to 93 below,
have been successful.'°
89.The rationale underpinning the making of interim payments to those whose Horizon related
convictions have been quashed is that such persons would have very good prospects of a
successful claim for compensation against the Post Office for malicious prosecution. In the
Settlement Deed which brought an end to the Group Litigation, the rights of convicted
claimants to bring claims for malicious prosecution against the Post Office were expressly
preserved in the event that their convictions were quashed.
90.The announcement made by the Minister in relation to interim payments was not confined
to persons who had brought claims against the Post Office in the Group Litigation. Interim
payments are available to all persons whose Horizon related convictions are quashed i.e.
as the Horizon related convictions of persons are quashed it is open to those persons to
seek an interim payment.
91.As I indicated in paragraph 24 of the document which I published on 9 May 2022,"" there
are 3 Core Participants whose convictions have been quashed but whose applications for
interim payments of up to £100,000 have been rejected by the Post Office. They are Mrs
10 Since 13 July 2022 6 persons have had their Horizon related convictions quashed and, presumably, they have
applied or will apply for interim payments.
“Provisional view of the Chair on compensation issues relating to prosecuted sub-postmasters”.
24
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
Adedayo, Mr Kalia and Mr Patel. In summary, the Post Office rejected each application
because they concluded that there was evidence in each case independent of that which
was generated by Horizon (alleged confessions) which was capable, if accepted, of
justifying convictions. Accordingly, at least arguably say the Post Office, the prosecution of
these individuals was justified and their prosecution was not malicious. The quashing of the
convictions of these individuals was not opposed because, according to the Post Office, it
would not have been in the public interest to have opposed that course of action.
92.At paragraph 27 of the same document, I explained that I needed to guard against making
myself the arbiter of disputes between Post Office Limited and Mrs Adedayo, Mr Kalia and
Mr Patel about whether they were eligible for interim payments. It is not my function, under
the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference, to determine such disputes and, in any event, I have no
power to compel the Post Office to comply with any view which I might express or any
determination I might make. However, I am entitled to consider whether any scheme for
providing compensation is fair and/or is being administered with fairness.
93.1 have three concerns about the fairness of the process for decision-making and the
decision-making itself in relation to Mrs Adedayo, Mr Kalia and Mr Patel. These concerns
would apply equally to any other persons who may, in the future, be treated similarly by
those responsible for deciding whether interim payments should be paid. First, the Post
Office is the final arbiter of whether they should be awarded such payments. There is no
mechanism (save for starting legal proceedings in the civil courts or engaging in other
dispute resolution processes such as binding mediation or arbitration) whereby an interim
payment can be ordered against the Post Office. The interim payment scheme
administered by the Post Office has no mechanism within the scheme itself whereby an
independent person or panel can scrutinise and review decisions made by the Post Office
and, where it is appropriate to do so, direct that a refusal to make an interim payment
should be overturned. Second, I am concerned that the reasoning deployed by the Post
Office to justify the refusal of interim payments in the cases of Mrs Adedayo, Mr Kalia and
Mr Patel could not be used to justify the refusal of interim payments to those whose
convictions are quashed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) with the consequent
possibility of unfairness between applicants.'? Third, the Post Office have been at pains to
point out that the refusal of an interim payment does not mean that the claim upon which it
is based cannot be pursued as part of the claim for final compensation. I find it difficult to
understand the logic of that position unless it is predicated upon the proposition that further
and more persuasive evidence may become available in support of a claim. I say that
because, stripped to its essentials, the reason why the Post Office has refused interim
payments is because they assert that the convictions in those cases in which payments
have been refused are supported by evidence independent of Horizon. If, as seems likely,
all the relevant evidence relating to the convictions of Mrs Adedayo, Mr Kalia and Mr Patel
was before the Post Office when they refused interim payments, on what basis can a final
payment of compensation include a payment for malicious prosecution whereas an interim
payment predicated upon proving that tort is refused?
94.1 have one further concern in relation to the making of interim payments. On a literal
interpretation of the Minister's announcement of 22 July 2021 only those whose convictions
are quashed are eligible for interim payments. Persons who had been prosecuted for
offences of dishonesty on the basis of Horizon generated evidence but acquitted either
12 It is not appropriate in an Update of this kind to identify and detail the legal arguments underpinning this
observation. However, such arguments are developed fully in the written submissions dated 4 April 2022 filed on
behalf of the Core Participants represented by Hudgells.
25
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
after a trial or upon the direction of the trial judge are not eligible for such payments. At the
time of the Minister's announcement, this may have been understandable given that the
rights to bring claims for malicious prosecution by those whose convictions were quashed
had been reserved, expressly, in the Settlement Deed in the Group Litigation whereas
acquitted persons who were Claimants in the Group Litigation had accepted payments of
compensation which were in “full and final settlement’ of their claims.‘ However, BEIS has
now agreed to make further payments to the Claimants in the Group Litigation. In those
circumstances why should acquitted persons not receive an interim payment?
95.1 turn to the issues raised in written and oral submissions regarding final payments of
compensation for convicted persons whose convictions have been quashed. The prospect
of the Post Office (funded by BEIS) making final compensation payments was first raised in
an announcement to Parliament by the Minister on 14 December 2021.
96.To date, the numbers who have submitted claims for final compensation are small. In the
written submissions made on behalf of the Post Office (dated 31 May 2022) the Inquiry was
informed that 8 claims for final compensation had been received - of which 2 were fully
quantified, 2 were partially quantified and 4 were unquantified. In their written submissions
of 5 July 2022, the Post Office said that they had received 3 further claims and further
information about a previously submitted claim. That state of affairs still subsisted when I
was addressed by counsel for BEIS on 13 July 2022.
97.As I understand it there is no formal process for applying for a final payment under the
Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme. Applicants simply submit their claims in as much
or as little detail as they see fit and then a dialogue ensues between the applicants and/or
their representatives and the Post Office. I am aware that there have been a series of
discussions, including without prejudice discussions, between Hudgells acting on behalf of
their clients and lawyers acting for the Post Office and/or BEIS concerning the principles
which should underpin offers of final compensation under this scheme.
98. Just before the hearing on 6 July 2022 an announcement was made to the effect that Lord
Dyson, a former Justice of the Supreme Court and the Master of the Rolls between 2012
and 2016, had been jointly instructed by Hudgells and the Post Office to carry out what is
described as “a neutral evaluation” of the likely award of damages for non-pecuniary losses
should the persons whose convictions had been quashed bring civil proceedings for
malicious prosecution before the courts. It was stressed to me that although Lord Dyson’s
evaluation of these claims would not be binding, the clients of Hudgells on the one hand
and the Post Office and BEIS on the other would pay very close attention to Lord Dyson’s
views. That is hardly a surprise given the status Lord Dyson enjoys in the legal and wider
community.
99.The announcement made by the Minister on 14 December 2021 relating to final
compensation payments was silent about whether applicants for compensation would
recover legal fees reasonable incurred in advancing their claims. However, BEIS has
confirmed that the Post Office will pay “claims for reasonable legal costs incurred as part of
any final settlements reached”- see paragraph 32 of the written submissions of BEIS dated
31 May 2022. No doubt that is in recognition that these claims will include some of the most
difficult to resolve.
3 It may be that acquitted persons who were not party to the Group Litigation were entitled to an interim payment,
but no such persons have yet come forward as far as I am aware.
26
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
100. It has also been confirmed by BEIS that persons who were prosecuted for crimes of
dishonesty in reliance upon Horizon generated evidence but acquitted can also submit
claims for final compensation in accordance with the announcement on 14 December 2021
provided those persons were not Claimants in the Group Litigation. Currently, however,
prosecuted but acquitted persons who were Claimants in the Group Litigation cannot make
such an application.
101. It is, of course, possible that the claims of all those whose convictions have been
quashed will be settled to the applicants’ satisfaction through a process of negotiation
between their lawyers and those acting for the Post Office. That being so, it is tempting for
me to allow that process of negotiation to continue without any kind of intervention from me.
However, in my view, there are a number of factors which need spelling out and proper
consideration at this stage.
102. First, although many of the persons whose convictions have been quashed are
represented by Hudgells, as the numbers of persons with quashed convictions grow (with
the consequence that there is the potential for negotiations occurring with a number of
different firms of solicitors) how will information be shared, if at all, about the principles
which have underpinned concluded settlements? Although every case is likely to have
unique features, there are also likely to be cases which enjoy some or even many common
features. In this context, for example, it may be thought to be very important that a
consistent approach is taken to all claims in which a person has suffered imprisonment or
has been made bankrupt. That can only happen if there is a sharing of information amongst
all interested persons or principles upon which there is agreement between the Post Office
and applicants are published. These issues were highlighted in the written submissions
dated 22 June 2022 made on behalf of three persons who were (and are) represented by
Hodge Jones & Allen and whose convictions had been quashed. It was strongly submitted
on their behalf that final compensation should be calculated according to fair and
transparent published principles which are applied in a transparent manner — points which
were reinforced in the oral submissions made by Counsel.
103. Second, if settlements do not prove to be possible through negotiation how is the ensuing
dispute to be resolved? Is an individual applicant going to be left with a choice of pursuing
alternative dispute procedures or litigation in the courts or will there be a formal remediation
scheme available or other defined dispute resolution process which can be accessed by
persons whose convictions have been quashed? In her oral submissions on behalf of the
(by then four) clients of Hodge Jones & Allen, Counsel was clear that her clients favoured a
remediation scheme being put in place to deal with compensation payments should
negotiations fail. The suggestion was made in writing on behalf of BEIS that a formal
remediation scheme has not been pursued, to date, because this was not favoured by the
Core Participants represented by Hudgells. It is true that in one email in the distant past
(January 2021), Hudgells expressed the view that their clients would not participate in a
“Post Office Scheme” but, in my view, that email was not intended to convey the impression
that there was an objection to a formal remediation scheme which was sufficiently
independent of the Post Office. Certainly, I did not understand Leading Counsel
representing the clients of Hudgell to argue against a scheme which was sufficiently
independent of the Post Office in his oral submissions to the Inquiry. Nor was there any
objection to such a scheme from Howe+Co or Leading Counsel instructed by them on
behalf of those of their clients whose convictions have been or will be quashed.
104. Third, should Claimants in the Group Litigation who were acquitted of Horizon related
offences but who have valid claims for malicious prosecution become part of the
27
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
negotiation process involving persons whose convictions had been quashed and should
that also be the case for Claimants in the Group Litigation against whom judgments had
been obtained in civil proceedings given that they, too, may have valid claims for malicious
prosecution. Counsel who made oral submissions on behalf of Ms Nichola Arch (who
successfully defended charges of dishonesty at the Crown Court) urged me to the view that
Ms Arch should have a choice as to whether her claim for final compensation should be
considered alongside persons whose convictions have been quashed or considered as part
of any scheme for providing further compensation to non-convicted Claimants in the Group
Litigation. No doubt the same point could be made on behalf of Mr Lee Castleton who was
sued in the courts by the Post Office and against whom a judgement was obtained which,
he says, resulted in his bankruptcy.
105. The process of resolving the claims of those who were wrongly convicted may still be in
its early stages, but, even so, there is a strong argument to be made that contingency plans
should be made now so that if negotiations fail there is a clear and smooth path from
negotiation to dispute resolution.
106. On 3 August 2022 the Inquiry received a letter of the same date from the legal
representatives of BEIS which explained that it was “open to the provision of additional
interim payments” in cases involving persons whose convictions had been quashed where
a final claim has been quantified and certain elements are agreed and/or hardship can be
established. The Inquiry was also informed that the Post Office has made some additional
interim payments to applicants who have provided a computation of their claims where
parts of those claims are agreed, and it is considering making interim payments on
hardship grounds in a number of other cases. This must be a welcome development for
those applicants who have sought and are seeking further interim payments and those who
might welcome such payments in the near future.
107. In Written Submissions dated 24 June 2022 those acting for Hodge Jones & Allen
suggested that Herbert Smith Freehills should cease to act for the Post Office in the
Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme; instead they should be instructed by BEIS. That
had not been the stance they had taken in their submissions of 22 June. The reasons for
this suggestion are set out in some detail but the core point relied upon appears to be that
the Post Office and Herbert Smith Freehills, acting together, would not be able to deliver full
and fair compensation or, at least, there is a genuine belief held by many sub-postmasters
(including the clients of Hodge Jones & Allen) that they would not deliver such
compensation. The written submissions of the Post Office could not address this issue
because they were filed on 31 May 2022. In her oral submissions Leading Counsel met this
point by asserting that the Post Office will not be the final arbiter of the claims being
pursued by those who are currently seeking to negotiate a settlement within the Overturned
Historic Convictions Scheme. In her words “the final arbiter would be the courts’.
Further Payments to the Claimants in the Group Litigation
(“Group Litigation Scheme”)
108. On 22 March 2022 the Minister announced that “the Chancellor will make additional
funding available to give those in the GLO group compensation similar to that which is
available to their non-GLO peers”. In the written submissions filed on behalf of BEIS on 31
May 2022 it was confirmed that the Department's intention was that Claimants in the Group
Litigation would “receive equivalent compensation to that available to SPMs who were not
28
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
part of the group litigation”."4 In his oral submissions on 13 July Counsel used the word
“similar” as opposed to the word “equivalent” and, accordingly, I take it that these words
have been and are being used interchangeably and I proceed on that basis.
109. The written submissions of 31 May 2022 went on to reveal that there had been a meeting
on 30 March 2022 attended by the Minister and representatives of the Justice for
Subpostmasters Alliance (“JFSA”) and Freeths LLP at which those present had agreed that
there would be collaboration on developing compensation arrangements through weekly
meetings of a working group comprising Departmental officials, JSFA representatives and
solicitors from Freeths. Such meetings began on 7 April 2022 although no concrete
proposals in relation to these arrangements had emerged by 31 May 2022 when the written
submissions were filed.
110. By letter dated 30 May 2022 Freeths LLP wrote to the Inquiry setting out in brief
information about their own involvement with BEIS and JFSA. They informed the Inquiry
that it was their understanding that a scheme should be established to ensure that the
“GLO Claimants should receive financial redress on an equivalent basis to that available to
those postmasters who were not part of the group litigation”.
111. On 30 June 2022 the Minister announced in Parliament that “the Government intends to
make an interim payment of compensation to eligible members of the GLO, who are not
already covered by another scheme, totalling £19.5m”.'> He also indicated that in parallel
the Department would be working towards delivering a final compensation scheme for
Claimants in the Group Litigation and that the Department would be appointing Freeths LLP
to “access the data and methodology they developed in relation to the distribution of the
2019 settlement’ on the grounds that since Freeths LLP had acted for the Claimants in the
Group Litigation they had “vital knowledge and expertise” which would allow the
compensation scheme to be designed quickly. The Minister also confirmed in his
announcement that the Claimants in the Group Litigation who participated in the Group
Litigation Scheme would be able to recover reasonable legal fees incurred in furtherance
their claims.
112. When I was addressed by Leading Counsel on behalf of the clients of Howe+Co on 6 July
2022 I was told that there had been discussions between Mr Enright of Howe+Co and
officials of BEIS and that Mr Enright had been told that all legal representatives of eligible
Claimants in the Group Litigation would be included in further discussions about the design
of a compensation scheme.
113. By letter dated 12 July 2022 the legal representatives of BEIS informed the Inquiry that
the representatives of JFSA had suggested to BEIS that the £19.5m set aside for interim
payments to eligible Claimants in the Group Litigation should be distributed “pro rata to their
shares of the 2019 High Court settlement in the Bates and others v Post Office Ltd case”.
The Inquiry was also told that this proposal was acceptable to BEIS and, accordingly, a
contract had been concluded with Freeths LLP to deliver the payments. It was then
anticipated that payments would be made “within a few weeks”.
14 See paragraph 38 of the Submissions.
15 I understand the phrase eligible members of the GLO to mean all the Claimants in the Group Litigation save for
those whose convictions have been or will be quashed and who, therefore, fall within the Overturned Historic
Convictions Scheme.
29
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
114. The letter of 12 July also provided information about the process for designing a scheme
for delivering final compensation payments. I need not recount what is set out in the letter
at pages 2 and 3 since discussions between interested parties on a draft scheme have
started but are still ongoing.
115. During his oral submissions on 13 July 2022, Counsel for BEIS emphasised that the
Department would consult with all the legal representatives of Claimants in the Group
Litigation before publishing a final compensation scheme. He re-affirmed, too, that the final
compensation scheme would contain provisions relating to the payment of the reasonable
legal expenses incurred by applicants to the scheme.
116. As I indicated earlier in this Update (paragraph 7 above) I was addressed briefly on 13
July 2022 by Leading Counsel for the Core Participants represented by Howe+Co. He told
me that discussions had occurred between his instructing solicitor and an official of BEIS
which had produced a tentative timetable for delivery of the interim payments to eligible
Claimants in the Group Litigation. In short, the target for payment would be 3 weeks,
approximately, from 13 July.
117. The letter from the legal representatives of BEIS dated 3 August 2022 is silent as to
whether any interim payments have been made to eligible Group Litigation Claimants in
accordance with this timetable. Additionally, the letter of 3 August makes no express
reference to the tentative timetable for making interim payments mentioned at the hearing
on 13 July. However, by letter dated 12 August 2022, the legal representatives of BEIS
informed the Inquiry that interim payments to applicants had begun and that, as of 10
August 2022, 170 payments had been made. The Inquiry was also informed that many
more interim payments would be made in the coming days, although difficulties remained in
making such payments to persons who had been made bankrupt and in some “complex
cases’.
118. The letter of 3 August 2022 provides information as to the timetable for formulating a final
compensation scheme. The letter suggests that an outline of the scheme will be sent to
“GLO members” (which I take to be a refence to all eligible Claimants in the Group
Litigation) in September this year. The timetable for finalising the terms of the scheme and
implementing it thereafter will depend upon the reaction of the eligible Claimants in the
Group Litigation to the outline of the scheme provided to them.
119. In her oral submissions, Counsel for the Core Participants represented by Hodge Jones &
Allen suggested that those applicants for compensation whose convictions had been
quashed and who had been part of the Group Litigation should be permitted, if they so
choose, to seek final compensation payments under the Group Litigation Scheme as
opposed to the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme. In the letter of 3 August referred
to above the legal representatives of BEIS explain why they oppose that suggestion.
120. The Group Litigation Scheme is still in its infancy. The written and oral submissions on
behalf of BEIS explain the difficulties which have been involved in finding a legal basis for
funding further compensation payments and which prevented an announcement about
further compensation being made prior to 22 March 2022. I am prepared to accept that
considerable thought and care was necessary to ensure a proper legal basis for making
further compensation payments to the Claimants in the Group Litigation since, of course, a
very large majority of the Claimants had accepted payments in full and final settlement of all
their claims against the Post Office. To the credit of all those involved, a legal basis was
found. That said, the issue which is of concern to me is whether prompt action has been
30
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
taken since March 2022 and is being taken now to deliver the further compensation which
has been promised. I return to that issue in my Conclusions.
121. In his oral submissions made on 13 July 2022 Leading Counsel for the clients of
Howe+Co invited me to fix a date, this year, for a further hearing so that I can formally
monitor the progress which is (or is not) being made towards providing further
compensation payments to the eligible Claimants in the Group Litigation. I am not
convinced that I should do that at this stage. If it becomes clear in the coming weeks that
progress towards finalising a scheme and/or making payments thereunder is too slow, I will
very likely determine that I should deliver to the Minister an interim report pursuant to
section 24(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 containing specific recommendations. Further, I
might very well conclude, then, that I should convene a hearing at short notice.
122. The letter of 3 August from the legal representatives of BEIS takes issue with some of the
contents of a letter written by Mr Paul Marshall to the Inquiry and dated 22 July 2022. The
Inquiry did not disclose that letter to any core participant; however, Mr Marshall, himself
arranged or authorised its disclosure to BEIS and other Core Participants.
Written Submissions by Mr Paul Marshall
123. Since the announcement that the non-statutory inquiry which existed prior to June 2021
was being converted into an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, Mr Marshall has sent
letters to the Inquiry from time to time and written submissions on various aspects of the
Inquiry’s work. In respect of the Compensation Issues Mr Marshall filed written submissions
dated 31 May 2022 on behalf 6 named persons of whom 3 were Core Participants. On 23
June 2022 Mr Marshall filed what he described as a “Supplemental Submission” on behalf
of 4 of those 6 persons. The letter of 22 July 2022 was sent on behalf of 5 of the 6 named
people upon whose behalf Mr Marshall filed written submissions on 31 May 2022.
124. The written submissions filed on 31 May 2022 and 23 June 2022 have been made public
- see paragraph 6 above.
125. In my view, the submissions of 31 May 2022 were focussed, in the main, upon 3 topics.
They were (i) the principles to be applied in calculating final payments of compensation in
respect of Claimants in the Group Litigation whose convictions had been quashed; (ii) the
mechanisms and processes for determining those payments; and (iii) whether applicants
for final payments of compensation would have access to appropriate legal advice and
assistance at the expense of the Post Office.
126. The points made by Mr Marshall concerning topics (ii) and (iii) are sufficiently rehearsed
above by reference to the written and oral submissions made by others.
127. I have considered with care what, if anything, I should say about Mr Marshall's topic (i). In
short, I have concluded that I should say nothing except for the following. The principles
underpinning the assessment of compensation in HSS are well known. The Post Office and
BEIS subscribe to the view that all applicants in whatever scheme they apply should
receive “equivalent” compensation. Self-evidently that does not mean they should receive
identical amounts; it means that compensation for each applicant should be assessed by
reference to agreed or determined criteria. Mr Marshall’s elucidation of the principles which
he considers should be applied to the assessment of compensation for his clients is without
doubt of considerable interest to those who will have the task of negotiating their
31
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
settlements. He raises arguments about the scope of the principles to be applied which, I
have little doubt, will lead to a fierce debate either in negotiation or in dispute resolution
procedures or litigation. I simply cannot persuade myself, however, that my terms of
reference permit me to either to comment upon or seek to adjudicate upon the principles
which should be applied in assessing compensation where that would involve considering a
number of very detailed arguments on issues of law many of which might be hotly
contested and disputed. On a more pragmatic level, of course, I certainly could not
comment or adjudicate upon Mr Marshall’s contentions without giving BEIS, the Post Office
and UKGI the opportunity to rebut any arguments of Mr Marshall which they wish to
contest. That would involve this Inquiry devoting a disproportionate amount of time to
potentially controversial legal issues. The proper forum for Mr Marshall, or anyone else,
who wishes to stretch or reduce the boundaries within which compensation should be
assessed is the forum in which the amount of compensation is to be determined i.e. in
negotiation and/or within the framework of the various schemes or in litigation. I am
precluded by section 2(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 from ruling upon or determining any
person’s civil liability. It would not be appropriate for me to seek to circumvent that statutory
provision by making “recommendations” about or reaching “conclusions” upon the proper
measure of compensation to be applied in particular factual circumstances.
128. Mr Marshall's submissions of 23 June 2022 are, as he himself describes them,
supplemental. They are a detailed, and if I may say so, very interesting further examination
of topic (i). However, for the reasons explained above I say nothing more about them.
129. Mr Marshall's letter of 22 July 2022 consists of written submissions by way of a
commentary on aspects of the submissions made to me at the hearings on 6 and 13 July.
Whereas I have been prepared to take account of new information (or the lack of it) which
has come to my attention since the end of the hearings on 13 July it would not be
appropriate for me to take account either of the written submissions made by Mr Marshall
on 22 July 2022 or the response to those submissions contained in the letter on behalf of
BEIS dated 3 August 2022. To rule otherwise would make it virtually impossible for me to
complete this Update within a reasonable period of time as I promised all participants in the
oral hearings I would do.
Conclusions
130. The commitment given by BEIS and the Post Office to provide compensation which is “full
and fair’ is not the traditional stance taken by a Defendant in our adversarial system of civil
litigation. In the courts, Claimants are entitled, within proper legal limits, to maximise their
claims and Defendants (within such limits) are entitled to minimise the amount they have to
pay, if found liable. Negotiations to settle a claim are usually conducted with those
parameters very much in mind.
131. However, all those who are entitled to claim compensation from the Post Office for
wrongs they have suffered as a consequence of Horizon are entitled to expect that the
offers made to them will be a genuine appraisal by the Post Office of what is full and fair
compensation. Of course, there are bound to be cases in which the applicant and the Post
Office have genuinely different views about what constitutes a full and fair settlement. The
commitment by the Post Office to reaching a full and fair settlement does mean, however,
that the Post Office should never attempt to reduce a claim to a sum below that which they
regard as full and fair. Put more crudely, the normal negotiating tactics often found in hard
32
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
fought litigation in the courts should have no place in the administration of the schemes for
compensation already in being and the scheme about to be brought into effect. I turn from
those introductory words to my conclusions about HSS, the Overturned Historic Convictions
Scheme and the emerging Group Litigation Scheme.
HSS
132. I welcome the commitment within the Scheme to providing fair compensation. The
provision which allows fair compensation to be paid, even if that means ignoring legal
principles usually applied in civil litigation, is a clear indicator that the mantra “full and fair
compensation” is not just a form of words but a genuine commitment. In Phase 5 I will be
able to judge whether the actions of the Post Office correspond with the words they use.
Delays
133. I am conscious that I am yet to hear detailed evidence which will allow me to reach
definitive conclusions about the extent and causes of delay in formulating, implementing,
and administering the Scheme. Nonetheless, both the Post Office and BEIS accept that
there have been avoidable and, therefore, unwarranted delays associated with the
Scheme. They acknowledge that a long period of time elapsed between the Scheme’s
opening and the arrangement of the necessary funding which would allow payments to be
made to applicants. They accept, too, that the numbers of likely applicants to the Scheme
was very significantly underestimated which meant that the Post Office could not fund the
Scheme from its own resources and that there were, to begin with, insufficient personnel
recruited to the Independent Advisory Panel. The numbers of applications considered has
accelerated over time but in the early stages of the administration of the Scheme progress
was comparatively slow. Post Office and BEIS have formally apologised for unnecessary
delay in the implementation and administration of the Scheme.
134. I accept that the pace of making offers has quickened considerably during this year and,
perhaps, for some months before that. I have drawn attention to the numbers of offers of
compensation which have been made since the time of my first Progress Update — see
paragraphs 47 and 80 above.
135. The Post Office’s target of making offers of compensation by 31 December 2022 in 95%
of the applications which have been identified as eligible under the Scheme is an ambitious
one but, the target having been announced, the Post Office will, no doubt, strive to
accomplish it. The target set by BEIS of making offers in 100% of such case by 31
December is, obviously, even more difficult to achieve. I am concerned that the fulfilment of
these targets should not be achieved at the expense of a proper and thorough appraisal of
individual applications before an offer of compensation is made. There is a balance to be
struck between speed of decision-making and ensuring that offers which are made are full
and fair.
136. I know of no proper explanation for the delays in determining whether those applications
which were made after 27 November 2020 should be rejected or accepted into the
Scheme. The better part of 21 months has now elapsed since the apparent closure of the
Scheme. On any view, that is more than enough time to formulate principles and/or criteria
by which judgments could be made about whether to reject or accept an application. On the
basis of the exchanges I had with Leading Counsel for the Post Office and with Counsel for
BEIS, I cannot help suspecting that there may be tension between how the Post Office
wishes to approach this issue and the stance which BEIS and/or HM Treasury wish it to
33
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
adopt. On any view, however, the delay in determining many if not all of these applications
is wholly unacceptable and it remains largely unexplained.
137. I am also very concerned that under the Scheme it is the Post Office which makes the
definitive and final determination as to whether a late application is accepted or rejected.
The Independent Advisory Panel is not involved in this part of the decision-making process.
I regard that as an obvious flaw in the Scheme. In my view, any applicant whose claim is
rejected by reason of it having been made after 27 November 2020 should have the right to
have that decision reviewed by the Independent Advisory Panel and the Scheme should be
amended accordingly.
Independence Issues
138. I am not persuaded that I should characterise the process for determining the offers of
compensation payments to applicants as lacking in independence. It is true that the first
assessment of what offer should be made is undertaken by a case assessor who is an
employee of the solicitors retained by the Post Office and that the final determination of any
offer to be made is undertaken by the Post Office itself. However, the role of the
Independent Advisory Panel should not be underestimated. The Panel is comprised of
distinguished professionals with considerable expertise. In my view, it is overwhelmingly
likely that the members of the Panel can assess objectively the recommendation of the
case assessor and adopt that recommendation as their own only when they consider that to
be the justified course on the basis of all the information before them. Further, there is a
means of checking that all relevant information has been put before a panel whose decision
may be called into question since all the information provided to individual panels is
disclosed to applicants if such disclosure is sought. I appreciate that the Post Office retains
the power to depart from a panel's suggested settlement offer. However, it had never done
so by 13 July 2022 notwithstanding that offers have been made in approximately 66% of
the cases admitted as eligible under the Scheme.
139. The acceptance rate of the offers which have been made so far is very high. No doubt, in
part, that is because many of the cases determined have been lower value cases.
However, the acceptance rate is an indicator that offers are being put forward in good faith
and with proper regard to the overriding consideration that compensation payments should
be full and fair.
140. In any event, if an offer is not acceptable to an applicant, he/she need not accept it. If any
offer is rejected there follows what might be called a discussion phase in which, no doubt,
each side puts their point of view as to the merits of the offer in question. If the discussion
phase fails a mediation takes place and, if that fails, the parties head for the county courts
(the Small Claims Track) or arbitration depending upon the amount involved. Ultimately,
there is a process open to an applicant in which a person or body other than the Post Office
determines the amount of compensation to be paid. In my view this is a sufficient safeguard
for applicants provided, of course, they are able to obtain legal assistance when
appropriate — as to which see paragraph below 146 to 149 below.
141. Subject to the proviso mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I do not consider there is
any basis for criticising, as lacking in independence, the basic structure of the process
leading to the making of offers of compensation or the processes in place for determining
an award of compensation should an applicant reject an offer in settlement made by the
Post Office.
34
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
Criticisms of the Application Process
142. I turn to the criticisms which have been made of the application form and the lack of
appropriate guidance to an applicant faced with the form. However, first this should be set
in context. The vast majority of the persons completing the application form will be relatively
mature in age and will have accumulated business experience as a sub-postmaster. Many
will have considerable experience of running a small business apart from a Post Office
branch. Of those lacking in much business experience, very many will have been employed
in responsible occupations prior to running a Post Office branch. All this means that most, if
not all, applicants to HSS will be mature people with considerable experience of reading
and digesting formal documents.
143. In the main, I do not consider it likely that the application form would have been unduly
difficult to understand for a lay person having the experience I have described above.
However, without hard evidence (which will become available in Phase 5) I cannot reach a
definitive conclusion one way or the other.
144. I say now, however, that I do have reservations about how Question 24 would have been
understood in the absence of guidance as to its meaning. On any view, it is most
unfortunate that the Guidance was not made available to would be applicants to the
Scheme until sometime in September 2020, at best.'® All those applicants who applied for
compensation before the initial specified closing date of 14 August 2020 will have done so
without any proper guidance as to how Question 24 should be answered. In my view that
was a flaw in the process. I am satisfied that the Guidance should have been published and
clearly sign-posted as soon as the Scheme opened. Without the Guidance, this aspect of
the application process was not “user friendly’.
145. Whether the failure to issue the Guidance at the proper time had the effect of causing
applicants to omit legitimate heads of claim can only be determined after hearing evidence.
No doubt that issue can be examined in Phase 5 together with any other evidence tending
to show that applicants failed to present all their legitimate claims for whatever reasons.
Legal Assistance
146. I understand why, at the outset, BEIS and the Post Office were hopeful that the Scheme
could function appropriately without the need for applicants to be represented by lawyers.
The very low take up of such funds as are available for legal advice in relation to the offers
made by the Post Office is, in my view, a clear indicator that in the lower value claims legal
assistance was probably unnecessary given the experience of most applicants. However, it
is clear to me that appropriate legal assistance and advice in respect of most of the claims
yet to be determined is likely to be essential. BEIS has readily conceded that in the
Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme and the Group Litigation Scheme applicants are
entitled to be paid the reasonable costs of engaging a lawyer to assist them with all aspects
of their claims. In my view fairness to the remaining applicants within HSS demands that
the fees allowed for advising on offers which are made henceforth should be increased to
levels commensurate with the work reasonably carried out by an applicant's lawyer.
Further, if an applicant wishes to engage a lawyer, in all cases in which an offer is rejected
the Post Office should fund the applicant's reasonable cost of obtaining legal advice,
16 I appreciate that the document published by the Post Office and entitled Questions and Answers has a short
section which purports to explain the scope of the Scheme. However, the questions within that section which refer
to losses other than a shortfall loss are perfunctory and of no particular assistance to applicants.
35
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
assistance and representation as the dispute resolution process unfolds. In my view, from
the point when an offer is rejected, applicants should be in just the same position in relation
to payment of legal fees as they would be if they were applicants in the Overturned Historic
Convictions Scheme or the Group Litigation Scheme. I simply cannot see why the
remaining applicants in the HSS, many of whom having complicated and difficult
compensation issues to resolve, should be treated differently, in terms of payment for legal
services, from applicants within other schemes who have similar issues to determine.
147. It should also be borne in mind that in the dispute resolution phase the Post Office will,
no doubt, be represented by very experienced lawyers whether it be Herbert Smith
Freehills or some other firm of solicitors. Reasonable equality of arms demands that the
applicants for compensation are also represented by lawyers with appropriate experience
and expertise and fairness demands that such lawyers are reasonably funded by BEIS/the
Post Office.
148. The provisions relating to the payment of legal fees for advice on offers are to be found in
the IAP Terms of Reference (paragraph 19). I suggest this paragraph is removed from
those Terms of Reference and new provisions are included in the Scheme’s Terms of
Reference which reflect the views which I have expressed in this section of the Update.
149. The provision of funds for instructing lawyers henceforth cannot, of course, remedy any
instances of injustice which have already occurred. Whether there have been such
instances already, e.g. leaving out of account legitimate claims, or accepting reductions in
claims because of a lack of documentation, must await Phase 5. However, the provision of
funds for legal advice and assistance going forward will provide a substantial bar to the
possibility that, in the future, applicants will accept settlements which are substantially lower
than the true value of their claims.
Interim Payments
150. I fully accept that in many cases the correct approach has been to reach a final
settlement as promptly as possible. However, that may not be possible in a number of
difficult and complex cases. How can the making of interim payments be justified for all
eligible applicants in the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme and the Group Litigation
Scheme but yet there is a resistance to making interim payments to applicants within HSS
except in very narrow circumstances? I appreciate that the Post Office and BEIS say that
the making of interim payments might delay the agreement of final compensation
payments, but that argument applies with similar force in relation to the other schemes.
151. Some applicants to HSS will now have been waiting for offers in settlement for more than
2 years after making an application for compensation. In my view, there is no good reason,
even now that it is being said that all or substantially all offers of final compensation will be
made by 31 December 2022, why applicants who can demonstrate a need for an interim
payment or who have agreed certain aspects of their claim with the Post Office should not
receive appropriate interim payments.
152. In my view, the Scheme’s Terms of Reference should be amended to make express
provision for the making of interim payments in cases where the personal circumstances of
the applicant justify such a payment or when there are agreed and quantified heads of loss
which can be paid over.
36
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
The Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme
153. On 23 April 2021 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) handed down its judgment in Rv
Hamilton and others in respect of appeals brought by sub-postmasters against their
convictions for offences of dishonesty. The convictions of 39 people were quashed. On 22
July 2021 the Minister made an announcement to Parliament indicating that the
Government would “fund interim compensation of up to £100,000 for each postmaster who
has had their Horizon-related conviction overturned”. The Minister's announcement went on
to explain that applicants for interim payments would be required to complete an application
form and submit the same to the Post Office and payment would be made within 28 days.
154. I am pleased to say that, in the vast majority of cases, interim payments have been made
to those whose convictions have been quashed within 4 weeks or thereabouts of
applications being made to the Post Office.
155. Interim payments were refused to 3 applicants - see paragraph 91 above. I have
expressed my reservations about the decision making in these cases — see paragraph 93
above.
156. I am firmly of the view that the Post Office should not be the final arbiter of applications
for interim payments. I do not understand either the Post Office or BEIS to dissent from that
view. However, they both appear to indicate that if applicants wish to challenge a decision
of the Post Office in relation to interim payments they should, individually, engage in formal
dispute resolution such as mediation or arbitration or start civil proceedings in which they
seek damages for malicious prosecution against the Post Office thereby permitting of an
application to the court for an interim payment.
157. In my view court proceedings should be very much the last resort for a variety of obvious
reasons, not least the expense involved. I am also of the view that individually instigated
mediations or arbitrations are to be avoided if possible. Although the Overturned Historic
Convictions Scheme is not a remediation scheme properly so called there is no reason why
a person or panel cannot be appointed, now, to deal with all issues relating to interim
payments which are disputed, in much the same way as Lord Dyson will make neutral
determinations relating to the levels of final compensation for non-pecuniary loss. Even if,
as with Lord Dyson, the determination of that person or panel is not formally binding on the
parties, the likelihood is that the determination would be accepted, if, as I believe would and
certainly should be the case, the applicants for interim payments and the Post Office are
acting in good faith. Further, such a person or panel could and, in my view, should have an
important role to play in disputes relating to final compensation payments — as to which
see paragraphs 162 and 163 below.
158. There is also a need, in my view, to consider again one aspect of the scope of the
Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme. BEIS has made it clear that the Scheme applies
not just to persons whose convictions have been quashed but also to those who were
prosecuted but acquitted unless, of course, the acquitted persons were Claimants in the
Group Litigation. The total number of persons who were prosecuted but acquitted and who
were not Claimants in the Group Litigation is unknown. I am not aware of such persons
having been paid an interim payment although, for all I know that might have changed since
the hearing on 13 July.
159. I am aware of a number of persons who were prosecuted on the basis of alleged
shortfalls which they alleged were falsely generated by Horizon, who were acquitted of the
37
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
charges brought against them and who went on to become Claimants in the Group
Litigation. Some of those persons gave evidence in the Human Impact hearings and their
evidence described how they have suffered substantially notwithstanding their acquittals.
This category of acquitted persons is deliberately excluded from the Overturned Historic
Convictions Scheme.
160. The only basis for that exclusion was that this category of persons had not reserved their
rights to bring claims for malicious prosecution in the Settlement Deed which brought to an
end the Group Litigation. They had accepted a payment of compensation in full and final
settlement of all their claims.
161. The position has now altered. Claimants in the Group Litigation are now going to receive
further compensation payments and, indeed, they are going to receive interim payments.
The difficulty is that the interim payments which acquitted Claimants in the Group Litigation
will receive will be calculated in such a way that it is very likely that the interim payments
which will be paid to acquitted Claimants in the Group Litigation will be very substantially
less than the £100,000 paid over to persons whose convictions have been quashed. While I
accept that the trauma of conviction and sentence was a very significant factor in the
decision to make interim payments at the level of £100,000 to sub-postmasters whose
convictions had been quashed those who were acquitted are also likely to have been
awarded very significant sums if they had successfully pursued their claims for malicious
prosecution. In my view, acquitted Claimants in the Group Litigation should either be
brought into the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme (and then paid an appropriate
interim payment) or, if there are thought to be legal difficulties with that course of action,
paid interim payments in the Group Litigation Scheme which are properly reflective of the
fact that they suffered the trauma of prosecution. If the latter option is thought preferable, I
do not consider that there would be a need to disrupt the agreed formula for making interim
payments described in paragraph 113 above. Rather, funds should be made available over
and above the £19.5m so that appropriate interim payments can be made to acquitted
Claimants in the Group Litigation. Given the overall sum which will be necessary to
compensate all the victims of Horizon fully and fairly the making of a small number of
enhanced interim payments at this stage would, in my opinion, cause no appreciable
detriment to the public purse but would be of considerable benefit to the persons receiving
the payments.
162. The process of making final payments of compensation to persons whose convictions
have been quashed is in its early stages. I repeat my view that there should be contingency
planning now as to how disputes relating to final compensation should be resolved if claims
are not resolved by the process of negotiation. For my part, I cannot detect any valid
objection from the submissions I heard and received to a formal remediation scheme as an
intermediate step between negotiation and formal dispute resolution or civil litigation. Even
if it is felt that a formal remediation scheme is not the answer, I can see no valid objection
to an arrangement whereby a panel with similar powers to the Independent Advisory Panel
under HSS is constituted rather than the parties going straight from negotiation to formal
mediation/arbitration and/or civil litigation. In its response to the recommendations of the
BEIS Committee the Government suggested that Post Office was aware of 708 Horizon
related convicted sub-postmasters. To date less than 20% of those persons have sought to
have their convictions quashed. If, in the future, substantial numbers of convicted persons
come forward is it really being suggested that the way forward is negotiation and then
dispute resolution or court with no intermediate step as in HSS?
38
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Progress Update on Issues relating to Compensation August 2022
163. If the views expressed in the paragraphs above are acted upon any panel which is
brought into being should also be given the responsibility for resolving disputes about
interim payments — see paragraph 157 above.
164. If appropriate contingency planning occurs so that appropriate methods of resolving
disputes are in place, I see no need for persons whose convictions have been quashed to
have the option to have their claims determined within the Group Litigation Scheme. No
doubt if no such planning takes place and, in any event if the need arises, I can return to
that issue in Phase 5.
The Group Litigation Scheme
165. This Scheme is in its infancy. That being so, my conclusions can be expressed succinctly.
166. Itis anticipated that the Scheme for delivering compensation to eligible Claimants in the
Group Litigation will emerge following proper discussions and negotiations between the
Claimants’ representatives and officials of BEIS. Those discussions and negotiations
should be undertaken within weeks and should not stretch over many months. The
announcement that further compensation would be paid to Claimants in the Group
Litigation was made nearly 5 months ago.
167. I welcome the agreement between JFSA and BEIS relating to interim payments for
eligible Claimants in the Group Litigation. Although this methodology may not please
everyone it is a straightforward way of delivering interim payments to all eligible Claimants.
However, I also consider that Claimants in the Group Litigation who were acquitted of
Horizon related offences should receive interim payments which take account of those
circumstances — see paragraph 161 above. In my view the issues surrounding interim
payments for that small number of people (as far as I am aware) should be resolved as
soon as is reasonably practicable.
168. I also welcome the commitment to make final compensation payments to the Claimants in
the Group Litigation which is equivalent to that available to sub-postmasters who were not
part of the Group Litigation and the willingness to make available funds to pay the
reasonable fees of lawyers engaged to promote and advise upon the claims put forward.
169. There is obviously a pressing need to administer the Scheme with expedition once it is
constituted. I assume that the Claimants in the Group Litigation received their share of the
available fund for compensation shortly after the conclusion of the litigation i.e.
approximately 30 months ago. Self-evidently, there is a clear need to finalise and pay
further compensation to these people as soon as that can be done justly
/
Sir Wyn Williams A A I
15 August 2022 en
39
INQ00002032
INQ00002032
This publication is available from: https:/Avww.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/
If you need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email
POSecretariat@postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will
help us if you say what assistive technology you use.