POL00317782
POL00317782
DRAFT STATEMENT FOR PANORAMA
The Post Office wholly rejects the extremely serious and unsubstantiated
allegations that continue to be repeated by a small number of largely
former postmasters.
Over the past 3 years, in the face of these allegations, we have launched an
independent inquiry, re-investigated each case and set up a scheme for individual
complaints, providing financial support for people to obtain independent professional
advice.
This process has produced no evidence at all that our computer system or a third
party is responsible for missing cash at the few Post Office branches involved.
We cannot share details about individual cases publicly. This is because, in a
handful of cases, applications have been made to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission, the independent public body to which anyone convicted of a criminal
offence can apply.
But the clear evidence we have in these cases does not support the allegations
being made.
Our computer system works well, and is robust and effective in dealing with six
million transactions a day, with 70,000 people using it. The independent
investigators acknowledge this fact.
The Post Office does not prosecute people for making innocent mistakes and never
has.
However, where missing cash has been dishonestly and systematically covered up,
or stolen, it is right that we may take action in line with our duty as custodians of
both public and our customers money.
Prosecutions
The Post Office does not prosecute people for making innocent mistakes and never
has. Where missing cash has been dishonestly and systematically covered up, or
stolen, we may take action. The Post Office and those working for it are entrusted
with public money and that of our customers.
Criminal offences are not innocent mistakes - they are a deliberate and dishonest
choice made by individuals at the time.
POL00317782
POL00317782
We do not control the legal process. Any decision to plead guilty is always one
for the defendant only, having taken advice from his or her own lawyer, after
considering the evidence. It is defence lawyers who may then may approach
the Post Office, not the other way round.
If the Post Office decides, as a result of an approach by the defence, to not offer
evidence or to withdraw a charge it does not mean that it does not have sufficient
evidence.
No appeal was ever made against conviction in any of these cases.
The Post Office takes seriously its continuing duty of disclosure in criminal law
proceedings. Material generated by Second Sight and through the Mediation
Scheme has been - and continues to be - provided to an external firm of specialist
criminal law solicitors to review to enable the Post Office to continue to comply with
that duty.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission will have access to all the evidence and
other material in cases referred to them. It is therefore clearly the right place for
these matters to be considered and we are co-operating fully with it.
Remote access
This is about facts, not theories. There is no evidence whatsoever of remote
tampering — malicious or otherwise — of branch transactions. The data integrity is
verified by independent audits, industry accreditations and numerous other checks.
There is no money held on Horizon, it simply records and balances transactions —
sales of stamps for example. It is difficult to understand why anyone would want to
maliciously manipulate these. There have been two versions of the system since it
was introduced and everything that is done leaves an identifiable footprint, and is
subject to rigorous security . Money is held in branches, not on the system, and
branches are also required to hold certain paper records for up to six years. Most
importantly, none of the theories advanced to us on this subject have been borne
out by the facts about what actually happened in the cases involved.
Individual cases
The clear evidence we have in these cases does not support the allegations being
made. The original allegation — that flaws in the computer system might be
responsible for cash going missing at some Post Office branches — has not been
borne out by any evidence during more than three years of rigorous examination of
the cases of the very small number of people who claimed this. Subsequent
POL00317782
POL00317782
allegations and theories are, simply, not borne out by the facts, which we have been
and remain willing to discuss with the people involved.