SUBS0000014
IN THE POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SUBMISSIONS ON COMPENSATION ISSUES ON BEHALF OF CORE
PARTICIPANTS REPRESENTED BY HOWE + CO
(For hearing on 8 December 2022)
Introduction
1. On 22 September 2022 the Chair issued a statement following the Chair’s
Progress Update, which was delivered on 15 August 2022 after the
hearings that were convened on 6 and 13 July 2022. In the Progress
Update, the Chair indicated that he would closely monitor the progress
in the three compensation schemes (the Historical Shortfall Scheme
(HSS); the Overturned Historic Convictions Scheme; and the Group
Litigation Scheme) to ascertain the extent to which the views expressed
in the Progress Update were acted upon.
2. In the 22 September statement the Chair expressed disappointment
with the apparent lack of substantial progress to date. The Chair stated:
“If at the hearing it becomes apparent to me that sufficient progress
has not been made I will then, as stated in the conclusion of my
Progress Update, deliver an Interim Report containing specific
recommendations under s24(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005.”
Request for an Interim Report and regular update hearings to monitor
progress/ implementation.
3. Our clients’ position is that insufficient progress has been made and that
the Chair should deliver an Interim Report. However, our clients are
anxious that we convey their strong wish that the Inquiry continues to
monitor the progress of the compensation schemes through conducting
regular hearings focussed on progress on compensation. Our clients have
been struck by the contrast at the speed of BEIS’ progress in the build up
to a hearing, as opposed to the Department’s inertia at all other times. We
are reminded of the saying of Dr Johnson: “Depend upon it, sir, when a
man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind
wonderfully.”
. The progress of the three compensation schemes and the correspondence
between Howe + Co, BEIS, POL and the Inquiry have become factually
complex, not least due to the inaction of BEIS in providing a GLO
compensation scheme and delays in resolving issues surrounding
bankruptcy/insolvency and interim payments.
. We have submitted a bundle of correspondence and documents, which
details inter alia our involvement in pressing for fair compensation for our
clients since February 2021. For ease of reference, we set out the relevant
facts, correspondence and events in the chronology below:
Chronology
10 December 2019 Settlement Deed in Group Litigation.
1 May 2020 Historical Shortfall Scheme published
14 August 2020 Deadline for applications under HSS
1 October 2020 HSS guidance introduced
27 November 2020 Extended closing date for HSS
3 February 2021 Howe + Co write to Prime Minister
detailing financial suffering of SPMs
23 April 2021 Hamilton & Others judgment
SUBS0000014
22 July 2021
22 October 2021
28 October 2021
4 November 2021
11 November 2021
19 November 2021
25 November 2021
2 December 2021
14 December 2021
20 December 2021
February/ March/ May 2022
22 March 2022
28 March 2022
8 April 2022
SUBS0000014
Ministerial statement in relation to SPMs
with quashed convictions — funds to be
made available for interim compensation.
Howe + Co letter to Nick Read requesting
compensation and interim compensation
for GLO SPMs
Herbert Smith Freehills respond to say that
they will revert as soon as able to do so
HSF write to Howe + Co and refers to ‘full
and final settlement’, but states that
discussions with Government are ongoing.
Howe + Co write to HSF requesting
meeting with POL and BEIS to discuss
repayment of GLO litigants’ costs
POL decline to meet with Howe + Co
Howe + Co write to HSF demanding a
meeting with POL and BEIS to discuss
compensation and interim compensation.
HSF confirm that POL is reliant on
Government funding
Ministerial statement in relation to SPMs
with quashed convictions relating to final
compensation payments.
BEIS write to Howe + Co requesting
information to help them advise the
Minister.
Human Impact hearings
Ministerial statement in relation to
establishment of a GLO group
compensation scheme
Howe + Co write to BEIS and raise
concerns that funding for legal
representation is included in GLO scheme
and that issues relating to bankruptcy are
addressed.
BEIS confirm that funding and bankruptcy
issues are ‘firmly on our agenda’
9 May 2022
31 May 2022
8 June 2022
27 June 2022
29 June 2022
30 June 2022
6 July 2022
6 July 2022
12 July 2022
13 July 2022
15 July 2022
3 August 2022
15 August 2022
SUBS0000014
Chair published provisional view on issues
relating to compensation
Post Office state in written that they are
‘actively considering how to address’ 186
late applications for compensation.
Howe + Co submitted written
representations in advance of July hearings
Howe + Co write to BEIS requesting an
urgent update on provisions being made
for clients who are bankrupt or who are
facing bankruptcy
Howe + Co write to BEIS seeking clarity on
working group
Ministerial announcement that Govt
intends to provide interim payments to
GLO members and has set aside £19.5m.
Announcement made that Lord Dyson was
to conduct a ‘neutral evaluation’ of non-
pecuniary damages in quashed conviction
cases.
Hearing on issues relating to compensation
(1* day)
BEIS inform Inquiry by letter that contract
secured with Freeths GLO interim
payments to be made ‘within weeks’
Hearing on issues relating to compensation
(2nd day). Inquiry notified, via Mr Stein KC,
that target for interim payments would be
3 weeks from 13 July.
Howe + Co write to Inquiry in relation to
funding arrangements and establishment
of compensation trusts.
BEIS inform Inquiry by letter that an
outline for a GLO final compensation
scheme to be sent to GLO members in
September 2022.
Chair’s Progress Update on Issues relating
to Compensation.
31 August 2022
12 September 2022
13 September 2022
14 September 2022
22 September 2022
28 September 2022
18 October 2022
SUBS0000014
Howe + Co write to BEIS following meeting
BEIS raising inter alia:
(i) Views to be sought in respect of 2
compensation schemes
(ii) BEIS will pay reasonable legal costs of
chosen legal reps (plus reasonable
disbursements)
(iii) All compensation payments to be
completed by 7 August 2024
(iv) Interim payments for acquitted
claimants within Overturned
Convictions Scheme
Howe + Co write to Chair on instructions in
relation to (i) insufficient compensation
funding for ‘complex cases’, (ii) failure of
BEIS to extend interim compensation to
acquitted SPMs and (ii) position of Sue
Palmer.
Howe + Co write to BEIS in relation to 60
GLO SPMs who are bankrupt or in IVAs and
delays.
Howe + Co write to Chair setting out
correspondence with BEIS on
compensation matters.
Statement by the Chair following Progress
Update on Issues Relating to
Compensation
Howe + Co Response to Consultation —
Clients preferred Option 2 — scheme based
on GLO litigation as opposed to scheme
following HSS. Howe + Co requested
urgent interim payments and confirmation
that scheme would provide funding for
legal and professional advice.
Howe + Co write to Nick Read on POL offer
on restorative justice and apology
meetings
1 November 2022
17 November 2022
26 November 2022
27 November 2022
30 November 2022
30 November 2022
8 December 2022
31 December 2022
7 August 2024
SUBS0000014
Nick Read response on restorative justice
issues
BEIS Compensation and Costs Update. — (i)
Late applicants to be allowed into HSS
Scheme; (ii) Acquitted SPMS to be brought
into line with overturned convictions
cases; (iii) BEIS working closely with
insolvency service.
Howe + Co write to BEIS:
(i) None of GLO SPMs with ‘complex cases’
have received any interim
compensation;
(ii) Acquitted clients have received no
interim compensation;
(iii) BEIS has not provided funding to law
firm representing complex case clients;
(iv) Unacceptable that BEIS has been
unable to resolve complex cases
(bankruptcy/IVA) issues
(v) Two solutions proposed — Provide
funding for legal assistance so SPMs
can advance claims. Arrange round
table meeting to thrash out the full
detail of a scheme.
Howe + Co write to POL in relation to
meeting to thrash out scheme details and
POL failings in respect of restorative justice
Witness statement of Suzanne Palmer
Witness statement of Baljit Sethi
Further hearing in Inquiry on Issues
relating to Compensation
Date by which BEIS and POL stated (in July
hearings) that offers will have been made
in 95% of HSS cases.
Date after which BEIS funding for GLO
compensation will expire.
SUBS0000014
Headline issues
6. It is useful to set out some headline issues at the outset:
e Despite the Ministerial Statement of 22 July 2021, there is still no settled
process for compensation for subpostmasters whose wrongful convictions
were overturned.
e Despite Howe + Co’s correspondence going back as far as 22nd October
2021, and various statements by BEIS, there is still no settled process for
applications by GLO SPMs to even apply for final compensation, and no
date (other than “Spring’’) as to when any scheme will be open to
applications.
e Despite BEIS’s announcement of 30 June 2022 offering urgent interim
compensation, some 60 of the most desperate GLO SPMs have received
nothing.
e BEIS refused to give force to the Chair’s recommendation on SPMs who
had been prosecuted and acquitted (albeit there are now suggestions on
17 November 2022 that this position may now change).
e The HSS scheme continues to be exceptionally slow, provides unfair and
low offers to unrepresented SPMs, fails to make offers at all to SPMs with
long-outstanding applications, and refuses to entertain applications from
persons who are plainly entitled to apply.
e In all compensation schemes and processes there continues to be a
profound inequality of arms, and there is concern that the ‘development’
of schemes is being used as a shield and a means of delay.
e The Post Office has purported to welcome a requested restorative justice
process, however, POL’s CEO Mr Read subsequently refused to
meaningfully engage in that process
e Applicants to the HSS Scheme have felt disempowered by the way that the
scheme limits their involvement and access to legal representation and,
where necessary, expert evidence. Those faults should not be carried
1 Estimated date as communicated in meetings with BEIS
7
SUBS0000014
through into the as-yet unformulated Stage 2 Overturned Convictions and
GLO compensation schemes/processes.
The position of our clients
7. We have taken instructions from our clients as to their current position.
Whilst a substantial number of GLO SPMss have received interim payments
since the July hearings, the majority of our clients remain in considerable
financial difficulty. It is important to emphasise that the interim payments
to GLO SPMs are well below those received by those SPMs with overturned
convictions. The interim payments are based on a distribution model
applied following the settlement of the group litigation. As such, the
amounts which our clients have received vary considerably. In some cases,
the amounts received by our clients has been very low.
8. The effect that BEIS and POL’s delay is having on our clients is starkly
demonstrated by the case of Heather Williams, from Birkenhead, who
gave evidence in Leeds on 9th March 2022. She spoke to Mr Enright on 1
December 2022. She told Mr Enright that shortly after the announcement
of the GLO scheme she was informed by Freeths, on a Friday, that she
would receive a very significant sum by way of an interim payment.
However, on the following Monday she was told that she would receive
nothing because she is in an IVA. Ms Williams’s debt in respect of the IVA
is less than £2,000.
9. Ms Williams has very little money. Her accounts with her electricity and
her gas providers are £2,000 in arrears. She is very worried that her power
supply will be cut off. Consequently, she does not heat her home and only
eats every other day, often only a Pot Noodle. Three weeks ago, Ms
Williams had a bad fall at home, because she was tired and weak from not
having eaten. During this time she says that she was ‘in so much pain, cold,
hungry and all alone.’ She was unable to get up from the floor for over 2
days. She finally managed to crawl to where her phone was, but it was out
of charge. Luckily her charger was in reach and she was able to call for an
ambulance. She remains in hospital. She says that she is desperate to
receive an interim payment, which would ‘sort out all of my problems’. She
has still received no compensation.
10.We have prepared a schedule of comments from 31 SPM core
participants, who have asked that their comments as to how the delays in
compensation have affected them are put before the Inquiry. We refer the
Inquiry to that schedule.
11.The Inquiry may recall that at the hearing on 6 July 2022 Mr Stein set out
the position of some of our clients as follows. We have taken further
instructions from those same clients in anticipation of this hearing :
Marion Drydale said (in July): I have sold my jewellery, used my
inheritance, cashed in my pension. Every day is filled with uncertainty, a
dread of more bills I cannot pay. In December she says: / fee! guilty that I
am one of the lucky ones. I received an interim payment unlike many of
my colleagues. I had been on the verge of losing my home and the interim
payment saved me from that. I still have other debts to pay. The interim
payment has just given me a breathing space, nothing more. I have no
idea where I would have gone had I lost my home. I am in my early sixties.
! would still be running my business today had this not happened. The
money that I received has not made up for the 12 years of struggle. People
are still saying things about me now in my community. The whole matter
continues to haunt me. We all need full and fair compensation now to end
this nightmare.
Peter Worsfold said (in July) that he has still not been able to repay his 94
year old mother for bailing him out when PO demanded money for
shortfalls in 2002. He said that he visits the supermarket at 4pm when
they put short dated items out at reduced prices. In December he says
that he has received interim compensation and it helped pay some debts.
He is concerned that receiving compensation in dribs and drabs means
that he and other SPMs cannot invest and receive income to look forward
to old age. He effectively lost 20 years of business income. He tells us that
the compensation he received did not touch the sides of what he has lost.
He has struggled desperately to avoid bankruptcy as a single father with
3 children. This included working 6am to 10pm seven days a week for
9
SUBS0000014
SUBS0000014
many years. Today, he remains dependent on his state pension and
depends on his son for financial help. He is still living hand to mouth and
is afraid to spend the remainder of the compensation that he has
received. He says that the Government’s continued reticence to pay full
compensation just prolongs the agony and it seems like a never-ending
saga. He concludes by saying: While we have debts these debts have to
be serviced and the longer these protracted negotiations on compensation
take the further in debt we sink.
e Faisal Aziz told us in July that he was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.
He worried that he would not be able to feed his 5 children. InDecember
he instructs that he has received an interim payment, but that this will
only keep his family out of trouble for a couple of months. He says that
his children have started to repair their shoes with glue to try to save the
family money. As can be seen from the correspondence, the parlous
situation of the Aziz family was raised with BEIS months ago?
e Susan Hazzleton said in July: / am 69 years old in December and still work
4 days a week as I cannot afford to retire. We have also just had to put our
house on the market. In December Ms Hazzleton says that has not
received an interim payment. She is still working 4 days a week and her
house is on the market.
e Shazia Saddiq said in July: “The ounce of dignity I thought was remaining
is being eroded daily” .... I am so tired. At the age of 38 I feel like a
pensioner. The effect of POL’s actions have destroyed me.” In December
she says: I feel I am continuously sinking into a dark financial abyss on a
daily basis. I see no light at the end of the tunnel. I do not know if BEIS will
ever make good on what they took from me and my children. I did have
an interim payment, but it has really not helped that much. I still have an
appalling financial situation. I lost my job as a result of my history with the
post office becoming known to my employer. Iam temping at the moment
and I have to tell every employer that I was accused of taking money from
? Howe + Co letter to BEIS 27 June 2022
10
SUBS0000014
the Post Office. This was 8 years ago but continues to haunt every part of
my life. I just want BEIS to make good and do what they have promised.
12. There have been interim payments to many since the July hearings, but
they have varied in size and are not comparable with the overturned
conviction interim payments. However, the provision of interim payments
does not mask the fact that the substantive compensation process has not
been developed, settled and opened for application, which was what was
promised in July.
13.It remains the case that none of the GLO SPMs whose cases are deemed
complex have received any interim compensation. There are
approximately 60 such persons, some 15% of the GLO SPMs. They are the
most financially desperate SPMs. This is unacceptable and requires
immediate action. Suzanne Palmer’s case is one particular example that
typifies the inability of BEIS to act reasonably and expeditiously in a case
which ought to be treated as urgent.
14.Furthermore, many SPMs continue to face substantial prejudice in
achieving fair and reasonable compensation through BEIS’ and POL’s
refusal to provide funding for legal representation. We refer below to the
case of Julie Beisner, which illustrates the continuing injustices brought
about by the same inequalities of arms that characterised POL’s conduct
of the group litigation, and which was deprecated in the judgments of Mr
Justice Fraser.
15.In addition, there are many former SPMs who continue to experience
perverse delays and who consider that the failure of POL to act reasonably
amounts to an extension of the ill treatment that was meted out to them
during the worst of the Horizon scandal. Baljit Sethi provides a good
example of this kind of excessive and oppressive delay.
16.We also wish to draw the attention of the Inquiry to the fact that there are
some SPMs who do not fall within any of the schemes and have been
utterly failed by the compensation process. We will refer the Inquiry below
11
SUBS0000014
to the case of Sinead Rainey, who gave evidence in Belfast at the Human
Impact hearings.
17. There are 4 cases, in particular, to which we draw the Inquiry’s attention:
Baljit Sethi
18.Mr Baljit Sethi appeared before the Inquiry on 14 February 2022. The
Inquiry will recall that Mr Sethi was the first witness to give in—person
evidence as part of the Human Impact Hearings. Mr Sethi was the
subpostmaster of Harold Park Post Office from 1983 until around 2003 and
in 2001 Mr Sethi took on the Kings Road Post Office in Essex. Mr Sethi
experienced shortfalls which he ascribed to problems in the Horizon
system. Mr Sethi exhibited a contemporaneous newspaper article to his
witness statement in which he specifically laid fault to the Horizon system.
As a result of those faults, Mr Sethi lost his business and subsequently
became bankrupt.
19.During his evidence, Mr Sethi told the Inquiry that he had made an
application under the HSS in February 2020, but that he had not received
any response until 10 February 2022, just before he was scheduled to give
evidence. He received a questionnaire which set out some 68 questions (in
fact, over 100 questions including sub-questions).
20.During his evidence Mr Sethi accounted his experience of the HSS and he
told the Inquiry.
Q. “When did you make the application?
A. Two years back, sir, in February 2020.
Q. February 2020?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you receive a reply of substance from the Post Office?
A. Unfortunately, sir, I have not received a single substantial reply. Every three
months, I write to my MP. She writes to the Post Office and they come with a
stereotype statement Mr and Mrs Sethi, we got 2,500 applications, so you're not
the only one, please have patience and we will come back to you". This is the only
12
SUBS0000014
reply I've received in the last two years. But just last Thursday, after sitting on that
for two years, now they have come back to me saying we want you to answer these
100 questions. I mean, I've suffered for 20 years. I need help from my children. I'm
nearing 70. I will not live long. I ask my children to help me. They got their own
lives, they got their own children. Now, they want me to fill 100 questions to
answer. Do you think this is fair, sir?
Q. Is that the first time they have asked you for that information?
A. Yes, sir, but before that whatever information, when we put in for Historical
Shortfall, they have asked me so many questions which we have answered and they
keep repeating the same questions. The last time I wrote to them and I said, "You
know, these questions, which you have asked me now again after six months, I
already sent you this six months back", and then they came back to me saying, "Oh,
sorry, there are lots of people dealing with this, so that person was dealing has
mislaid it, the case has come to me new, so I need now reply from you". This like
passing the buck from you to him, him to her, which will be never ending. Even if I
answer these 100 questions tomorrow, some bright geezer might get up tomorrow
and say, "Oh, Mr Sethi, you know what, now people have changed, could you
please answer those 100 questions again"
Q. Looking at the questions generally, I'm not going to go through them, are you
in a position now 20 years on to answer lots of them?
A. Not really, sir, because the questions they are asking me: when you bought the
Post Office, they know it, those are some of the typical questions; how much you
invested; when you bought it; how much was the surplus; how much was the
shortage. I mean, all this information is held by the Post Office. They are just
wasting time, just to prolong the things and if this goes on, I think I'll be dead and
gone and we'll never get anything from the Post Office.
Q. You say in your statement that you are deeply worried that you or your wife will
die before you achieve any form of justice or meaningful compensation; is that the
case?
A. Yes, sir”
21.Despite the evidence given by Mr Sethi, which was widely reported in the
television, radio and print media, Mr Sethi, to date, still, has not received
a substantive response to his application let alone an offer of any
13
SUBS0000014
compensation under the HSS some 34 months on from when Mr Sethi
submitted his initial application.
22.Despite having completed and returned the form and having sent five
chasing letters, Mr Sethi still has no compensation, no substantive
response, and no indication as to when he might ever get one. The only
acknowledgment that he has received since he gave evidence before the
Inquiry was a letter from POL confirming that it was ‘mindful of the time
taken in our case’ and that ‘each case is unique, we cannot confirm
timeframes’.
23.Mr Sethi feels that he is in a never-ending cycle and that the Post Office is
being deliberately obstructive. He is frightened that he will eventually
receive a derisory offer and may have to engage in a long-protracted
dispute after 20 years of fighting for a just outcome. We refer the Inquiry
to Mr Sethi’s witness statement of 30 November 2022, in which Mr Sethi
conveys some of the anxiety and outrage that these continuing delays are
causing.
Suzanne Palmer
24.Ms Palmer provides a clear example of POL refusing to act in a so-called
‘complex case’. We refer the Inquiry to her witness statement dated 30
November 2022.
25.Ms Palmer was prosecuted by POL for alleged shortfalls and acquitted by
a jury on all charges. Following the Chair’s Compensation Update report,
Ms Palmer anticipated that she would receive an award of interim
compensation in line with awards that have been sent to those who were
convicted.
26.However, and as the Chair is aware from Howe + Co’s letters of 12 and 14
September 2022, BEIS confirmed at that time that they would not comply
with the Chair’s recommendation on SPMs who were prosecuted and
14
SUBS0000014
acquitted. Ms Palmer has received no compensation for that prosecution
as recommended by the Chair. This matter also affected our client,
Maureen McKelvey.
27. Further, Ms Palmer was also informed by BEIS that her case is deemed
complex because she was made bankrupt in 2015, albeit that she was
discharged in 2016. It is now understood that BEIS takes the view that Ms
Palmer’s trustee in bankruptcy may assert that it has a right to some or all
the compensation that Ms Palmer may receive.
28.At a meeting on 22 November 2022 that BEIS called with bankrupt SPMs
(to which legal representatives were not invited), BEIS gave Ms Palmer and
other of our SPM clients four options as to how to proceed. BEIS informed
the SPMs present that she could receive 100% of the interim
compensation and run the risk of being sued by the Trustee.
29.Alternatively, Ms Palmer was advised that she could bring a claim against
the Trustee. Otherwise, she was told that she could agree to accept only
51% of the interim award, with the remainder to go to the Trustee. Finally,
she was presented with an option to agree to forego interim compensation
altogether and wait for the announcement of the Stage 2 compensation
scheme, for which there is no commencement date.
30.It would appear that the imminence of the hearing on 8 December 2022
has led to BEIS agreeing to pay 51% of any interim award to Ms Palmer in
the event that the Trustee does/ or did not respond to BEIS by 25
November 2022. Ms Palmer states in her witness statement that she feels
that she was not presented with any real choices, but also that the delay
in resolving the matter has been unreasonable.
31.Regrettably, since the drafting of her statement Ms Palmer has been
contacted by the Trustee in bankruptcy who has informed her that no
agreement has been reached between BEIS and her Trustee and that the
Trustee is currently seeking legal advice. A copy of that email of 1
15
December 2022 has been provided to the solicitor to the Inquiry and is
contained in our accompanying bundle of evidence.
32.Ms Palmer lives in a state of financial peril. She has no running hot water
and she and her husband boil kettles for washing and cleaning purposes.
She does not understand what is going on in relation to interim
compensation for her and other “complex” cases. For her there is no
prospect of any compensation for the foreseeable future.
33.We understand that the Inquiry will seek clarification from BEIS and
Freeths on the pressing issue of interim compensation for those SPMs who
were made bankrupt.
Julie Beisner
34.Whilst unrepresented, Ms Beisner made an application to the HSS scheme
seeking £502.46 including VAT, for a shortfall that Ms Beisner was able to
evidence. The HSS offered to pay her that sum, clearly without reviewing
any other potential losses or heads of claim.
35.Howe + Co has reviewed Ms Beisner’s circumstances and evidence and
assessed the value of her claim at £176,862.46. In our submission, there
were heads of claim that should have been obvious to the HSS, which the
unrepresented Ms Beisner understandably did not contemplate.
36.Quite clearly the offer Mrs Beisner received did not reflect the harm, loss
and mental anguish she suffered. The Inquiry may recall that on 16 March
2022, Ms Beisner told the Inquiry in her oral evidence that she still suffers
from nightmares as a consequence of her experiences with the Horizon
system.
37.Due to the lack of provision for legal advice in the first instance when
applying to the HSS, Mrs Beisner did not know she could and indeed should
16
SUBS0000014
SUBS0000014
be entitled to compensation for the distress she suffered, and other
obvious heads of loss. This is a matter that the HSS and Post Office say they
are well able to identify and address in offers under the scheme; but they
do not.
38.Mr Beisner’s application to the HSS provides a stark example of the
scheme failing to identify and make an award in relation to an obvious
head of loss that an unrepresented SPM makes. Although there were a
series of obvious heads of loss under which Ms Beisner should have been
made offers, one in particular stands out and is stark.
39.As detailed in her Rule 9 statement and evidence before the Inquiry on 16
March 2022, Ms Beisner was the Subpostmaster (Subpostmistress) of the
North Kilworth branch from May 1996 until February 2021. She suffered
severe problems arising from the Horizon system and Post Office Limited’s
failure to address those issues, which she detailed in her written and oral
evidence.
40.The initial HSS offer failed to account for distress and inconvenience.
However, Post Office Limited was fully aware of the exceptional distress
and inconvenience that had been caused to Ms Beisner by the conduct of
POL, in particular because Ms Beisner lived under the threat of criminal or
civil action against her by POL for at least a year. This is because, as she set
out in her evidence, she continued to be at risk of criminal or civil action
from 17 February 2021 (date of final audit) until 26 May 2022.
41. Ms Beisner suffered exceptional distress and inconvenience as a result of
specific actions of the Post Office, which are fully evidenced, of which the
Post Office were aware and which the Post Office acknowledged and
addressed in part. Below are the relevant parts of our client’s evidence,
given on 16" March 2022 (transcript pages 18-21):
...And, you know, this £1,970, I'm still concerned and worried about it. I know the Post
Office are watching this and I would like to have written confirmation from them to be
17
SUBS0000014
sent to my legal representatives saying they will not be pursuing me for this alleged
shortfall of £1,970. I would like that in writing.
Q. Just to be clear, this audit occurred on 17 February of last year; is that right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. During that audit, a figure of £1,972 was said to be a loss found in your account?
A. Yes, £1,977, and I forget how many pence.
Q. Am I right to understand that has not yet been resolved as between you and the Post
Office?
A. That's correct. They said I had to sign off the accounts, otherwise I would not be able
to retire. They said that I needed to get in touch with Chesterfield and Chesterfield would
look into this and tell me what they thought. I did have a phone call from someone from
Chesterfield and they said, "Would you like to speak to someone? We've decided that
we're not going to pursue that. Would you like to speak to someone about it? I said, "Yes,
I'll speak to someone" and they said, "Oh, they're not available at the moment". And that
is all that I've had. I've got nothing in writing. If whoever it was who gave that verbal
assurance leaves that office, then what happens? I think it's disgusting. I really do. You
know, they say they have changed and yet this is not 2007, (connection breaking up) this
is 2021.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: If I've got the sequence right, Ms Beisner, apart from the time when
you went into the shop in order to arrange for surplus cash to be returned, the premises
had actually been closed for about a year —
A. Yes. SIR WYN WILLIAMS: -- and, within that year, you had done two balances which had
both been correct?
A. That's correct, yes, and premises are alarmed, Sir Wyn. No-one could walk in there.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Thank you.
MS HODGE: Please can you describe, Ms Beisner, how it made you feel to experience this
audit in February 2021?
A. Well, to be honest, I still have nightmares about it because, you know, I'm worried
they are still going to come after me for money. What good is a verbal assurance from
someone who doesn't come to the phone to speak to you? My experience of using
Horizon, it's just been absolutely harrowing and, you know, I wish I'd never become a
subpostmaster. I just wish I'd never decided to start to work for such a corrupt and
uncaring organisation who puts profits before people.
42.Following our client’s testimony to the Inquiry, Howe + Co made
representations to Post Office Limited dated 3 May 2022, calling on the
18
SUBS0000014
Post Office to confirm, in writing, that it would not take criminal or civil
action against her for the alleged shortfall.
43.0n 27 May 2022, Howe + Co received confirmation from Post Office
Limited that it would not take action (criminal or civil) to recover this
disputed shortfall. In a letter addressed to our client, the Post Office
stated:
I write further to correspondence received from your legal
representatives, Howe+Co on 3rd May 2022 and also further to the
evidence you gave to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry on 16th
March 2022. During your evidence, you raised the alleged
discrepancy shortfall of £1,970.49 which had been identified during
the North Kilworth branch closure audit on 17th February 2021.
I have been made aware that you requested during your evidence
that, following the oral assurance I was able to provide during my
telephone message of 29th March 2022, you would also appreciate
confirmation in writing that Post Office would not be seeking
recovery of the alleged shortfall.
I apologise for the delay in sending this letter and hope that you will
please accept it as formal written confirmation that Post Office will
not be taking any action to recover the alleged shortfall.
1am sorry to hear from your evidence about the upset you have
been caused and hope that this letter will assist by providing you
with some reassurance.
44.It was therefore clear, and fully evidenced, that our client experienced
exceptional distress and inconvenience as a direct result of her wholly
reasonable concern that Post Office Limited would take criminal or civil
action against her in respect of the disputed shortfall arising from the final
19
audit; and that this threat hung over her for well over a year, and was only
resolved as a result of her giving evidence to a Public Inquiry.
45.This head of loss should have been known to the HSS, as it was obvious
from its records in relation to our client. As such, an offer under this
heading should have been made in the first instance. It was not.
46.The conduct of the HSS demonstrates that Post Office Limited cannot be
trusted to deal fairly with the claims of unrepresented subpostmasters.
Further, the statements published by Post Office Ltd regarding the number
of offers made to subpostmasters must be viewed through the lens that
many offers, if not most or all (in relation to subpostmasters who were
unrepresented) are far below what is reasonable and appropriate, and fail
to take into account ordinary and foreseeable heads of claim.
Sinead Rainey
47.Ms Rainey is a Core Participant in the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, who
gave evidence to the Inquiry in Belfast on 18 May 2022.
48.In her witness statement, Ms Rainey states that in 2016 she was
approached to buy a Spar shop from Martin Henry, who was the
designated subpostmaster. Our client had previously worked in this shop
for Mr Henry, who was retiring. Our client purchased her shop for
£16,000.00 and renovated the shop with a loan of £20,000.00. She spent
£10,000.00 on stock. When our client took ownership of the shop and the
post office business, Mr Henry retired, but continued to hold the title of
subpostmaster.
49.On 1 May 2019 an audit was conducted by Post Office. The auditors who
attended the branch asked for Mr Henry. Ms Rainey contacted the post
20
SUBS0000014
SUBS0000014
master, who came to the branch and spoke with the auditor, but she was
not present during these discussions. Our client was subsequently
informed that there was a shortfall of £63,000.00. She was told by Post
Office auditors that she was liable to repay the sum of £63,000.00.
50.Ms Rainey says that she went into complete shock. She rushed home to
collect any and all money she could find. Her parents, uncles and sister all
gave everything they had or could withdraw from the bank that day, in
order to help her. The Inquiry may recall that our client took all the monies
that she had managed to collect, including the contents of her children’s
savings boxes and content of her purse, back to the post office branch ina
bucket. She passed those monies over to the auditors, which added up to
more than £42,000.00. The auditors counted out those monies in front of
her, accepted those monies against the shortfall of £63,000.00.
51.Mr Rainey was not part of the Group Litigation. Neither did she face
prosecution, although she was threatened with it and subject to police
investigation. She has suffered significant financial loss as a consequence
of a historic shortfall and additionally has suffered from considerable
mental health difficulties as a consequence of the behaviour of the Post
Office towards her.
52.Ms Rainey, quite naturally made an application to the Historic Shortfall
Scheme, but was notified by letter dated 15 October 2020 that POL do not
consider that her claim falls within the scope of the Scheme as it appears
that she did not have a direct contract with the Post Office at the time of
the shortfall losses.
53.There should be no doubt that notwithstanding that Ms Rainey may not
have had a contract, she was the de facto SPM and in demanding £63,000
POL accepted the same and considered that she was liable for the shortfall.
We have written to HSS to urge that they exercise a discretion to admit Ms
Rainey to the scheme. She is just as much a victim of the Horizon scandal
as any other SPM who did sign a contract.
21
SUBS0000014
Overturned Conviction Cases
54.0n 21 July 2021 the Government announced a compensation scheme for
subpostmasters who had been wrongly convicted.
55.As set out in Howe + Co’s letter to POL of 27 November 2022, there has
been some progress on compensation for overturned conviction cases.
There have been interim payments in many cases, but not all.
56.We would remind the Chair of the evidence of Marion Holmes (the widow
of Peter Holmes, whose conviction was quashed posthumously) on 9
March 2022 (transcript pages 76 - 77) where she detailed how the Post
Office had looked for any reasons not to provide compensation to SPMs
and had only agreed to provide her with interim compensation once they
heard that she was scheduled to give evidence before the Inquiry. She said:
... They're doing basically what the Post Office are very good at: spending
money, other people's money, to try and dig themselves out of a hole.
I think I heard one lady say that she had been turned down because it wasn't
the Horizon System. I was turned down because I hadn't got the right probate.
The JFSA are turned down, they're frightened that the backers will want more
money. They're just finding loopholes
It's now March and ......they only said that I could have compensation because
he said I was coming here today and I would be talking about it and, suddenly,
oh, I'm getting compensation. But that was two weeks, nearly three weeks ago,
and I still -- you know, they're just fighting it and they shouldn't be, you know.
57.It is right to say also that there has been an early neutral evaluation
process undertaken by Lord Dyson in relation to non-pecuniary damages.
58.Nevertheless, 16 months on from the July 2021 announcement there is
still no scheme or process to which wrongly convicted subpostmasters can
apply.
22
59.The “development” of a scheme has caused exceptional delay, and this
delay and the lack of any scheme actually acts as a form of ‘shield’ for POL
and BEIS. The delay, obfuscation and lack of progress in failing to design
and implement a scheme has perversely provided POL with a means of
evading its duties to act fairly in relation to the allegations of malicious
prosecution, in respect of which there can be no realistic defence. It is
wholly unreasonable that POL continues to ‘drag its heels’ and continually
fails to provide compensation to the victims.
60.In the absence of an agreed process, affected SPMs could simply take the
risk and commence action; but that would involve a risk of incurring
substantial costs and the uncertainties that are inherent in litigation.
61.As detailed in Howe + Co’s letter to POL of 27 November 2022, these
matters are inherently capable of resolution. All that is needed is the will
or direction, from the Chair in an interim report, that this be done.
Failure to identify and assist victims of unlawful prosecutions, who have yet to
come forward.
62.Thus far, somewhere over 100 SPMs and others have had their convictions
overturned. In fact, on 8 November 2022, Howe + Co’s client Mr Robert
Thompson was the first SPM to have his conviction referred by the Scottish
Criminal Cases Review Board. However, it is generally agreed that many
hundreds of other SPMs and Managers are also entitled to have their
convictions overturned.
63.Of course, until those persons are found, and convictions reviewed and
overturned, they can access no compensation schemes at all.
64. There is real concern that hundreds of SPMs, who were wrongfully
convicted, are languishing under the weight of those convictions,
continuing to experience the harms caused by those wrongful convictions,
23
SUBS0000014
and therefore barred from vindication, justice and compensation to which
they are entitled.
65.It is possible to speculate at the reasons why SPMs have not come forward.
They may be dead, like Peter Holmes and others. They may simply not
know that they can challenge their convictions. They may be so bowed
down by their experiences that they cannot countenance the difficult and
time-consuming process of challenging their conviction.
66.We say that it is for POL and BEIS to establish a team to seek out those
whose convictions could be challenged, and to take every step to assist
them in that process.
67.It may be that SPMs simply would not trust POL or BEIS, in which case other
means could be sought, such as POL and BEIS funding a team at the
Criminal Cases Review Commission to seek out and assist SPMs.
68.Whatever the methodology, something must be done and done urgently
to undo the national injustice that was visited upon hundreds of people of
good standing across the United Kingdom.
Recommendations sought
69. Our clients continue to suffer grave difficulties in accessing compensation
through the three schemes.
70.We submit that obfuscation and delay continue and, as such, the
appropriate course for the Inquiry to take is to deliver an Interim Report
containing specific recommendations under s24(3) of the Inquiries Act
2005.
24
SUBS0000014
SUBS0000014
71.We ask for the following recommendations:
Resolution of Complex cases / bankruptcy issues
72.Firstly, that the SPMs whose cases have been deemed ‘complex due to
bankruptcy and insolvency issues must be prioritised, and that a way
forward must be found now to enable interim payments to be made to
these SPMs before Christmas. It should not be lost on the Inquiry, having
heard the Human Impact evidence between February and May 2022, that
in the vast majority of cases bankruptcies arose from Horizon scandal and
the appalling actions of POL, thus the supposed obstacle to making
payments (bankruptcy and IVA) are the fault and responsibility of POL and
BEIS.
73.The experience of Suzanne Palmer is illustrative of the need for an interim
report and recommendation. BEIS refused to give force to the Chair’s
recommendation on SPMs who were prosecuted and acquitted. A
traumatised and financially straitened SPM was advised by BEIS that she
may have to take legal action against her Trustee or that she may, in turn
may be sued by her Trustee. It should be obvious that these are matters
that BEIS/ POL should resolve. It is not reasonable of those institutions to
seek to place burdens on the victims of this scandal.
74.Those SPMs who have been made bankrupt or insolvent are, in many
cases, those who are in the most desperate financial situations. We note
that BEIS has stated in its 17 November 2022 ‘Post Office Horizon:
Compensation and Costs Update’ that: ‘We have been working with the
Insolvency Service to establish the best way of ensuring that each
postmaster who has a bankruptcy of IVA receives as much of their interim
payment as possible. We will continue to strive to ensure that interim
payments are made as soon as possible to all eligible postmasters.’
75.However, those assurances should not deter the Inquiry from acting on
the problem. The delays have been unacceptable to our clients, who are
25
highly anxious that this troubling matter forms part of the subject matter
of the Chair’s Interim Report.
76.0n 1 December 2022 our client Sue Palmer (a GLO SPM whose case has
been deemed to be complex) clients received two emails. The first email
was from Freeths Solicitors (the firm BEIS contracted with to deliver the
interim compensation scheme). Our client has asked us to share this
communication with the Inquiry. The email is confusing to our client. It
appears that the Trustee has not agreed to Freeths releasing the whole of
her payment and is seeking the advice of counsel, which they will receive
in or around mid-December 2022. Freeths say that they cannot resolve this
matter without going to court with the Trustee. Freeths suggest that they
will release 51% of the portion of the interim payment that relates to her
losses in the week commencing 5" December unless Ms Palmer does not
wish to receive any interim payment. On the same day she received
another email from her Trustee to say, in effect, that nothing has been
agreed.
BEIS to design and implement a GLO Compensation Scheme as a matter of
immediate priority
77. Secondly, that BEIS designs and implements a fully formed GLO
compensation scheme forthwith to give effect to the decision taken by the
Government on 22 March 2022, when the Chancellor announced:
A new funding scheme that will ensure postmasters who played a
crucial role in uncovering the Post Office Horizon IT scandal receive
their fair share of compensation
78.\t is notable that over 8 months have passed since the Government’s
announcement, and despite various meetings, correspondence and
submissions there is still no scheme, nor any prospect of a scheme being
finalised and opened to applications until at least well into 2023.
26
SUBS0000014
79.From the outset, BEIS has made it clear that there is a hard stop date to
the ex-gratia scheme. Accordingly, all compensation payments must be
made by 8 August 2024.
80.In a meeting with BEIS on 14 November 2022 Howe + Co once again
advised BEIS that the delay in designing and implementing a scheme is
creating a real risk that complex high value claims may not be finalised in
this relatively short time frame.
81.The reasons for these concerns are inter alia as follows:
(i) BEIS has failed to agree to make provision for SPMs’ reasonable legal
costs to undertake work to prepare applications in advance of the
scheme opening;
(ii) BEIS has failed to agree that SPMs legal representatives can instruct
appropriate experts now to assist in the development of claims;
(iii) BEIS has failed to agree that provision will be made for SPMs to have
the benefit of counsel’s advice on the development of their claims and
for advice on quantum, and
(iv) BEIS advises that the scheme will not be open to applications until the
“spring” of 2023.
82. Howe + Co, in their letter of 26 November 2022, have set out two
obvious options to resolve this impasse. They are:
(i) I That BEIS authorises, and agrees to make provision for, those
representing the overwhelming majority of GLO SPMss to begin
work to develop their clients’ cases in the normal way, including
an agreement that they may instruct experts and counsel where
deemed necessary (by the SPMs’ legal representatives). This
could be done immediately, and in this way, claims could be
developed now, so that they are as ready as possible to be
submitted as soon as the scheme is opened for applications.
27
SUBS0000014
(ii) I Alternatively, that BEIS agrees to meet the legal representatives
of GLO SPMs to thrash out the full detail of a scheme in, for
example, a two-day face to face meeting, with the assistance of
a mediator and perhaps with an observer attendee from the
Inquiry’s team. The venue could be the International Dispute
Resolution Centre, where most of relevant parties have been in
attendance since February of this year. All that is needed to
facilitate this is for BEIS to agree to make provision for the
preparatory and attendance costs associated for SPMs’ legal
representatives, and for BEIS to appoint a person or persons
capable of authorising agreement.
83. The lack of any GLO scheme or process causes very real concerns for our
clients. BEIS has, to date, failed to take the steps that we have suggested
to resolve matters. Accordingly, we ask that the Inquiry uses the powers
at its disposal to resolve this issue, which has been vitally important to our
clients since we first raised the matter in correspondence in October 2021.
BEIS to give effect to Chair’s recommendations on interim compensation for
those SPMs who were prosecuted and acquitted
84 Thirdly, that BEIS gives effect to the recommendation of the Chair in the
August update in relation to full interim payments for SPMs who were
acquitted, such as our clients Suzanne Palmer and Maureen McKelvey and
the small number of other affected SPMs (said to be 15 by BEIS). These
recommendations are set out at paragraphs 159 to 161 of the August
Update, where the Chair stated:
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 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
28
SUBS0000014
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
29
SUBS0000014
SUBS0000014
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. (emphasis added)
85.We note that on 17 November 2022 BEIS stated ina ‘Post Office Horizon:
Compensation and Costs Update’ that “ We have accepted the force of Sir
Wyn Williams’ observations about interim compensation for acquitted GLO
members and will make additional interim payments where necessary to
bring them more closely in line with the arrangements under the Historical
Shortfall Scheme.”
86.However, there is a subtle difference between accepting the force of the
observations and agreeing to implement them where necessary as
opposed to agreeing do so in a timely manner. The fact is that BEIS did fail
to implement the Chair’s recommendation and Ms Palmer and Ms
McKelvey have been denied the interim compensation that they otherwise
would have received had BEIS followed this important recommendation.
We submit that, for completeness and in the best interests of our clients
and many others, this matter should form part of the Interim Report of the
Chair.
BEIS to provide funding for representation of SPMs to enable preparation of
applications with requisite close care and attention, so as to mitigate ongoing
delay.
87.Fourthly, we ask that the Chair recommends that funding is made available
to SPMs’ lawyers to assist SPMS, so that they can instruct experts and
counsel as they see fit, and so that that can prepare applications in relation
to the three schemes.
30
SUBS0000014
88.This would enable claims to be processed relatively quickly as experienced
lawyers in all claims, and particularly in high value complex cases, would
be able to apply close care and attention to the detailed issues of
understanding all the relevant strands of a client’s loss, to the important
matter of disclosure (a matter with which POL has demonstrated to the
Inquiry it has problems), to the instruction of experts (e.g. psychiatric,
forensic accountants, property valuers, loss of business assessors), to the
assessment of full and fair payments and to the instruction of counsel
(where appropriate).
89.By way of an example the ex-gratia compensation scheme was announced
on 30 June 2022. Since then, Howe + Co have been pressing BEIS to agree
to the proposals above so that they could commence working up their
clients’ claims in anticipation of a scheme being open for applications. This
would enable the best use of time to be made and claims expeditiously
progressed. Asa result of a failure by BEIS to agree, over 5 months have
been lost and there is still no clear agreement that BEIS will facilitate those
representing SPMs to develop claims.
90. The recommendation that we seek would enable genuine progress to be
made in processing and resolving claims and would go a long way towards
mitigating the effects of the delays that have blighted the issue of
compensation thus far.
Overturned Convictions Scheme (phase 2) and the GLO Compensation Scheme
are not to be modelled on HSS Scheme.
91.Fifthly, we ask that the Chair recommends that the Overturned
Convictions Scheme (phase 2) and the GLO Compensation Scheme contain
the facility for full legal representation at all stages and an option for
clients who wish to dispute an offer or otherwise request a review to do
so by way of oral hearing as opposed to paper consideration.
92.We have assisted for a number of clients in advancing and pursuing HSS
claims. It has been our experience that applicants under the HSS Scheme
31
SUBS0000014
feel powerless and disadvantaged throughout the process. They feel that
they have little or no input into any of the assessments and are unable to
interrogate any of the findings or issues through full legal representation
or the ability to obtain their own evidence or reports.
93.It is inevitable that a victim of injustice or abuse will have significant issues
trusting in any scheme which is organised by or at the behest of the abuser
of perpetrator of the injustice. The multi-layered, over-bureaucratic
approach taken in the HSS does nothing to dispel those trust issues.
94.We ask that the Phase 2 Overturned Convictions Schemes and the GLO
Compensation Scheme, when designed, should empower rather than
disempower the victims of this scandal. The provision of full access to
lawyers, funding for experts and the ability to be heard at an oral hearing
will win back a degree of trust in the compensation arrangements, which
has been wanting in the HSS Scheme. Accordingly, we seek
recommendations to this effect.
95.We wish to add that the delay by BEIS in bringing forward the Overturned
Conviction Scheme is starting to detract from the very benefits that any
such scheme may have to those SPMs whose convictions have been
overturned.
96.Many of our clients have pointed out, quite reasonably, that they would
have been in a better position had they simply brought claims in the civil
courts after the judgment of the Court of Appeal in April 2021 rather than
waiting for BEIS to design a scheme. It is clear that BEIS delays are
adversely affecting the delivery of the compensation that has been
promised in Ministerial statements. Our clients say that enough is enough.
We ask that the Inquiry takes a robust approach in responding to these
unacceptable delays.
32
Restorative Justice
97.
98.
99.
Following our submissions on compensation, we turn to the related issue
of restorative justice.
Whilst subpostmasters such as Heather Williams, struggle to find money
to heat their homes and to eat, their primary focus will be on
compensation to provide shelter, food and warmth. Once, hopefully,
those matters have been addressed they will naturally wish also to recover
their dignity, self-respect and good name, that was also taken from them
by Post Office Limited.
The Inquiry will recall that Mr Stein KC made submissions on the need for
a restorative justice process in his opening statement to the Inquiry on 13"
October 2022. In response Post Office, via Ms Gallafent KC, purported to
adopt and welcome our submissions. She said:
“Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of
postmasters represented by Howe + Co, Post Office invites any
postmaster who would like to meet a senior member of Post Office
and receive a personal apology, to contact Post Office via Mr Read
in order for that to be arranged.”
Howe + Co raised this offer with Mr Read (CEO of Post Office Limited) in a
letter of 18 October. However, Mr Read responded on 1 November and, in
effect, rejected any meaningful restorative justice process.
It should be obvious that, contrary to the position taken by Mr Read, the
perpetrator cannot be permitted to seize control of and dictate a
restorative justice process; and how and when and in what terms an
apology should be offered to a victim.
33
SUBS0000014
100.We call upon the Post Office and their owners, the Department of
Business, establish and implement a full restorative justice process.
101. We submit that such a process should not be limited to meetings so that
harms visited on subpostmasters can be acknowledged and apologies
tendered - but that the process should additionally include the
establishment of a restorative justice fund established, separate from
compensation payments, that will provide for matters including:
a) ongoing psychiatric and counselling support for subpostmasters and
their families;
b) bursaries to assist with the retraining of subpostmasters and for the
education of their children whose education was disrupted by this
scandal;
c) a tangible memorial scheme to mark this largest miscarriage of
justice in British legal history; that sympathetically records the
experiences of subpostmasters and how profoundly they and their
communities were failed by this scandal;
d) restitution and restoration of reputation: In many cases
subpostmasters’ reputations were traduced in their local
communities and regionally. Subpostmasters’ reputations must also
be restored within their own local communities through engagement
with those communities and the local press; and
e) an entrepreneurial fund.
102. Subpostmasters, the victims of this scandal, were important small
businesspeople and entrepreneurs in communities throughout the United
Kingdom. They not only provided vital services to those communities but
also employment for others. They also generated profits for their own
benefit and the benefit of their families and, via taxation, for the public
purse.
103. Many, with the right support, would once again embark upon business,
creating employment for themselves, their families and for others in their
communities, providing services in communities across the country and
34
SUBS0000014
contributing to the public purse via taxation from the profits generated
from their hard work.
104.We submit that restorative justice must also be tangible and ongoing. This
scandal cries out for a restorative justice process, and we urge Post Office
Limited and BEIS to volunteer to engage in its creation, or, in the
alternative for the Inquiry to recommend such a process and fund.
105.This is not a unique or unusual submission to make in a public inquiry
context. Similar restorative justice schemes have been canvassed in the
Grenfell Tower Inquiry and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual
Abuse has recently published recommendations which make provision for
restorative justice.
Conclusion
106. We will make further submissions and respond to those advanced on
behalf of other Core Participants at the hearing on 8 December 2022.
107.We repeat our earlier submission to the effect that insufficient progress
has been made on the vitally important compensation issues which
surround the Post Office Horizon scandal. We strongly submit that that the
Chair should deliver an Interim Report.
108.However, we must reiterate that our clients are anxious to ensure that the
Inquiry continues to monitor the progress of the compensation schemes
through conducting regular hearings focus on progress on compensation.
SAM STEIN KC
CHRISTOPHER JACOBS
HOWE + CO
2 December 2022
35
SUBS0000014