UKGI00008704
UKGI00008704
38
POST OFFICE
Flaw
[govexing
‘TRIAL pitting 560 sub-postmasters
against the Post Office in the high
I court last week opened with the remarkable
I revelation that executives knew of flaws in I
IT system that could see dozens of people
convi icted, but covered them up.
The sub-postmasters are claiming they
were variou ked, sued and in son
cases imprisoned over shortfalls in their funds
that they say were caused by the Horizon
computer system. The Post Office has long
responded that the IT is entirely reliable
(Eyes passim). In 2015 chief executive Paula
Vennells even told a committee of MPs that
“we can continue to have confidence in the
I Horizon system”. Yet internal documents
I show that the Post Office already knew of
serious flaws.
Papers from late 2012 show that senior
managers discussed discrepancies and
mismatches thrown up by Horizon that were
at that point “impacting circa 40 branches”.
But they reckoned that any admission of the
problem could “cause
I loss of confidence
in the system”, have
a “potential impact
on the ongoing legal
cases” and “provide
I branches ammunition
I to blame Horizon for
future discrepancies”.
So — despite the
risk of injustice ~ they kept the matter secret,
Thirty people with criminal convictions based
on the evidence of the Horizon system still
languish in a backlog at the Criminal Cases
I Review Commission.
I In-court last week the Post Office’s counsel,
David Cavender QC, maintained the Post
Office’s unequivocal stance: “What it comes
down to is: we say Horizon is reliable and
I when Horizon says there is a shortfall, there is
I a shortfall.”
‘The supposed infallibility of the IT system
took a further blow with the appearance in:court
ofa memo from as far back as 2009. A Post
Office manager described a visit to a branch
and reported: “The balances are a mess (in
pre-Horizon times the postmistress virtually
achieved a clean balance every week)... she
keeps getting promises of attention ~ but
nothing is being done.” The memo then adds in I
I bold: “It is Horizon-related.”
I The case, which could ultimately cost
the Post Office hundreds of millions of
pounds, has profound implications. Cavender
speculated that “if {the claimants} were
right in the broad thrust of their case, this
would represent an existential threat to Post
Office’s ability to continue to carry on its
business throughout the UK in the way it
currently does”. In his view, by placing any
responsibility for discrepancies on the Post
Office, the sub-postmasters were seeking to
{ura an arm’s-length business relationship
I between the tvo “into some kind of quasi-
I employment status”,
When it suits the Post Office, the
relationship is far more intimate. “Every year.”
wrote Vennells in her last annual report, “Tam
reminded of the dedication and sheer hard work
of our postmasters and colleagues, serving our
customers day in, day out.” When it comes
to addressing their concerns over what they
consider false accusations of dishonesty and
consequent financial ruin, they're clearly no
longer “our” people.