WITN11790100
WITN11790100
Witness Name: Sir Ross Cranston
Statement No. WITN11790100
Dated: 30 October 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF SIR ROSS FREDERICK CRANSTON
I, SIR ROSS FREDERICK CRANSTON, of Three Verulam Buildings, Gray's Inn,
London, WC1R 5NT, independent reviewer for the Group Litigation Order
Compensation Scheme (the GLO Scheme), WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1 I make this statement in response to the request for evidence pursuant to
Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 dated 4 October 2024 (the Rule 9 Request).
This statement addresses my role as the independent reviewer for the GLO
Scheme (the Independent Reviewer) and my involvement in the GLO
Scheme and other Horizon redress matters.
2 Those documents which are expressly referred to in this statement are listed
in the index accompanying this statement.
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
3 This section addresses question 4 of the Rule 9 Request.
4 I attended the University of Queensland, Harvard Law School and the
University of Oxford. I held academic posts at the University of Warwick and
Page 1 of 18
10
11
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
the Australian National University before I became a professor of banking law
in the University of London and director of the Centre of Commercial Law
Studies at Queen Mary University of London.
I was called to the Bar by Gray's Inn in 1976. I joined 3 Verulam Buildings in
1987 of which I am now an associate member. From 1992 I was a professor
at the London School of Economics.
I became a court recorder in 1997 and King's Counsel in 1998. As an
advocate I have appeared before the High Court, Court of Appeal, the House
of Lords, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court
of Human Rights.
I was a member of the House of Commons from 1997 to 2005 and was the
Solicitor-General for England and Wales from 1998 to 2001.
For the Bar Council, I chaired working parties on the Attorney-General role
(2007) and the Code of Ethics for Lawyers (2006).
I became a Judge of the Queen's Bench (as it was then called) in 2007 and I
retired from the Bench in 2017.
In 2019 I conducted an independent assurance review of Lloyds Bank's
handling of claims arising from fraud committed at the HBOS Impaired Assets
Office.
I was appointed as the Independent Reviewer of the GLO Scheme on 4
September 2023 at the recommendation of Dentons UK and Middle East LLP
who act as Claims Facilitators in the GLO Scheme (the Claims Facilitators).
Page 2 of 18
12
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
I understand from the Claims Facilitators that suitable candidates were sought
from various chambers, and a shortlist was sent to members of the
Department for Business and Trade (DBT) for consideration.
In January 2024 I was appointed as the chair of the Cranston Inquiry. The
Cranston Inquiry is an inquiry into the events of 24 November 2021 when at
least 27 people lost their lives attempting to cross the English Channel from
France to the UK. That Inquiry is ongoing.
THE GLO SCHEME PROCESS
13
14
15
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the Inquiry) will no doubt be aware of the
background of the GLO Scheme and its core purpose to fully and fairly
compensate postmasters who were part of the action Alan Bates and Others v
Post Office Ltd [2019] EWHC 3408 (QB). The amount those postmasters
ultimately received from the settlement was less compensation than what
many non-GLO postmasters were receiving from the existing compensation
schemes.
I think it is helpful to provide a broad overview of how the GLO Scheme
works, so that my statement may be read in context. The information in this
section is obtained from the publicly available documents mentioned below or
has been provided to me by the Claims Facilitators.
The GLO Scheme is administered by DBT and governed by the GLO
Compensation Scheme Guidance and Principles, revised 29 November 2023
(the Revised Guidance and Principles) (RLIT0000280), the Terms of
Reference for the GLO Scheme Independent Panel (the Panel ToR) and the
Page 3 of 18
16
17
18
19
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
Terms of Reference for the GLO Independent Reviewer (the Reviewer ToR)
(RLIT0000287) ((together, the Scheme Documents). The Scheme
Documents are publicly available.
A postmaster’s (the Claimant) claim begins under the GLO Scheme when the
Claimant submits their application via the portal operated by the Claims
Facilitators or sends it by post.
The claim is considered by DBT and, if it deems that the Claimant has
provided sufficient information, DBT sends an offer directly to the Claimant (or
their legal representative). Alternatively, DBT may consider that the Claimant
has not provided sufficient information. In these circumstances, DBT may
make a request for information which can involve asking the Claimant to
provide expert evidence in respect of a certain head of loss, for example,
personal injury. The Claimant may also, of their own initiative, obtain expert
evidence, the costs of which are met by DBT in accordance with the GLO
Scheme tariff of reasonable legal costs.
If the claim has a value of £75,000 or less then the Claimant will be entitled to
compensation totalling £75,000 without further evidence being required. This
is known as the fixed sum award.
If the parties are not able to come to an agreement, the claim will be reviewed
by one of the Claims Facilitators’ senior lawyers (the Senior Lawyer) who
may decide that the claim should be referred to the independent panel (the
Independent Panel) for consideration if the areas of disagreement between
the parties are relatively substantial. If a referral is made, the Independent
Panel will consider the evidence and the parties’ written submissions and, on
Page 4 of 18
20
21
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
a first referral, will make a non-binding assessment of the appropriate amount
of compensation by reference to the Scheme Documents. Further details as
to how the Independent Panel reaches its decisions are set out in the Panel
ToR. When providing details of the Independent Panel’s non-binding
assessment to the parties, the Claims Facilitators request that DBT prepare
an offer in line with this assessment.
If the parties cannot agree the compensation amount following the
Independent Panel’s non-binding assessment, the claim will be referred back
to the Independent Panel, who will subsequently issue a binding decision.
After the Independent Panel has issued its binding decision, the Claimant will
receive their final compensation payment from DBT.
After the above process has concluded the Claimant and / or DBT may refer
the claim to the Independent Reviewer as set out in the section below.
THE REVIEW PROCESS
22
Either party can submit a review application (the Review Application) to the
Claims Facilitators if they consider that the following review criteria apply:
(a) there has been a manifest error, procedural irregularity or substantive
error of principle in the Independent Panel's final assessment of the
claim; or
(b) the Independent Panel's final assessment is substantially inconsistent
with the Revised Guidance and Principles (RLIT0000280)
(the Review Criteria).
Page 5 of 18
23
24
25
26
27
28
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
A copy of a template Review Application is exhibited to this statement
(WITN11790104).
Further details relating to the Review Criteria and the Independent Reviewer
process are set out in paragraph 3.6 of the Revised Guidance and Principles
(RLIT0000280) but a summary of the latter is set out below.
Upon receipt of a Review Application, the Senior Lawyer will provide their
view to the Independent Reviewer as to whether there is a prima facie case
that it meets the Review Criteria. The Independent Reviewer will then decide
whether such a case exists and will communicate the decision to the parties
through the Claims Facilitators.
If the Independent Reviewer determines that there is a prima facie case the
parties will be invited to provide written submissions. The Independent
Reviewer will subsequently make a decision as to whether or not the
Independent Panel’s binding assessment should be upheld and if it is the
latter, the Independent Reviewer will make a revised award of compensation.
The referral to the Independent Reviewer is the final stage of the GLO
Scheme process.
I have no involvement in the GLO Scheme process save for that set out at
paragraphs 22 - 26.
At the time of writing no claims have been referred to the Independent
Reviewer and so I have not yet made any determinations.
Page 6 of 18
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
MY INVOLVEMENT IN THE CREATION OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW
PROCESS
29
30
31
32
This section addresses question 5 of the Rule 9 Request.
An Independent Reviewer process was in place prior to my involvement in the
GLO Scheme. A copy of the “GLO Compensation Scheme Guidance and
Principles” (the Guidance and Principles) (WITN11790101) which was in
place prior to my appointment is exhibited to this statement.
Following my appointment as Independent Reviewer, I met with Rob
Brightwell, a Deputy Director of DBT who is involved in the GLO Scheme, on
several occasions in September/October 2023, to discuss my
recommendations in respect of the Independent Reviewer process. In
particular, I suggested the following amendments:
(a) That the Terms of Reference for the GLO Independent Reviewer
underline the independence of the Independent Reviewer.
(b) That it is the Independent Reviewer who determines whether the party
making the Review Application has “leave to appeal” (i.e. whether or
not there is a prima facie case that the Review Application meets the
Review Criteria).
(c) That the review process involves informal hearings which the
Claimants would be able to attend.
Mr Brightwell and I also discussed the grounds on which the parties may
make a Review Application. He informed me that the Horizon Compensation
Page 7 of 18
33
34
35
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
Advisory Board (HCAB) had proposed including a ground relating to fairness
and I agreed that a ground on which a Review Application could be made
which covers this point should be included. Mr Brightwell also asked that I
consider giving an overall view of the Guidance and Principles
(WITN11790101).
Following my discussion with Mr Brightwell, amendments were made to the
Terms of Reference for the GLO Independent Reviewer and/or the review
process to address the recommendations I had made, save that there is no
provision in the process for informal hearings due to concerns about the
increase in the length of time that this would cause to the process and the
need to compensate postmasters as quickly as possible.
On 25 October 2023, I met with the HCAB and provided a list of my
recommendations in respect of the Guidance and Principles
(WITN11790101). These recommendations, entitled “GLO Compensation
Scheme Guidance and Principles — Observations for Horizon Compensation
Advisory Board” are exhibited to this statement (WITN11790102).
The recommendations that I provided to the HCAB included a
recommendation to increase the scope of the review criteria. At the time I
provided my recommendations, the Guidance and Principles
(WITN11790101) referred to only two bases on which a Review Application
could be made; on the grounds of a manifest error or a procedural irregularity
in the Independent Panel's final assessment of the claim. However, there had
also been a proposal to include a third ground; if the Independent Panel's final
assessment is substantially inconsistent with the Guidance and Principles. I
Page 8 of 18
36
37
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
agreed that this further ground should be included and suggested that the
principle of full and fair compensation be identified as a key, overarching
principle in the Guidance and Principles. Therefore, grounds for review would
include circumstances where the Independent Panel's final assessment of the
claim is substantially inconsistent with the principle of full and fair
compensation.
My recommendations also included a further additional ground; where there
was a substantive error of principle in the Independent Panel's final
assessment of the claim. I felt that the Guidance and Principles
(WITN11790101) previously set the bar to make a Review Application too
high and felt that the scope to make such an application would be necessarily
widened were my recommendations accepted.
I understand from the Claims Facilitators that they discussed my
recommendations with DBT. The Guidance and Principles were subsequently
amended on 29 November 2023 (RLIT0000280). These amendments were in
line with my recommendations set out above so that there are now four
grounds on which a Review Application can be made and the delivery of full
and fair compensation to eligible postmasters is now expressed as a key
overarching principle of the GLO Scheme.
THE REVIEW PROCESS
38
39
This section addresses question 6 of the Rule 9 Request.
I have set out the review process in overview at paragraphs 22 to 26 of this
statement.
Page 9 of 18
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
40 I have been asked to consider whether the Reviewer ToR (RLIT0000287) are
adequate for me to undertake my role as Independent Reviewer. I consider
the Reviewer ToR (RLIT0000287) to be adequate to undertake my role,
although as I have not yet considered a claim it is difficult to say definitively.
CASES PUT FORWARD FOR REVIEW
41 This section addresses question 7 of the Rule 9 Request.
42 The Inquiry explains it understands that no cases have yet been put forward
for independent review and has asked me for an explanation as to why.
43 I understand from the Claims Facilitators that the vast majority of submitted
claims have either been settled, are in the Claims Facilitation stage or await
an initial offer of compensation from DBT. I understand from DBT's data that
as at 30 September 2024, of the 283 claims submitted, 211 have settled. The
Claims Facilitators have informed me they frequently review the progress of
negotiations on each case and, at present, only a small number have been
referred to the Independent Panel. As described at paragraph 21 above, it is
only after the claims have been considered by the Independent Panel for a
second time that a Review Application may be made. All claims submitted to
date have either settled before they reached this stage, have not yet reached
the second Independent Panel stage or the deadline by which a Review
Application may be brought has not yet expired.
RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN OUTSIDE OF THE REFERRAL PROCESS
44 This section addresses question 8 of the Rule 9 Request.
Page 10 of 18
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
45 The Inquiry has asked whether I have given a recommendation or view about
an issue arising on a case where it has not been referred to me via the
referral process set out in paragraph 2 of the Reviewer ToR (RLIT0000287).
46 I have not given any such recommendations.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GLO SCHEME
47 This section addresses question 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Rule 9 Request.
48 The Inquiry has asked for my view on the effectiveness of the GLO Scheme,
including my opinion as to whether:
(a) I the GLO Scheme offers full and fair compensation, delivered at an
appropriate pace;
(b) any improvements may be made to the administration of the GLO
Scheme; and
(c) the HCAB are effective at instigating change to the administration of
the GLO Scheme.
49 I will take each in turn.
Whether the GLO Scheme offers full and fair compensation at an appropriate pace
50 I have not yet had the opportunity to apply the Reviewer ToR (RLIT0000287)
to a claim and therefore have not been able to test the Panel ToR or consider
the fairness of or the speed with which compensation has been offered to the
postmasters. I cannot give a definitive view on this query at the time of writing.
Page 11 of 18
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
Whether any improvements may be made to the administration of the GLO Scheme
51 Please see my response at paragraph 50.
Whether the HCAB are effective at instigating change to the administration of the
GLO Scheme
52 I cannot express a definitive opinion in relation to this question. However, I
can say that the HCAB has always been supportive of changes that I have
recommended. Moreover, I know that three of the four members of the HCAB
have had a long and conscientious involvement with the matters that the
Inquiry is considering and the fourth member, Professor Christopher Hodges
OBE, is a highly respected academic with expertise in compensation schemes
around the world.
ROLE AND / OR INVOLVEMENT IN RELATION TO MEETINGS OF THE HCAB
53 This section addresses questions 9.4, 9.5 and 10 of the Rule 9 Request.
54 I have been invited to attend meetings of the HCAB on various occasions in
order to provide my view and recommendations in respect of both the GLO
Scheme and in relation to the other Horizon-related compensation schemes.
55 I first met informally with three members of the HCAB on 5 September 2023 to
discuss the various Horizon-related compensation schemes and in particular,
the need to ensure consistency between each of the schemes. Paragraph 13
of the “Horizon Compensation Advisory Board - report of seventh meeting
held on 5 September 2023” (RLIT0000266) sets out in full the matters which I
discussed with members of the HCAB at this meeting.
Page 12 of 18
56
57
58
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
As set out at paragraph 34, I then met with the HCAB on 25 October 2023.
Paragraphs 2-13 of the “Horizon Compensation Advisory Board - report of
eighth meeting held on 25 October 2023” (RLIT0000267) set out in full the
matters which I discussed with the HCAB at this meeting.
As set out in further detail in paragraph 61, I next met with the HCAB on 29
November 2023 to discuss the fairness of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme
(formerly known as the Historical Shortfall Scheme) (the HSS). Paragraphs 2 -
6 of the “Horizon Compensation Advisory Board - report of ninth meeting held
on 29 November 2023” (RLIT0000268) set out in full the matters which I
discussed with the HCAB at this meeting. Question 9.4 of the Request asks
whether the issues I raised during the meeting have been resolved. I have no
knowledge of whether the issues I raised in relation to the availability of
interim payments and the rigidity of the tariff scheme for postmasters’
reasonable legal costs (set out in paragraph 8b and 8c of RLIT0000268) have
been resolved to the satisfaction of all. In relation to the issue I raised
regarding compensation for members of postmasters’ families (set out in
paragraph 8a of RLIT0000268), I still have concerns in relation to this.
However, I cannot give a definitive view as I have not yet reviewed any cases.
I most recently met with the HCAB on 22 February 2024 to discuss two
packages of proposals; the first of which largely related to the introduction of
financial measures to speed up financial redress in each of the Horizon-
related compensation schemes and the second which related to the
introduction of a new scheme for overturned conviction cases arising from
legislation and structural proposals in relation to this new scheme. The
Page 13 of 18
59
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
“Horizon Compensation Advisory Board - report of eleventh meeting held on
22 February 2024” (BEISO001033) sets out in full the matters which I
discussed with the HCAB at this meeting.
Question 9.5 of the Rule 9 Request asks me whether the steps described
within paragraph 1 of the report of the fourteenth meeting of the HCAB on 14
May 2024 (RLIT0000275) have been implemented on the GLO Scheme, and
if so, whether the pace of redress has increased or is likely to increase in
future. Having reviewed RLIT0000275, I understand that this question in fact
relates to the steps described within paragraph 1 of the fourteenth meeting of
the HCAB on 7 May 2024. I did not attend this meeting and do not have any
knowledge in relation to the implementation of the steps described in
paragraph 1 of RLIT0000275.
THE HSS
60
61
This section addresses question 11 of the Rule 9 Request.
I met with the HCAB on 29 November 2023 to discuss the fairness of the HSS
and provided four potential ways to address the issues with the HSS, namely
those relating to the perception of structural problems, the involvement of the
Post Office, the design of the form and the absence of medical and legal
advice (RLIT0000268). To address these issues, I recommended that the
HSS establish a reviewer, appeals-based process similar to that of the GLO
Scheme and that those bringing an application for review would need to show
that they had been materially disadvantaged (RLIT0000268).
Page 14 of 18
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
62 I attended a meeting at Dentons' offices in London on 11 September 2023
which was attended by various members of the Independent Panel from the
GLO Scheme and the HSS at which the rationale and understanding behind
the decisions in the HSS were discussed. A copy of the notes of the meeting
with the Horizon Shortfall Scheme panel and GLO Compensation Scheme
Panel and Reviewer on 11 September 2023 are exhibited to this statement
(WITN11790105).
63 As part of my role as Independent Reviewer, I have met solicitors involved in
the GLO Scheme and the HSS and Alan Bates, in his capacity as the
postmasters’ representative, to get their views on a range of matters,
including the HSS. One of the outcomes of those discussions is that it is not
only the postmaster who deserves to be compensated, but their family
members as well.
64 I appeared before the House of Commons Business and Trade Select
Committee to discuss the HSS and the GLO Scheme on 27 February 2024.
POST OFFICE STAFF WORKING ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF REDRESS
SCHEMES
65 This section addresses question 12 of the Rule 9 Request. I am aware that
there are concerns about the involvement of the Post Office in Horizon
redress schemes but as the GLO Scheme is administered by DBT, I am not in
a position to provide an opinion in relation to this question as I have no direct
involvement with the Post Office or its staff.
Page 15 of 18
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
ANY OTHER INFORMATION
66 This section addresses question 13 of the Rule 9 Request. I do not have any
further information which I think is relevant to the Inquiry.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
Sir Ross Frederick Cranston
Dated: Zo Ab. HO 4
Page 16 of 18
“J
Index to First Witness Statement of Sir Ross Frederick Cranston
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
No.
URN
Document Description
Control Number
RLIT0000280
GLO Compensation
Scheme Guidance and
Principles, revised 29
November 2023
RLIT0000280
RLIT0000287
Terms of Reference for the
GLO Independent
Reviewer
RLIT0000287
WITN11790104
Template Review
Application
WITN11790104
WITN11790101
GLO Compensation
Scheme Guidance and
Principles
WITN11790101
WITN11790102
GLO Compensation
Scheme Guidance and
Principles — Observations
for Horizon Compensation
Advisory Board
WITN11790102
RLITO0000266
Horizon Compensation
Advisory Board - report of
seventh meeting held on 5
September 2023
RLIT0000266
RLIT0000267
Horizon Compensation
Advisory Board - report of
eighth meeting held on 25
October 2023
RLIT0000267
RLITO000268
Horizon Compensation
Advisory Board - report of
ninth meeting held on 29
November 2023
RLITO000268
BEIS0001033
Horizon Compensation
Advisory Board - report of
eleventh meeting held on
22 February 2024
BEIS0001033
10.
RLIT0000275
Horizon Compensation
Advisory Board - report of
fourteenth meeting held on
7 May 2024
RLIT0000275
Page 17 of 18
WITN11790100
WITN11790100
11.
WITN11790105
Notes of the meeting with
the Horizon Shortfall
Scheme panel and GLO
Compensation Scheme
Panel and Reviewer on 11
September 2023
WITN11790105
Page 18 of 18