5. Submissions on behalf of core participants and others

5.1. Oral and written evidence relating to the schemes for financial redress was adduced before me as part of Phase 7 of the Inquiry. Following the completion of the evidence relating to that phase of the Inquiry, I invited Core Participants to make closing written submissions about Phase 7 (and earlier phases). I also permitted the legal representatives of Core Participants to make oral submissions, thereby providing an opportunity for them to emphasise issues which particularly concerned their clients, and/or to amplify points which they had made in writing. I received written and oral submissions ranging over a number of issues considered at the Inquiry (i) on behalf of the Core Participants represented by Hodge Jones & Allen (ii) on behalf of the Core Participants represented by Howe+Co and (iii) on behalf of the Core Participants represented by Hudgell Solicitors. I also received written and oral submissions in relation to a range of topics on behalf of (iv) Ms Susan Sinclair (v) NFSP (vi) UKGI (vii) the Post Office (viii) Ms Paula Vennells (ix) Mr Gareth Jenkins (x) Fujitsu and xi) the Department. I received written submissions on behalf of the Communications Workers Union.

5.2. The Core Participants who provided detailed submissions in relation to redress were those represented by Hudgell Solicitors, Howe+Co and Hodge Jones & Allen, the Post Office and the Department. I have considered all the submissions relating to redress with care and I have taken them into account in reaching my conclusions and formulating my recommendations.

5.3. I do not consider it is necessary to summarise in this volume what was written and said about redress save in one limited respect. It is important, in my view, that I put on record the main suggested recommendations advanced on behalf of Core Participants who are former or current postmasters and others affected by Horizon.[304]

5.4. In his written submissions, Mr Moloney KC suggested that I make the following recommendations.[305] First, a centre of expertise should be established within government in order to provide guidance, expertise or a framework for public bodies seeking to set up any compensation scheme. Second, the Government should create a standing public body to act as a compensating authority to administer future compensation schemes. Third, all claimants, in whatever scheme, should have the option of obtaining funded legal advice prior to the acceptance of a Fixed Sum Offer. Fourth, claimants who opt for an assessed offer should be able to change course at any time and accept the Fixed Sum Offer in their scheme. Fifth, the Post Office and the Department should take steps to stop the seemingly normal practice of first offers being pitched very low. Sixth, the Post Office and/or the Department should cease the practice of applying repeated discounts in their assessment of appropriate offers where, as they perceive, there is a want of evidential sufficiency.

They should, rather, give claimants the benefit of the doubt. Seventh, in HSS, claimants should have the option to either proceed to the Dispute Resolution Procedure or to return the claim to the independent panel following good faith and/or escalation meetings. Eighth, the proposed appeals mechanism to be incorporated within HSS should include an entitlement to appeal in relation to any settlement where legal advice had not been available (or where there is evidence that the claimant was unaware of a right to secure funded legal assistance). Ninth, family members adversely affected by Horizon should receive redress (possibly as part of a restorative justice programme). Tenth, there should be a restorative justice framework and eleventh, HM Government should make a public apology. Mr Moloney KC did not add to his list when making his oral submissions.

5.5. Mr Stein KC made points, both in writing and orally, which supported the proposed recommendations which I have summarised above.[306] Additionally, however, he asked me to consider two discrete recommendations of his own. First, he invited me to recommend that redress should be provided to assistants in branches as well as family members. Second, he invited me to adopt a monitoring role in relation to the financial redress schemes, even after I have delivered this and the subsequent volume of my Report. He sought to persuade me that I have the power to proceed in that way.[307]

5.6. Mr Edward Henry KC, on behalf of the Core Participants represented by Hodge Jones & Allen, generally aligned himself with Mr Moloney KC and Mr Stein KC. He did not formulate any discrete recommendation which was separate from those already listed.

5.7. Following the publication on 8 April 2025 of details relating to the newly created appeal process in HSS, I considered whether to hold a hearing so that oral submissions could be made on behalf of Core Participants about the process. After some reflection, I decided that it was sufficient to afford Core Participants the opportunity to make written submissions.

5.8. I have received written submissions from the Core Participants represented by Hodge Jones & Allen, Howe + Co and Hudgell Solicitors and from the Post Office, the Department and NFSP. I have considered them with care and taken them into account as will become obvious, I hope, from Section 6 below. It is worthy of some note that the submissions on behalf of the clients of Hodge Jones & Allen suggested, in terms, that the Department “is not independent and therefore should not be arbiter of appeals”.[308] I considered again whether I should hold a discrete hearing on issues relating to financial redress, but I reached the firm conclusion that the publication of this volume of my Report should not be delayed (as, inevitably, it would be if I were to convene a hearing) beyond late June/early July.

5.9. From time to time during the whole course of the Inquiry, I have received detailed (sometimes very detailed) written submissions from Mr Paul Marshall, a barrister who acts for some of the most well-known and adversely affected Core Participants in their respective claims for financial redress. However, Mr Marshall does not represent these Core Participants in the Inquiry.

5.10. In paragraphs 123 to 129 of the Progress Update I wrote about written contributions made by Mr Marshall up to that point. Paragraph 127 is of particular importance.[309]

5.11. The views which I expressed in paragraph 127 of the Progress Update remain unaltered. Mr Marshall raises all sorts of interesting arguments about the assessment of financial redress in most of the communications which he has addressed to me since I published that Update. Those arguments must be addressed to the decision makers in the schemes in which his clients (under any direct access arrangements) or lay clients are claimants. I must resist his attempts to draw me into the debate about individual claims and awards and the applicable legal principles which may underpin them. As I wrote in paragraph 127 of the Progress Update, I am precluded by section 2(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 from ruling upon or determining any person’s civil liability. It would not be appropriate for me to circumvent or seek to circumvent that statutory provision by making “recommendations” about, or reaching “conclusions” upon the proper measure of financial redress to be awarded in particular claims or in particular circumstances. Further, and very importantly, since the Progress Update was published, an appeals mechanism has been announced in HSS (HSSA), and dispute resolution processes have been incorporated into OCS/HCRS, and provided in GLOS which ensures that difficult factual or legal issues in individual cases can be thoroughly investigated and determined.

5.12. I should also record that during the course of Phase 7, and following the close of the evidence hearings on 13 November 2024, I received a number of letters and emails from claimants which contained criticisms of the schemes for delivering financial redress and, in particular, about alleged inadequacies relating to HSS and GLOS. Between 1 September 2024 and 31 March 2025, I received representations from not less than 25 different people. Some representations were intended primarily for Ministers (including the Prime Minister) and copied to me.

5.13. All the representations sent or copied to the Inquiry were unsolicited; many, if not all were sent by persons who are Core Participants, or are relatives of Core Participants. Many of the representations contained valid points about delay within the schemes, although as I hope will be clear, I am very well informed about the issue of delay in the delivery and administration of HSS, OCS and GLOS. Some of the representations made criticisms of how individual claims were being assessed or administered. As I trust is well known, I cannot investigate the circumstances of individual claims with a view to solving such problems as exist in the claims brought to my attention. A number of correspondents pointed to what they regarded as discrepancies between the schemes which might lead to a lack of equal treatment between claimants in different schemes. All that said, the information provided to me in these communications has reinforced the views which I am about to express and my conclusions.

Footnotes

[304]

Hodge Jones & Allen: [SUBS0000074]; Howe & Co: [SUBS0000079]; Hudgell Solicitors: [SUBS0000089].

[305]

I am sure that many and perhaps all of the members of the legal team who act for the Core Participants represented by Hudgell Solicitors contributed to the writing of submissions. However, for convenience only, I attribute the submissions to Mr Moloney KC since it was he who made the oral submissions.

[306]

Mr Stein KC represents the Core Participants represented by Howe & Co. See the previous footnote which applies equally to the writing submissions made on behalf of his lay clients.

[307]

[SUBS0000079] at [5/13] to [5/17].

[308]

[SUBS0000096] at [1].

[309]

Progress Update on issues relating to Compensation 15/08/2024 [INQ00002032] at [31/127].