In the first Prime Ministers’ questions of this year, Rishi Sunak said he planned to ensure those convicted as part of the Post Office scandal were exonerated through a parliamentary act. Since then, the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 has swiftly journeyed through parliament and received royal assent. It provides for the payment of money to ‘compensate persons affected by the Horizon system and in respect of other matters identified in legal proceedings relating to the Horizon system.’
The government has confirmed that wrongly convicted victims will be eligible for £600,000 in compensation dependent on the circumstances. The Prime Minister has expressed an intention to have compensation paid out by the end of the year. With more than seven hundred sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses having been prosecuted for alleged accounting errors caused by the faulty Horizon software, this is welcome relief for those who have suffered, and have been unheard for years.
While the act has rightfully prioritised compensating these victims, it is a haphazard and short-sighted political response to public outrage. The Prime Minister declared his new legislation to the Commons less than a week from the airing of the exposing ITV programme which brought a public outcry. It successfully moved through parliament, but in the process has dismissed the contribution of the courts. Is it appropriate to have criminal exonerations pushed through a parliamentary act, and does it set a dangerous precedent?
The postal minister, Kevin Hollinrake, has acknowledged that they do not want to interfere with the courts that should be independent of government, but called this an ‘exceptional step in exceptional circumstances’. The minister declared ‘we cannot make the provision of compensation subject to a detailed examination of guilt.’ Those claiming compensation, he announced, will sign a statement of truth to confirm they did not commit the crimes they are accused of, which could later be deemed fraudulent if found to be untrue.
This move is unprecedented, upheaving the constitutional separation of powers of the judiciary, executive and legislature. Parliament make the laws, with the courts carrying them out. It is the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate miscarriages of justice and send them to official appeal courts, as the only organisation in England that can refer cases back to the court for appeal, which it is in the process of doing. Understandably they are inundated, as they do not have the ability to mass refer but must evaluate every individual case to see if there is a real possibility that the new evidence or argument will lead to a successful appeal in accordance with the Criminal Appeals Act 1995.
For a case to be successful in the Court of Appeal, the Horizon evidence must have been essential to each prosecution and conviction. They have set up a hub to provide advice but have acknowledged that for some postmasters, returning to court to challenge a conviction is too painful. The failings of the criminal justice system itself must be exposed, which has enabled vast numbers of incorrect sentences with grave consequences; this act serves to distract attention away from systemic faults that need to be addressed.
The separation of powers remains a fundamental rule of law and this rushed legislation overtly contravenes that. The director of public affairs at the Law Society, David McNeill, highlights the inability of the criminal justice system to deal with the complexity and sheer scale of cases, with court backlogs and limited resources. He predicts it could take a decade or more to deal with these cases through the normal system.
The struggling court resources are indeed a consideration, but exoneration through blanket legislation is not the only option. Judges could have been involved in some capacity: for instance, some could have formed a panel to review the cases, rather than being used in the official court process. Although it has been caveated with the warning that this law should not be used as a precedent, this will surely put pressure on the government to respond in the same way for other mass miscarriages of justice, further undermining the courts.
It is welcome that this group who have truly unjustly suffered are now being recognised and compensated, but the government’s power to circumvent the courts when it suits them is a dangerous game. It goes against deep founded principles that the courts and government should be kept separate, and accountable.
The Post Office scandal: is the circumvention of the courts a justice or injustice?
The Post Office scandal: is the circumvention of the courts a justice or injustice?
In the first Prime Ministers’ questions of this year, Rishi Sunak said he planned to ensure those convicted as part of the Post Office scandal were exonerated through a parliamentary act. Since then, the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 has swiftly journeyed through parliament and received royal assent. It provides for the payment of money to ‘compensate persons affected by the Horizon system and in respect of other matters identified in legal proceedings relating to the Horizon system.’
The government has confirmed that wrongly convicted victims will be eligible for £600,000 in compensation dependent on the circumstances. The Prime Minister has expressed an intention to have compensation paid out by the end of the year. With more than seven hundred sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses having been prosecuted for alleged accounting errors caused by the faulty Horizon software, this is welcome relief for those who have suffered, and have been unheard for years.
While the act has rightfully prioritised compensating these victims, it is a haphazard and short-sighted political response to public outrage. The Prime Minister declared his new legislation to the Commons less than a week from the airing of the exposing ITV programme which brought a public outcry. It successfully moved through parliament, but in the process has dismissed the contribution of the courts. Is it appropriate to have criminal exonerations pushed through a parliamentary act, and does it set a dangerous precedent?
The postal minister, Kevin Hollinrake, has acknowledged that they do not want to interfere with the courts that should be independent of government, but called this an ‘exceptional step in exceptional circumstances’. The minister declared ‘we cannot make the provision of compensation subject to a detailed examination of guilt.’ Those claiming compensation, he announced, will sign a statement of truth to confirm they did not commit the crimes they are accused of, which could later be deemed fraudulent if found to be untrue.
This move is unprecedented, upheaving the constitutional separation of powers of the judiciary, executive and legislature. Parliament make the laws, with the courts carrying them out. It is the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate miscarriages of justice and send them to official appeal courts, as the only organisation in England that can refer cases back to the court for appeal, which it is in the process of doing. Understandably they are inundated, as they do not have the ability to mass refer but must evaluate every individual case to see if there is a real possibility that the new evidence or argument will lead to a successful appeal in accordance with the Criminal Appeals Act 1995.
For a case to be successful in the Court of Appeal, the Horizon evidence must have been essential to each prosecution and conviction. They have set up a hub to provide advice but have acknowledged that for some postmasters, returning to court to challenge a conviction is too painful. The failings of the criminal justice system itself must be exposed, which has enabled vast numbers of incorrect sentences with grave consequences; this act serves to distract attention away from systemic faults that need to be addressed.
The separation of powers remains a fundamental rule of law and this rushed legislation overtly contravenes that. The director of public affairs at the Law Society, David McNeill, highlights the inability of the criminal justice system to deal with the complexity and sheer scale of cases, with court backlogs and limited resources. He predicts it could take a decade or more to deal with these cases through the normal system.
The struggling court resources are indeed a consideration, but exoneration through blanket legislation is not the only option. Judges could have been involved in some capacity: for instance, some could have formed a panel to review the cases, rather than being used in the official court process. Although it has been caveated with the warning that this law should not be used as a precedent, this will surely put pressure on the government to respond in the same way for other mass miscarriages of justice, further undermining the courts.
It is welcome that this group who have truly unjustly suffered are now being recognised and compensated, but the government’s power to circumvent the courts when it suits them is a dangerous game. It goes against deep founded principles that the courts and government should be kept separate, and accountable.
Related Posts