Last year the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of 59 innocent subpostmasters who had wrongfully been found to have stolen money from the Post Office. Hundreds more are waiting for their own convictions to be overturned. Many have been bankrupted, lost their homes and have been treated as pariahs in their local communities. Some have even spent time in prison.
The Post Office could have prevented this suffering by disclosing information that showed the subpostmasters’ convictions were based on unreliable evidence. It omitted to do so. A fair trial depends on full and proper disclosure and this failure demonstrates that, more than ever, those accused of criminal offences require a defence barrister with sharp insight, dogged determination and a tireless belief in justice to ensure they are not wrongfully convicted.
If you are facing a criminal charge, you can depend on my unparalleled experience of the legal process to protect you from such a miscarriage of justice. For free initial advice, call 0800 054 1170 or complete the online enquiry form now.
Between 1999 and 2015, subpostmasters were fired or prosecuted after funds seemingly disappeared from their branches’ accounts. In fact, a computer system named Horizon was responsible for the shortfalls. Rolled out in 1999, it was to be used for tasks including stocktaking and accounting. Almost immediately, it became apparent that major bugs in the system could cause it to misreport information, sometimes causing significant sums of money to vanish.
But it was not Horizon that was blamed for the missing money. Instead, 736 people were successfully prosecuted for theft on the basis of evidence from Horizon, shattering their lives and careers. The consequences have been devastating for hundreds, with more people having been impacted by the Horizon convictions than by any other miscarriage of justice in the UK.
In a series of cases, the Court of Appeal has begun quashing these wrongful convictions. One such case, Hamilton & Others v Post Office Ltd [2021], concluded in April this year. In his ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde explained that the court was shown material that the Post Office had previously failed to disclose. The documents revealed that the Post Office was aware that there were serious problems with Horizon, yet ‘consistently asserted that Horizon was robust and reliable.’
Lord Holroyde concluded that the appellants had been denied a fair hearing due to the Post Office’s refusal to disclose any information which would suggest Horizon was fallible. As defendants, they had not been given the data they needed to challenge the Post Office’s assertion that the shortfalls had been caused dishonestly, rather than by faulty software. Without full disclosure being made, they had no chance of evidencing their cases or avoiding conviction.
Disclosure requires that material held by the prosecution which might undermine its case or strengthen the defence’s must be revealed to the defence, so long as the material is not relied upon by the prosecution in its case. Time and again, we see cases where severe miscarriages of justice have occurred due to a lack of disclosure. Whilst the Post Office Horizon cases are perhaps the most dramatic example, they are far from being isolated occurrences.
The prosecution is under a duty to make full disclosure. However, as the Post Offices cases show, it cannot be relied upon to do so. Your defence lawyer must therefore ensure that all supporting material for your case has been made available, so it has never been more important to have the support of a trusted legal expert.
The first step is to put together a Defence Case Statement (DCS). A DCS identifies points in the prosecution’s case that you intend to dispute. On receipt of the DCS, the prosecution should re-examine material it has collected during its investigation and decide whether, in light of the DCS, additional material should now be disclosed.
A talented defence lawyer will take care to craft a DCS that gives your defence team access to evidence that might otherwise have been overlooked.
If the prosecution still does not disclose material which the defence believes to exist, your lawyer can submit an application for specific disclosure (APS), also known as a section 8 application. If the court approves the application, it will order the prosecution to disclose the relevant material.
It is vital that your defence lawyer is tenacious and determined to fight any reluctance on the prosecution’s part to disclose information. As the Post Office Horizon cases indicate, where the prosecution avoids disclosing certain evidence, it could well be the material needed to prove your innocence.
As demonstrated by the Horizon scandal, often the real battle to prove innocence takes place well before a case reaches the courtroom. My thorough knowledge of the investigatory and trial process means you can rely on me to fight strenuously for your cause at every stage - not just in court.
You are entitled to a fair trial and access to all the evidence that could help your case. I will work meticulously to ensure that your rights are upheld whilst my far-sighted, forward-thinking approach will give your case the best chance of a positive outcome. I devise a coherent defence strategy for my clients from the very beginning, focussing on drafting and disclosure as the cornerstones of my highly successful approach.
For free preliminary advice on your situation, speak to me today on 0800 054 1170 or complete the online enquiry form now.
"A good, analytical lawyer. He worked incredibly hard and devised legal submissions which won the case."
Chambers & Partners - Rated as Band 2
15 August 2023
We examine what might be the biggest change to corporate criminal law in a century as the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (referred to as "the Bill") approaches the end of its course through the UK Parliament.There are provisions in th.