Politicians are seeking an all-encompassing and quick—albeit overdue—fix for the Post Office scandal after a prime-time television docudrama prompted widespread public anger over the treatment of local branch managers (‘sub-postmasters’). Legislation, which could overturn hundreds of convictions based on a faulty computer system called Horizon, has cross-party support and will certainly be backed by voters, but has left lawyers concerned about the potential long-term ramifications.
As the UK’s supreme legal authority, Parliament is technically able to clear convictions through legislation, but in doing so it would sidestep the usual process of the convicted party lodging an appeal. Some fear it would also be meddling in the independence of the judicial system, setting a precedent for this to happen again in future scandals, rightly or wrongly.
The government has admitted that the measure is “unprecedented,” but believes it is the right thing to do because the scandal is an “exceptional case.” Postal Services Minister Kevin Hollinrake said, “We have looked at all the alternatives and they would require a very much longer term, much more in-depth process, case by case, exactly what we’re going through now, which has been so slow.”
This is largely a result of court backlogs, which critics of the government say are down to “the running down over many years of the level of resourcing in the criminal justice system.” Only 93 Horizon-related convictions have been overturned so far. It could take years for the 800 other convictions to go through the courts.
Hence the appeal of emergency laws, which Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said will “swiftly exonerate and compensate” those wrongly accused of stealing thousands of pounds from the Post Office—not least given the widescale public interest in this case which floundering political parties are undoubtedly looking to capitalise on ahead of a contentious period of national elections.
A desire for quick justice has pushed to the background discussions on the consequences of such a “constitutional leap in the dark.” Isobel Plumstead, a retired judge and former president of the Council of HM Circuit Judges, told The Guardian:
Exoneration by Act of Parliament is a dangerous path to go down. It is overriding the whole judicial system. It will inevitably lead to pressure for action in respect of other findings in criminal cases where a sort of moral right to exoneration is urged. In my view, it’s an open door for anybody to come along later and say: “Well, what I’m doing isn’t really wrong either.”
Lord Ken Macdonald, once the director of public prosecutions, added that it is unclear where this approach could be used in the future “once the dam is burst.” Barrister and former Tory MP Dominic Grieve asked viewers of Channel 4 News to imagine “if, for example, Parliament were to decide to do the same thing with their former colleagues that were sentenced to imprisonment after the expenses scandal.” Michael Sternberg KC also suggested the Act of Exoneration could pave the way for the return of the Bill of Attainder, which “convicts by Act of Parliament without any due process and is contrary to the rules of natural justice.”
It is worth noting too that while, as Hollinrake points out, the Act of Parliament “means that an honest postmaster will have his or her conviction overturned,” it means the same for any who has been dishonest; who is genuinely guilty of stealing from the Post Office during the timeline of this scandal.
These are factors which some lawyers clearly believe the government has not considered deeply enough but which could, should plans move forward, dominate the headlines in other significant cases further down the line.
