POST OFFICE JUDICIARY: Why has the Post Office Horizon Inquiry yet to hear from the judges who convicted & sentenced over 900 postmasters and sent 236 to prison - on faulty evidence from the Post Office Horizon IT system

Judges & Prosecutors at centre of Post Office IT scandal. AMID the almost daily headlines of dishonest, manipulated practices and flawed evidence used by the UK’s Post Office and Prosecutors to convict over nine hundred postmasters and postmistresses - there is one key group which has so-far escaped the slightest calling before the Inquiry – The judiciary.

And on the sheer scale of injustice contained in the prosecutions, and convictions of over nine hundred postmasters – there can be no doubt the UK and Scotland’s judiciary have many questions to answer.

The Law Gazette recently reported Post Office lawyers held secret meeting with judge to stop disclosure  : “Lawyers for the Post Office arranged a secret meeting with a judge to prevent disclosure to defence solicitors in a criminal trial, the Post Office Inquiry heard yesterday. Solicitor Martin Smith and his barrister colleague Simon Clarke met the judge at Birmingham Crown Court in 2013 on the eve of a trial of a sub-postmaster accused of theft.

“The prosecuting lawyers applied for public interest immunity on the report, successfully persuading the judge that the defence solicitors should not be made aware of it.”

Clearly, the judiciary are much more involved in the Post Office Horizon scandal than the Judicial Office Media relations teams across the UK would like us journalists, and the public to believe.

Yet to date in the Post Office inquiry, not one member of the judiciary who convicted and sentenced the postmasters has appeared to face questions and give evidence on how they and the judiciary as an institution did not appear to even question the hundreds of prosecutions brought against Postmasters.

The figures are grim - Around 736 people were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 based on information from the faulty Horizon computer accounting system – ‘evidence’ from which was then used by Prosecutors, the courts and the judiciary to secure over 900 convictions.

A further 283 cases were brought against postmasters, using information from the same faulty Horizon accounting system - by other bodies, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) in Scotland.

In total, 236 postmaster and postmistresses have been sent to prison.

However, in not one hearing of the Post Office inquiry to date of publication - have the public heard from members of the judiciary – the same judges who convicted over 900 postmasters, and then sent 236 postmasters to jail.

As readers, and all court reporters will be well aware - more often than not when a conviction is secured by the prosecution, and particularly so when that conviction will result in a prison sentence – the judge often reads out a sentencing statement or comments to those who are found guilty in court.

The content of these sentencing statements and comments from trial judges - upon the court finding an accused guilty – often result in diatribes of piercing detail, grim listening and reading.

Many times, journalists & others in court rooms have listened to sentencing comments from the bench - while Prosecutors smirk at their side of the court, the Trial judge will often cast up details of what was previously heard in the trial, rounding on the convicted person’s past, their character, background, perhaps even their family and other issues as perceived by Prosecutors to justify the guilty verdict.

The strength of sentencing statements & comments from the presiding judge, are often designed to ensure no one, not even the media – can take issue with what occurred in that court room or question the evidence used to convict – what we now understand to be wrongful prosecutions based on a faulty computer system.

And when a trial concludes, and the accused who are found guilty deserve such comments for their crimes, there are few who would not agree such statements are very much well deserved, and in the public interest.

However, and for all to see in the Post Office Inquiry so-far, whatever the judges said in court to the hundreds of postmasters wrongly - perhaps even maliciously convicted - and the hundreds of postmasters sent by judges to prison – there is an absolute public interest case for all such comments and statements from the judiciary to be published, and accounted for.

Over Nine Hundred convictions – and - Two hundred and Thirty Six persons sent to jail – all sent there by a judge – is an alarming scale of wrongful, perhaps even malicious prosecutions.

The justice system has been used, and willingly so – to target and convict, then jail UK Postmasters on an industrial scale – in an effort which very likely was motivated to protect the Post Office and the Horizon IT accounting system it used, from the scrutiny and accountability which we now see coming to the fore in the questioning of witnesses in the Post Office inquiry.

If the Post Office Horizon inquiry is to reveal the true extent of the complicity of the justice system in the scale of the determined and malicious application of justice against the Postmasters – every single sentencing judge should be called to appear before the Post Office inquiry, read out their sentencing comments or statements and face questions on every single conviction and prison sentence handed down by a judge.

When do we get to hear from the judges who sentenced and sent all the Postmasters to jail?

Convicting over Nine Hundred people and sending Two Hundred and Thirty Six to jail – is not the act of any honest institution, honest courts, honest Prosecutors, honest justice system or an honest judiciary.

This cannot be explained away, no matter how many at-times- Media Relations Spokespersons for the judiciary & demanding members of the UK’s legal professions call up journalists to steer us away from questioning why the judges did their bit for the Post Office and Government.

POSTMSTER PROSECUTIONS IN SCOTLAND

In Scotland, over 100 Postmasters were prosecuted by the Crown Office and convicted, sentenced by Scottish judges on the basis of information provided by the faulty Post Office Horizon accounting system.

The Crown Office first became aware of issues linked to the Horizon system in 2013 but only stopped pursuing new cases in 2015.

According to a Law Society of Scotland 2022 Press release, - In Scotland postmasters were convicted of embezzlement or fraud – prosecutions taking place between 2004 and 2013. Postmasters in Scotland who were convicted in court were sentenced to a range of penalties, which also included being sent to prison. Some of these cases are under consideration by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

The Lord Advocates who were responsible for the Crown Office during prosecutions of Postmasters during this period - from 2004 to 2013 were: Colin Boyd (2000-2006); Elish Angiolini (2006 – 2011); and Frank Mulholland (2011- 2016)

Both Colin Boyd (Right Hon Lord Boyd of Duncansby), and Frank Mulholland (Rt Hon Lord Mulholland) are now judges in the Court of Session - Scotland’s highest court.

Lord Boyd if Duncansby’s biography on the Judiciary of Scotland website states the following:

Lord Boyd was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Courts in June 2012.

He qualified as a solicitor in 1978; became an advocate in 1983; and was appointed as a Queen's Counsel in 1995.

He practised at Caesar & Howie from 1978 to 1982 and as an advocate from 1983 to 1997, building up a practice in civil and particularly planning law.

He acted as an advocate depute from 1993 to 1995 and was appointed Solicitor General for Scotland (for the UK Government) in 1997 and for the Scottish Executive in 1999.

He was Lord Advocate from 2000 to 2006. His time in office saw the devolution of legislative responsibility to the new Scottish Parliament and the introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. He brought in significant reforms to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. He was also responsible for the prosecution of the Lockerbie trial.

He returned to practice as a solicitor advocate in 2007 joining Dundas & Wilson Solicitors as a Consultant and Head of Public Law. He was appointed a privy councillor in 2000 and became a life peer in 2006.

In 2019, he was appointed Vice-President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

Lord Frank Mulholland’s biography on the Judiciary of Scotland website states:

Lord Mulholland was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Courts in May 2016.

He graduated in law at Aberdeen University (1981) and also graduated with a masters degree in business administration at Edinburgh University (1997).

He was appointed as the Solicitor General for Scotland in 2007 and the Lord Advocate in 2011.

He has wide experience including having been Procurator Fiscal in Edinburgh, Area Procurator Fiscal for Lothian and Borders, Crown Counsel and Senior Crown Counsel.

He has dealt with the most challenging and high profile cases as a prosecutor and has appeared in the appellate courts, including a full bench of the Appeal Court and in the UK Supreme Court.

Ex Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) - the only recent Lord Advocate (outwith James Wolffe KC) not to be given a judicial seat in the Court of Session - has a number of other credits listed in various online biographies as the following:

Since September 2012, Angiolini has been the Principal of St Hugh's College, Oxford. Angiolini has been a pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford since 2017 and is an Honorary Professor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Angioolini also served as Chancellor of the University of the West of Scotland from 2013 to 2021.

In June 2022, Angiolini was appointed a Lady of the Order of the Thistle by Queen Elizabeth II. Angiolini took part in the Coronation of Charles III, representing the Order of the Thistle.

In June 2023, Angiolini was appointed to the office of Lord Clerk Register by King Charles III, the first woman to hold the role since its creation in the 13th century.

However, despite all the decorations of judicial office or and Royal orders of the Lord Advocates who were responsible for the Crown Office, and COPFS prosecutions in Scotland - including the wrongful prosecutions of the Postmasters, and a few other cases known to journalists - so far, not one of Scotland’s Lord Advocates have appeared at the Post Office Inquiry to face questions or answer why their Prosecutors went after Postmasters using information provided by the Post Office which is now clearly in dispute.

For more details on the Post Office Horizon Inquiry - read Computer Weekly here: https://www.computerweekly.com/ and follow developments via the Inquiry website here: https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/