January 11 2024

The announcement of a law to overturn the subpostmasters’ convictions has provoked some concern amongst m’learned friends, on constitutional grounds. Are these concerns valid? Why is the government in this position?

The Dilemma

If every convicted subpostmaster in the last 25 years applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC“) to have their convictions reviewed and referred to the Court of Appeal, even if they started tomorrow, it would taken an inordinately long time to deal with them (even if the Post Office did not object, which it has been doing for some). Many subpostmasters would likely die before their cases are heard; their lives would still be blighted in the meanwhile. They would have to wait for the convictions to be quashed before getting compensation. Some may simply refuse to get involved with the justice system. Who can blame them, given their experiences thus far.

There are other questions too. Who pays the costs? What about those who pleaded guilty because they were bullied into it? What about those who have died? Or those who paid money they did not owe in order to avoid prosecution? Do they get the money extorted from them under false pretences repaid?

This matter has lasted a quarter of a century. It is unconscionable to drag it out still longer. Speed is essential if justice is to be done. And it is justice which is needed now – not endless legal arguments.

Could there be a mass appeal via the normal legal process? Possibly. But would it be any quicker? Where are the resources to do it?

Unprecedented?

The main concern has been the worry about setting a precedent: the executive and legislature should not interfere with the judicial process. If these convictions are overturned by Parliamentary fiat, what is to stop a future unscrupulous PM using a large Parliamentary majority to absolve friends rightly convicted? The boundaries between the executive, legislature and judiciary are important ones. It is not daft to worry about a rush to breach them. They exist for good reasons.

But.

The legal system

A touch of humility from the legal fraternity is needed. More than a touch, in fact. This miscarriage is in large part due to multiple failings over years by lawyers and the legal process, starting with the Law Commission (which recommended the computer law change – explained here and here),via investigators, in-house prosecutors, members of the external Bar, defence lawyers, judges, those supervising or reviewing or even noticing the activities of those bodies with statutory prosecution powers (was anyone doing this? A question for the Ministry of Justice, perhaps), the CPS (to the extent it was involved), the lawyers responsible for non-disclosure, those who failed to blow the whistle (in breach of their professional duties and those owed to the courts), those advising the Post Office’s Board on its corporate law obligations, those relating to prosecutions and civil litigation and those owed to the Williams Inquiry and ending with the judiciary which did nothing about a senior retired Law Lord advising on how to get rid of the judge hearing the Bates litigation for no reason other than the Post Office’s annoyance at not getting its own way.

The legal system does not come out of this story well, however much praise is now due to those lawyers who have worked tirelessly to expose the scandal and help its victims. It is, frankly, a bit much for it to ignore all this in the rush to preserve constitutional proprieties. Doing right is what is needed now, followed by extensive reflection on its own part in this abysmal affair.

How might this be done?

It is not correct to say that there is no Parliamentary interference with the judicial process. The Attorney-General has always had the power to discontinue a prosecution in the public interest – nolle prosequi – and, in exercising this power, is answerable to Parliament not the courts. It is true that this power is only exercised before a court judgement. After, the normal route is an appeal against conviction or, exceptionally, a pardon. But note one important fact about these options: in both, a crime has been committed. But it is decided that either the wrong person has been convicted or that, for reasons of public policy, even though they had committed it, the law was unjust (e.g. pardons of soldiers for cowardice in war-time or gay men for now lawful sexual behaviour). There was a crime though.

No prima facie case

Here, we cannot say this. This is not overturning convictions because the wrong people were convicted. But because there never was any crime. There never was any money missing. The alleged “missing” monies were figures plucked out of Horizon’s behind. If this had been known at the time, would there have been prosecutions? Could there properly have been any? Wouldn’t the A-G have issued a nolle prosequi order, if the prosecutions had not been halted by the Post Office? In effect, what is being proposed now is a retrospective nolle prosequi, a finding that the prosecutions were, as the Court of Appeal has already ruled, an affront to the conscience of the court. They should never have happened because there never were any crimes to be prosecuted (as some of the Post Office’s own documents revealed to the Williams Inquiry now show). As for those prosecuted on non-Horizon evidence, based on what the Inquiry has uncovered about the conduct of Post Office investigative/prosecuting staff, no reliance can be placed on any of their work.

Why this option?

For years the criminal justice system has been underfunded. Plenty have warned of the consequences; these have been dismissed as special pleading, alarmist or unimportant. The CCRC was seen as so unimportant that it has a part-time Chair with eight other jobs, including Head of the Judicial Appointments Commission (the CCRC’s conflicts of interest policy having been lost in the post, presumably). It is why, when the Andy Malkinson case – itself one of the most serious miscarriages of justice of recent times, involving as it does, the conduct and professionalism of the CCRC itself – hit the news last summer, we were treated to the spectacle of its Chair promoting her holiday home business in Montenegro.

We see the result of this under-resourcing now: an inability to follow normal processes in a timely way; unpalatable options.

Why the rush to act? Why – because of the endless delays and denials by government and its wholly owned entity, the Post Office, only finally shamed into action by a TV drama and the consequent public outrage.

Underinvestment, a lack of professionalism, denial and delays. There are some lessons in there for governments. And the legal world. Perhaps they might heed them this time. Perhaps.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

September 29 2019

It is generally a good idea, when losing a case before a court or regulatory tribunal, to concede with as much good grace as possible and to keep your immediate thoughts about the idiocy of the judges to yourself.  No good will come of it and you will look like a sore loser.  No-one sensible will pay any attention to what you say, your complaints falling into the “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they” category.  Even worse than being thought a sore loser is being thought of as your case’s Mandy Rice-Davies.

You may think that the tribunal or court may well have erred in law or fact or failed to take coherent and well-argued arguments into account or not given them the weight they deserved.  But it will be for others to make the considered analysis that any decision, particularly any important or controversial decision, needs.

There has recently been such a decision in relation to Britain’s constitutional arrangements, an area of law which does not normally make it to the front pages of anything.  Despite this, the Supreme Court’s decision on what prorogation of Parliament means and how such a power should be used by the executive is very well worth reading.

Reflections on it, those missing documents relating to how the government reached its decision – still to be provided to Parliament, despite its request – and the legal advice the Government received can be found here.

A companion piece to the Supreme Court’s judgment is this year’s Reith Lectures, a series of five lectures by a former Supreme Court judge, Lord Sumption, on the relationship between law and politics.  For all the fuss raised by over-excitable commentators (and even some apparently parti pris lawyers-turned-politicians) about the former straying into the latter, this is an argument which is as old as time itself. Those in power have always chafed when any sort of restraint is placed on their power, whether it came from the Church or law or Parliament or even the pesky people. And now those troublesome – and independent – judges are the latest to remind rulers that they too are subject to the law.

Judicial independence is there to protect the judges from over-mighty politicians. But much more importantly  – and this is usually forgotten, it – and the rule of law – are there to protect us.

Let the last word go to a former Lord Chancellor, Thomas More (as imagined by the playwright Robert Bolt in A Man For All Seasons):-

“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you–where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down…d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”