Can the "Post Office convictions" be quashed by legislation?

The government has recently announced that it intends to quash by legislation convictions of hundreds of subpostmasters who had been prosecuted by the Post Office for, variously, theft, fraud and false accounting. This follows a number of appeals which have already succeeded where it has been accepted that convictions that are based on generated by the Horizon software are necessarily unsafe. Usually, one would expect other subpostmasters to have to follow that same route, but the government is concerned about the delay in processing so many cases. Nonetheless it is unprecedented to quash convictions by legislative fiat in a situation when the courts would yet be competent to do the same; and notwithstanding the concerns of criminal and constitutional lawyers, a Bill to this effect appears likely to be produced this year and to receive support from all sides of the House of Commons.
In this short video Dr Jonathan Rogers explains the background, explores the challenges that will face those who draft the legislation, and comments further on the likely reservations that many will still entertain about this innovation.
Jonathan Rogers is Associate Professor in Criminal Justice at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. He co-founded the Criminal Law Reform Now Network (www.clrnn.co.uk/) in 2017 and leads an ongoing project by that network into the reform of private prosecutions, and in that capacity he gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee in 2020 on safeguards in the wake of the Post Office scandal.
For more information about Dr Rogers, you can also refer to his profile at: www.law.cam.ac...
Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

[@PiperStart]

The Post Office knew about the faulty horizon system in 2004 but buried the evidence. This would make every conviction and sacking of sub postmaster since then, unsafe.

[@indietonne]

Thank you very much to bring some light into some of the technical hurdles the government has to go through. Great Video helped really to understand some of the underlying context.

[@ilokivi]

If Parliament wanted to, it could fund the Court of Appeal adequately to review each of the convictions reached and rule on whether they should be upheld, altered or quashed. Where the latter results, the defendants should receive an exoneration. They would also be due by return repayment of monies wrongfully taken, with interest. They would further merit compensation for disruption to their work, home, family life and mental distress. Then Parliament could concentrate on doing what it was made for: making laws, not micromanaging miscarriages of justice.

[@iwanjones7334]

Excellent summary of the issues! Thank you

[@garymitchell5899]

4:00 the HO are disregarding convictions from the 1960's on a case-by-case-basis; but the same approach isn't possible for convictions from 20 years ago i.e. at least 40 years later, because the paperwork might not be available. Pls tell me this guy doesn't have any teaching or management responsibilities?

[@jjptech]

It's so sad that gut feeling that this people will not see any justice being done on their cases

[@oronjoffe]

Seems to me the number of sub-postermasters who have not yet appealed and *will want to appeal * is going to be vanishly small. If they haven’t appealed until now, it’s because 1) they really guilty, 2) they have lost faith in the judicial system or 3) they’ve run out of energy after their convictions. It’s great that the government is looking for a quick solution for this affront to justice, but if there are a handful of sub-postermasters who want to appeal, this is the wrong time to deprive them of the right to do so.

[@ShafiqHutton]

If thre isn't proper evidence then wat can we do to get done with a case wen u we arrested and came out on bail how can I make it finish cause I don't know why I am attending for so long

[@patricklockerby4308]

I agree that on any appeal the burden should lie on the prosecution to prove that the conviction is safe. Suggestion: Parliament could speed up the appeals process by amending the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 - s1 (2) An appeal under this section lies only- (c) where the prosecution, during the period [date] to [date] relied mainly or entirely on the accounting evidence of the Post Office computer system and such appeal shall be taken as being within time. Obviously the exact form of words needs to be carefully considered.

[@kennethatkins9250]

Lets have real justice and for it to" be seen to be done" no "get out of jail " for the Government and the post office and its officers . We want to see all those that perverted the course of justice being held to account in a court of law . and dealt with accordingly .

[@fozzybear93]

I am surprised that you didn’t seem to realise that the public is losing confidence in the whole British criminal justice system that miscarriages of justice were possible in such a large systemic scale, close to a thousand of miscarriages of justice over 20 years. The drawbacks that you mentioned of the legitimation seem to be lesser of the two evils. I think there should be an independent enquiry of our deficiency of the criminal justice system that didn’t seem to serve justice and have no mechanism to rectify such miscarriages of justice in a timely manner. Why our judge/jury system failed so miserably?!

[@r8chlletters]

What about a royal declaration

[@tomricketts7821]

It’s better that 9 guilty go free than 1 innocent is convicted if horizon was involved then the conviction is unsafe they should all be given restitution and compensation all should receive a letter of apology from the minister responsible for the post office read in parliament and entered into Hansard

[@philipbrouard]

You raise independence of the Judiciary as an issue. However already it was an issue. Between 2000 and 2014, they acted as judge, jury and executioner to 736 people who ran Post Office franchises, known as sub-postmasters. Post Office WAS and still is SOLELY owned and run by the UK Government on behalf of the British people. There was therefore a conflict of interest from day one.

[@roncouch]

If but only if, there is the will, there WILL be a way to solve this dilemma. Trouble is, too many rodents are desperately trying to leave their sinking ship…..that will delay matters beyond reason……….

[@retrotemp]

If you think this case is extraordinary then let the arrogant enjoy for awhile, it will only be awhile. Soon everyone is going to learn a Major Truth, regardless of what happens to me. Rendering their lies and their organisations obsolete, fully despised.