Former South Warnborough sub-postmaster Jo Hamilton gives evidence during the Post Office Horizon inquiry led by the government's Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on December 14, 2021
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:00 Welcome to this morning's session of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee
00:00:06 for the first of two interim hearings on the Post Office Horizon scandal.
00:00:12 Before I introduce our witnesses this morning, I would just like to update the House on the
00:00:17 status of this inquiry.
00:00:19 Our inquiry was launched some time ago but was suspended pending the outcome of the independent
00:00:24 and then statutory inquiries.
00:00:28 This is normal practice because the work of Parliament is not supposed to interfere with
00:00:32 legal due process.
00:00:33 However, we had letters from parliamentary colleagues and others highlighting problems
00:00:38 with compensation and interim payments to victims of the Horizon scandal.
00:00:44 Given that compensation was out of scope of the inquiry, my committee sought agreement
00:00:48 from Sir Wynne Williams, the legal chair of the statutory inquiry, to undertake today's
00:00:54 session with victims and representatives of victims and a second session in the new year
00:00:59 with ministers and senior leaders from the Post Office specifically on the question of
00:01:04 compensation and interim payments given that that is out of scope of the statutory inquiry.
00:01:10 We then informed ministers of our intention to do this work and that we'd be summoning
00:01:14 them to answer questions in January.
00:01:17 And last night, I was informed that ministers had published a written ministerial statement
00:01:23 which has been made public today committing the government to providing the funds necessary
00:01:28 to the Post Office to pay victims their compensation.
00:01:32 We've seen that written ministerial statement this morning.
00:01:35 It doesn't answer all of the questions that we have about funds being made available to
00:01:39 all of the victims to cover all of their losses from this scandal.
00:01:43 And so of course we'll continue to take evidence today and put those questions to ministers
00:01:48 in the new year.
00:01:49 And I would just say to any victims of this scandal watching the hearing this morning
00:01:54 that having looked at the written ministerial statement, if you have concerns that you will
00:01:58 not be covered by the intention from government to fund compensation for your particular circumstances,
00:02:05 please do write to me here at the House of Commons so that we can raise those issues
00:02:09 directly with ministers.
00:02:12 That being said, we'll start the session this morning and I'm delighted to welcome physically
00:02:16 in the room Joe Hamilton, former sub-postmaster, Dr. Neil Hudrell of Hudrell Solicitors who
00:02:21 represented a number of victims.
00:02:23 And on the screen, I've got Paul Harvey who is also a-- sorry, Paul Harry, forgive me,
00:02:28 who's a former sub-postmaster, and Alan Bates, also a former sub-postmaster and founder of
00:02:34 the Justice for Sub-Postmasters Alliance.
00:02:37 Good morning to all of you this morning.
00:02:39 My first question is to Joe and to Paul.
00:02:42 And I would just like to ask if you could set out for the committee, from your particular
00:02:47 examples, the extent of your financial losses arising from this scandal and whether you
00:02:53 had to use personal funds to pay for shortfalls in the system whilst you were working.
00:02:58 So, Joe Hamilton, first, please.
00:03:00 Yeah, I did have to use personal funds.
00:03:03 I had to remortgage the house when I had discrepancies.
00:03:06 Well, they kept my wages twice.
00:03:09 I'd ring up and say how much the shortfall was, and they'd say, well, you've got to pay
00:03:13 it.
00:03:14 And there was no question about that it might not be correct.
00:03:21 They just kept my wages until it was paid off.
00:03:24 And then the amounts grew and grew, and I remortgaged and put 9,000 pounds in.
00:03:28 I borrowed money from friends.
00:03:30 My parents helped out.
00:03:32 And then, ultimately, I ended up in Winchester Crown Court.
00:03:35 I had to plead guilty to false accounting.
00:03:37 I was pleaded not guilty to theft.
00:03:41 And then they did a last-minute plea bargain, provided I repaid all the money and didn't
00:03:45 mention Horizon on my sentencing.
00:03:49 And I then had to remortgage the house, and the village had a whip round for the rest
00:03:52 of the money that I couldn't get.
00:03:54 So, yeah.
00:03:55 And how much was the total amount of that plea bargain that you had to pay to the post
00:03:59 office?
00:04:00 It was 36,600 and something, plus 1,000 pound costs I had to raise on the day.
00:04:05 You had to pay for their legal costs?
00:04:07 Yeah.
00:04:08 Yeah.
00:04:09 And, Paul, can I just come to you with the same question?
00:04:13 Yeah, very similar situation.
00:04:18 When shortfalls would arise in going through the post office, and they would take what
00:04:23 they felt fit over a 12-month to repay it.
00:04:26 But I also increased my overdraft.
00:04:31 My parents gave me quite a lot of money.
00:04:33 Even my mother-in-law gave me quite a lot of money.
00:04:37 It's a fairly similar situation, yeah.
00:04:40 Well, it sounds like you've both suffered long-lasting consequences from those repayments.
00:04:46 And have you received any compensation yet, Jo Hamilton?
00:04:49 And has that covered your costs?
00:04:50 Yeah, I've had an interim payment, which has basically given me the money that I've given
00:04:55 them over the years back, plus interest.
00:04:57 So I consider myself to be quite lucky, really.
00:05:01 Unfortunately, the rest in the group haven't got the same.
00:05:03 And they've lost every bit as much as me, apart from the fact they didn't get dragged
00:05:07 through the courts.
00:05:09 And they deserve to have what I've had, at the very least.
00:05:12 And what was your experience of getting that interim payment?
00:05:15 Was it an easy process?
00:05:18 It came fairly swiftly, yeah.
00:05:19 You have to have a good legal team.
00:05:22 And yeah, it was sorted.
00:05:24 But I can't tell you the difference it's made, because having spent years and years and years
00:05:30 in debt to actually have a credit balance in your bank is like you can't imagine.
00:05:36 Thank you.
00:05:37 And Paul, have you managed to get some interim payments?
00:05:39 Yeah, I've received, in my situation, a small amount of just over 20,000.
00:05:47 But my losses are in excess of 100,000.
00:05:51 So I have no end here getting my money.
00:05:54 OK.
00:05:55 And Dr. Hodgell, I mean, there are many victims in similar circumstances to Jo and Paul, aren't
00:06:00 there?
00:06:01 There's many hundreds of victims of varying degrees.
00:06:07 Jo says she's one of the lucky ones, but in a sense, she isn't.
00:06:10 She's just getting back a token of what she's lost.
00:06:13 And we can focus on the tangible financial losses, but there are the intangible losses
00:06:19 as well.
00:06:20 There's the tragic stories of people that have lost liberties, lost their minds.
00:06:27 There's all those sorts of intangible losses.
00:06:29 Jo herself would tell a story about how her parents died before she was exonerated in
00:06:36 their 80s in significant amounts of debt.
00:06:39 So it's not just the tangible loss of a job at the time and the financial hardship that
00:06:46 came from that.
00:06:47 It's the many years of financial suffering that followed on the back of that.
00:06:50 So while it's fair to say there are some token gestures of compensation and there are some
00:06:57 legal nuances where some people have been more fortunate than others yet been in the
00:07:01 same boat that I'm sure we'll get onto this morning, but there is a bigger picture of
00:07:05 loss than is merely just about finance.
00:07:08 Over many years now?
00:07:10 In some instances, over 20 years plus.
00:07:14 And Alan Bates, you represent a large group of subpostmortars who are victims of this
00:07:19 scandal.
00:07:20 Presumably, a similar story for the many people that you represent through your Justice for
00:07:26 Subpostmortars Alliance.
00:07:28 Well, the group consists of about 555.
00:07:34 And I think over the years when they were serving subpostmortars, they paid in the order
00:07:40 of eight and a half million pounds back to post office from shortfalls or stated shortfalls.
00:07:49 That's without anything else as well, the loss of their businesses and all the rest
00:07:52 of it.
00:07:53 So, I mean, everyone is still suffering extremely badly from the financial difficulties they've
00:08:00 been left in by post office.
00:08:02 And the money that was paid back to the post office was, as we now know, for shortfalls
00:08:07 that didn't exist.
00:08:08 And so that was, in essence, surplus funds to the post office, which they wouldn't have
00:08:15 been able to account for as providing goods and services.
00:08:18 That's right, isn't it?
00:08:21 Yeah, I mean, for years I've been involved, obviously chasing this through for years and
00:08:26 working with people like Second Sight when they did the mediation scheme.
00:08:30 And one of the big concerns they had, which all of us had, were the suspense accounts.
00:08:35 And no one could ever get to the bottom of these suspense accounts or actually find out
00:08:39 what was in them and what post office did with them or how they recorded them.
00:08:44 But that money must have gone somewhere.
00:08:45 And Dr. Hedrell, when we look at compensation for victims, I mean, you alluded to it in
00:08:50 your previous answer, but in other areas of law, if you've suffered loss of future financial
00:08:57 earnings, if you've suffered physical or mental ill health, if you've suffered hardship, that
00:09:02 normally can be calculated, can't it, as part of a compensation calculation?
00:09:07 It can, and it will be in certain instances here.
00:09:10 So the people that were criminally convicted and have since been exonerated, that have
00:09:15 received interim payments, will now go on and have their claims fully quantified on
00:09:22 the basis of the civil process, which is basically to try and put someone back in the position
00:09:29 that they would have been in had the wrong not been done in the first place.
00:09:33 So that's an exercise that's ongoing for, I think in total so far, 79, of which we represent
00:09:39 59, the clients.
00:09:41 So that's an ongoing process.
00:09:43 But that isn't a luxury that's open to the 555, because the 2019 litigation, as it stood,
00:09:54 resolved their claims at that time in full and final settlement.
00:09:56 Of course, they only received a fraction of their losses.
00:10:00 So the process that has allowed the convicted people to push on is a luxury in the context
00:10:08 of where the bulk of those people sit.
00:10:10 And of course, there were victims who paid so-called shortfalls but weren't actually
00:10:17 prosecuted or convicted.
00:10:20 And unless they were able to bid into the historic shortfall scheme or get payments
00:10:24 through there, they're currently potentially out of scope.
00:10:27 Yeah, correct.
00:10:28 The historical shortfall scheme that opened for a window of about four months earlier
00:10:35 this year, last year rather, has about 2,500 applicants.
00:10:43 And the 555 were carved out of that process.
00:10:49 So they don't have that redress now.
00:10:51 OK.
00:10:52 Alan Brown, please.
00:10:53 Thanks, Chair.
00:10:54 I'll just start with a couple of questions to Alan Bates, please.
00:11:00 So Alan, we've heard you formed up a group now consisting of 555 people.
00:11:08 You were successful in litigation in receiving £55 million compensation from the post office
00:11:14 as part of that group action.
00:11:15 But can you break down what that actually means in terms of what the final compensation
00:11:20 was to each of the people involved in that?
00:11:24 Yeah.
00:11:25 So, the compensation, I mean, to talk about compensation from the settlement agreement
00:11:33 is wrong.
00:11:34 That word doesn't appear once in the whole document.
00:11:37 I'm trying to explain that.
00:11:40 The £56.75 million quoted as being what the group received, approximately £46 million
00:11:47 of that went towards the costs associated with bringing the legal action.
00:11:54 So after that £56.75 million had had the £46 million removed, there was about £11
00:12:04 million left and that averaged about £20,000 per person.
00:12:10 And unfortunately, each claim is closer to the order of £700,000 in actuality of what
00:12:18 people have lost.
00:12:19 So to put them back in a position they would have been in if the post office hadn't done
00:12:24 what they did in the first place.
00:12:29 If you've got a minute or so, I'd quite like to tell you about the settlement agreement,
00:12:36 which I think there's a lot of nonsense spoken about it over the years.
00:12:40 I'd like to clarify a few points on that for you on behalf of the 555.
00:12:47 First off, simply we had no other option but to accept it because of the high financial
00:12:53 commitment we'd incurred and because the funders supporting the action were willing to provide
00:12:59 further financial support, which meant that ATE or after the event insurance wouldn't
00:13:05 have been available for us if we'd have continued the legal action.
00:13:09 And unfortunately, the group would have had to bear the risk of any loss should we have
00:13:16 failed with any of the further legal action.
00:13:19 And also at that time, it was being reported that the board of post office had instructed
00:13:25 its lawyer to bury the case at any cost.
00:13:29 And obviously, post office through government had unlimited funds, which is something we
00:13:34 didn't.
00:13:35 But also the plus side of stopping there at that point when we did was that the claimants
00:13:42 would at least receive something, albeit not a lot, but there were so many of them in dire,
00:13:48 dire straits.
00:13:49 They were losing houses left, right and centre.
00:13:52 I mean, had the funding not run out, there would have been another at least three trials.
00:13:57 One was scheduled for March of 2020 to address limitation.
00:14:03 Another would have addressed the types of losses and possibly would have been a third
00:14:07 to sweep up on everything else afterwards.
00:14:10 So there is a lot of nonsense spoken about the settlement agreement.
00:14:15 And so compensation is not strictly true, although government like to talk about full
00:14:22 and final settlement.
00:14:25 But it only really relates to part of the payments for some of the issues of the first
00:14:30 two trials.
00:14:31 It's not what victims are actually owed.
00:14:34 That is still outstanding.
00:14:36 If I can just go on for another moment or two.
00:14:41 Strangely, both post office and government seem to ignore a key clause in that settlement
00:14:46 agreement where it states that both parties were acting in good faith.
00:14:51 I think that's important because it's abundantly clear to see that post office was not now.
00:14:57 Because we were forced into an agreement because post offices legal team were trying anything
00:15:02 and everything to run us out of cash.
00:15:04 Key documents relevant to the dispute were deliberately withheld from us because, as
00:15:10 we were later to discover once the settlement agreement had been signed, post office had
00:15:16 failed on numerous occasions to undertake its disclosure duties in providing evidence
00:15:22 it should have provided to both us and the court.
00:15:26 And I've just got three brief examples of that, if I may.
00:15:30 In 2007, the Ernst & Young audit reported numerous Fujitsu personnel had free access
00:15:37 to all of Horizon's software to do, as was later confirmed by post office's own IT expert,
00:15:45 that they could do pretty much anything through their third party access to the software.
00:15:49 And that's something post office continued to deny up until the case was in court.
00:15:55 The second example, 2013, the BAE Systems Detica report, which amongst many, many damning
00:16:03 observations identified that post office systems are not fit for purpose.
00:16:08 And I think the more recent one, which you probably would have heard about, is the 2015
00:16:14 Clark advice, which was revealed in the Court of Appeal earlier this year, and which pointed
00:16:20 out the very serious concerns over the veracity of the Fujitsu evidence that had been used
00:16:26 to prosecute sub-postmasters, which you know is something currently being investigated
00:16:32 by the Metropolitan Police.
00:16:34 But the interesting thing about that one is when post office first received this particular
00:16:39 advice from Mr. Clark in 2015, it seems post office's board went into a mad panic as it
00:16:48 held six board meetings in a six week period, when it normally only held eight or nine meetings
00:16:55 a year.
00:16:57 So because all this new evidence has been withheld from us, it does now seem that the
00:17:03 settlement agreement may well be unsafe, as it was obtained by duress and unfair conduct,
00:17:12 which is why today we are announcing that we have an open contract available to any
00:17:16 law firm that wants to pick up our case to have the settlement agreement set aside or
00:17:20 overturned.
00:17:21 I hope that's probably answered your question and possibly a few others as well.
00:17:26 Yeah, thanks for that.
00:17:28 Certainly kind of opens up for more questions.
00:17:32 So obviously you're quite clear in your mind the post office didn't act in good faith,
00:17:39 and you used the phrase damning.
00:17:41 So since then, though, has there been any contrition from either the post office or
00:17:46 even the government in terms of a willingness to look at proper compensation?
00:17:51 Because you said you received £20,000 per member, as it were, but claims could have
00:17:58 been up to £700,000.
00:18:01 You won the case but paid out £46 million in compensation.
00:18:05 So has any of them been willing to talk seriously about proper compensation and reimbursing
00:18:12 these legal costs?
00:18:13 No, there's been numerous requests made to government and post office, and all they turn
00:18:20 round and say, as I mentioned before, full and final settlement, that's it, mate.
00:18:26 And that's what they're doing.
00:18:27 They're totally ignoring the distress that the 555 are still suffering.
00:18:34 They're being punished for bringing the case in the first instance.
00:18:40 It's like they want to send a message out to everyone.
00:18:43 All well and good that the people are getting their convictions overturned out of it, and
00:18:47 it's all well and good that all these other sub-postmasters who've come a lot later are
00:18:53 going to receive something from the historic shortfall.
00:18:56 But why should the 555, who dared to stand up to them and to actually expose the real
00:19:01 truth in all this, why should we continue to be punished?
00:19:05 I was going to ask, how do you feel?
00:19:09 So in today's written ministerial statement, we've got a statement from the minister who
00:19:15 is talking about how much work the government's doing because they're providing the money
00:19:21 to recompensate those who are getting their criminal convictions overturned, which as
00:19:24 you said, you want all those that suffered an injustice to get proper recompensation.
00:19:31 But how do you feel when the government seems to be saying they're doing a lot of work,
00:19:36 but yet you feel there's still no recourse or avenue for your 555?
00:19:43 Well we're frustrated and we're very, very angry, and it's something we will never let
00:19:48 go until we receive proper and fair financial redress.
00:19:53 Why should we?
00:19:54 I mean, you know, people are still losing their houses and they're still losing their
00:19:59 business, businesses as we speak.
00:20:02 The damage is still ongoing.
00:20:06 They've got to be brought to deal with this.
00:20:09 They really have to deal with it once and for all, because post office will never, ever
00:20:14 be able to move on until they've resolved it with ourselves.
00:20:18 We will never let go of this.
00:20:22 Who should be taking the lead on this?
00:20:24 I mean, you're talking about the post office.
00:20:26 Should it be the post office?
00:20:27 Should it be the government?
00:20:28 Or do you want to hear more clarity from each?
00:20:32 Well I mean, I think we have got the inquiry that's going, running along at the moment.
00:20:37 That may well reveal further facts in there, or come out with recommendations.
00:20:41 We also have a complaint in with the parliamentary ombudsman about government's role in all of
00:20:51 this.
00:20:52 They've been trying to duck it for years, but they've been involved as much as anyone
00:20:57 else right from the outset.
00:20:59 And hopefully some recommendations will come out from the ombudsman's report or findings
00:21:07 that will assist us move this even further.
00:21:10 But if we have to go back to court, maybe that's where we're looking long term.
00:21:14 I don't know.
00:21:15 And I mean, you said, you started the ball rolling in terms of exposing this and actually
00:21:21 fighting to get justice.
00:21:25 Your members have only got £20,000 each.
00:21:30 And yet, in the case of the government's support in terms of people who are getting their criminal
00:21:35 convictions overturned, they're getting interim payments of £100,000, which again, I'm sure
00:21:40 you support them getting money they're entitled to.
00:21:47 Can you actually see any logic why the government stands by the full and final settlement for
00:21:52 you, for your group, but yet they're happy to oversee interim payments of £100,000,
00:21:57 which clearly lead to more for those others that are getting their criminal case overturned,
00:22:03 or their conviction overturned, sorry?
00:22:06 It's, you know, I say, it's punishment.
00:22:10 It's the way they operate.
00:22:12 They haven't been at all happy that we ever brought this up in the first instance.
00:22:17 And as I said before, I mean, they were determined to bury it at any cost in there.
00:22:23 There's a lot to come out.
00:22:25 And I think there's been some sort of major cover up that's been going on, hopefully that
00:22:29 will be revealed over the years.
00:22:31 But I mean, why we should be suffering, why the 555 should still be suffering is wrong.
00:22:39 And, you know, we've had a lot of support down in Westminster, and I'm sure we'll get
00:22:44 a lot more going forward with this as well.
00:22:47 We can't let it rest.
00:22:48 We'll never let it rest until people get some proper financial redress.
00:22:54 Okay, you kind of made a patch earlier on there about legal, to legal firms, but what
00:23:00 other options do you have to claim additional compensation to fully cover your financial
00:23:05 losses?
00:23:06 Well, I mean, obviously, we're looking to recommendations that might come out from the
00:23:13 inquiry and also from the ombudsman.
00:23:17 But in the meantime, we just hopefully will keep chasing our politicians and asking them
00:23:22 to keep raising it and bringing it to the attention of governments all the time, because
00:23:27 it is wrong.
00:23:28 It is wrong the way we're being treated at the moment.
00:23:32 Can I just ask one more question to you?
00:23:35 Alan, previously, the phrase the Post Office acted as prosecutor, judge and jury in terms
00:23:46 of how the cases were taken forward and, you know, pursued.
00:23:53 The government, it seems to me, they've been silent about the fact that technically, it's
00:23:58 my understanding, the Post Office still have these prosecution powers.
00:24:01 Is that your understanding, is there risks that somewhere down the line that the same
00:24:07 type of prosecution of sub-postmasters could reoccur if that was a route the Post Office
00:24:14 decided to go down?
00:24:16 I mean, it's always a potential in there.
00:24:20 I don't know after what's happened of recent whether they would pursue that sort of course
00:24:27 of action.
00:24:28 But, I mean, I haven't heard that they've changed.
00:24:32 I think there was at one point they were thinking of getting rid of those powers.
00:24:35 I think the sooner they do get rid of them, the better.
00:24:38 The sooner they're removed from them, because most of these cases would never have gone
00:24:44 to court.
00:24:45 We're absolutely certain about that if there'd been an outside agency who had actually reviewed
00:24:53 the cases first.
00:24:54 Thanks, I might just put that to Dr. Hudshall.
00:24:58 Do you have any view on whether the government's done anything to restrain these prosecution
00:25:04 powers of the Post Office?
00:25:06 Even though at the moment there might not be a will to use them, is it the fact that
00:25:10 there's been nothing to actually change the powers they have?
00:25:14 As I understand it, the legal framework now is that the Crown Prosecution Service sit
00:25:17 in between, so you wouldn't see this sort of scenario arise.
00:25:23 They'd certainly be very folly to go back to any sort of system where they are.
00:25:28 Judge, jury and executioner, and obviously victim and beneficiary.
00:25:33 So there's lessons to be learned there, not just for Post Office, but more widely.
00:25:38 Just, if I can, can I just touch on a couple of things that, and sort of reiterate a couple
00:25:43 of things that Alan said.
00:25:44 He talks about the sort of 57 million.
00:25:47 I just did a bit of a calculation.
00:25:50 Even if that's unraveled, it only provides a fraction of the losses for the bulk of the
00:25:58 555.
00:26:00 The figure's much nearer to about 400 million.
00:26:02 That's one point.
00:26:05 I chatted to Jo this morning, because she's one of the 50-odd within the 555 whose case
00:26:14 was carved out of the settlement.
00:26:16 So one of the provisions of the settlement, ironically Post Office made it very specific,
00:26:22 that Jo and the other exonerees were not allowed a penny in compensation from the settlement,
00:26:30 but that the committee of the 555 assigned them a small portion of that, but carved out
00:26:38 of the settlement was the right to pursue a malicious prosecution case.
00:26:42 So the irony, of course, is that the 555 or Trailblazers led the platform for the historical
00:26:49 shortfall scheme.
00:26:51 The conviction's been overturned.
00:26:54 And Jo, through no fault of her own, feels really rather guilty about being in what might
00:26:59 be described as a luxurious position compared to the rest, being able to pursue full and
00:27:05 final and proper compensation.
00:27:07 I think the other practical difficulty will be in seeking redress through law, it will
00:27:15 be a brave law firm that will take this on.
00:27:20 As you know, the bulk of the original settlement went on funding fees, but of course that funder
00:27:27 has to take the risk.
00:27:29 And ultimately, had that litigation not been successful, then there would have been a funder
00:27:32 picking up a huge bill at the end of it.
00:27:36 So the dynamics of civil litigation don't lend themselves to racy, expensive litigation,
00:27:44 particularly in circumstances where there would probably be argument that there were
00:27:49 legal teams on both sides and that settlements were reached at arm's length.
00:27:55 Albeit it's much more complicated here because of course there are all sorts of allegations
00:27:59 of impropriety, cover-up, and all those things, but it's a really sort of very unimpressive
00:28:04 landscape where there are many, many people that continue to suffer hardship, and particularly
00:28:11 bearing in mind a lot of these people are elderly, so they're coming to the end of their
00:28:16 life.
00:28:17 I've got clients that are working well into the 70s, and working to make ends meet in
00:28:21 rented accommodation with significant debt, still dealing with the ravages of bankruptcy
00:28:27 and the shame that attaches to that.
00:28:29 So time will run out for a lot of people.
00:28:33 People will sadly die whilst this still hangs over them unless government comes to the table
00:28:39 and makes proper compensation packages for everybody that's affected.
00:28:44 So you think the 555 should be treated in the same vein as those that are getting their
00:28:50 convictions overturned, and the government's looking at compensating them as a consequence?
00:28:55 Well the 555 includes some of those, and as I say, they went into this, Joe's been a strong
00:29:01 advocate through the whole process alongside Alan, Kay, Second Sight, everybody that's
00:29:07 been involved in that, sticks together.
00:29:11 But sadly some of the way that this has played out has caused division and resentment and
00:29:18 bitterness within the cohort of the 555, which again is something that ought to rest at post
00:29:25 offices door.
00:29:26 I mean I think this is just ridiculous.
00:29:28 I mean if government really believes there should be full and fair compensation, then
00:29:33 the 555 shouldn't be excluded from that.
00:29:35 I think it's plainly obvious that that's the case.
00:29:38 I just want to ask a couple of follow-up questions on legal fees and how they relate into the
00:29:43 compensation.
00:29:44 So Joe, when all of this happened in the first place, were you able to get independent advice
00:29:49 from lawyers or a trade union or anybody, or did you just feel you had to start paying
00:29:54 back these sums that the post office was asking of you?
00:29:58 The original £4,000 I had to pay back, they said your contract says you've got to pay
00:30:04 it back, and actually if you look in the words that I hadn't really read and understood properly,
00:30:11 you are liable for it all.
00:30:14 So they said you've got to pay it back.
00:30:16 So it wasn't until it got to an enormous amount and I rang the Federation of Subpostmasters
00:30:20 for help and they said you go find yourself a good criminal lawyer and we'll arrange an
00:30:25 audit and that was the only help I got out of the Federation.
00:30:29 Unfortunately one of my customers was a criminal lawyer and I went to her, otherwise I'd have
00:30:34 literally been picking a number out of a phone book to get help.
00:30:39 So yeah, I was fortunate to know someone in the first place.
00:30:44 I mean the whole thing is just a nightmare.
00:30:48 Because otherwise you couldn't challenge what you were being told.
00:30:51 And I always pleaded not guilty to death because I never stole anything.
00:30:55 We did a prepared statement for my interview under caution because she said I couldn't
00:31:02 explain where the money was and she said well I can't let you answer questions.
00:31:08 So she said well write your prepared statement, which is what I did and I did a no comment
00:31:13 interview which I then went not guilty right the way to the trial was about to begin and
00:31:20 they did a last minute plea bargain.
00:31:23 And then she said well they're going to get you for false accounting so plead guilty,
00:31:27 remortgage, pay all the money back and we must have mentioned Horizon as a condition
00:31:33 of it.
00:31:34 And they held the theft charge over in case I didn't come up with the money and that would
00:31:40 have put me on trial for theft.
00:31:42 I mean and also the investigator who I now know, I've read the document, who wrote there
00:31:49 was no evidence of theft or deliberate cash inflated figures.
00:31:53 He came to every court appearance, including my sentencing, and he's actually written a
00:31:57 document that said he couldn't find any evidence of theft.
00:32:02 Remarkable.
00:32:03 And Paul, same question to you.
00:32:05 When all of this happened right from the very beginning, did you incur any costs from having
00:32:10 to seek initial legal advice or representation or did you just pursue it as an individual?
00:32:17 I just pursued it and took it on individually.
00:32:19 I didn't go to any legal firms.
00:32:24 Problem I had then was that I had four post offices.
00:32:27 So this was occurring as a nightmare on a weekly basis.
00:32:33 Just fortunate that I had other businesses that were helping me to sustain the shortfalls.
00:32:39 So I had no need really other than the fact, because post office counters limited, even
00:32:44 if you asked them to send in an audit team, which I did in various situations.
00:32:50 They come in, ordered it, couldn't find it, but no explanation as where it went to.
00:32:56 And then in certain situations, it was them telling us maybe, because I had 21 staff at
00:33:03 the time, that maybe you got staff pinching the money from you.
00:33:09 And over the years, because it went to individual stock units, as we called it, and their stock
00:33:16 unit was down, albeit I couldn't say that they'd stolen the money, but I had to make
00:33:22 them redundant to see if I could alleviate that problem.
00:33:26 So it's not just the fact that the postmasters have been hit with this, their staff have
00:33:31 been hit with this over the years as well.
00:33:33 Thank you.
00:33:34 And then just on legal fees, you mentioned that the post office was, quote unquote, trying
00:33:39 to bury these initial claims.
00:33:41 Do you know how much the post office has spent in legal fees?
00:33:45 I don't know exactly, but it must be well over 100 million pounds, easily.
00:33:51 I mean, it's something that I have asked other MPs whether the, is it the Public Accounts
00:33:57 Committee want to look at it.
00:34:01 But I mean, it's not just that, they've also had battalions of lawyers looking at each
00:34:08 of these individual cases.
00:34:10 You know, I've heard of firms where there's like 60 or 70 lawyers working on it, full
00:34:15 time reviewing cases.
00:34:17 So I hate to think what size illegal bills are being run up at the moment.
00:34:24 Yeah, it's a very visual way of describing 60 to 70 lawyers on one side and then having
00:34:29 to rely on friends or neighbours on the other side.
00:34:35 And just to say, Alan, based on some of your previous answers to my colleague, Alan Brown,
00:34:39 this committee will be looking at the corporate governance issues that you referenced.
00:34:44 It's just that we can't do that at the moment whilst the statutory inquiry is taking place,
00:34:48 but we will certainly be coming back to it when we're able to do so.
00:34:51 Nozra Ghani, please.
00:34:52 Thank you, Chair.
00:34:53 I think Alan referenced earlier that they were trying to bury at any cost.
00:34:57 And what's interesting is not only do we have the inquiry taking place right now, but over
00:35:01 at Westminster Hall there's a debate taking place as well.
00:35:03 So burying hasn't quite worked.
00:35:06 I have some questions, but I just want to just go back to Miss Hamilton.
00:35:11 It just seems that you were trapped in this nightmare and there was no way out.
00:35:14 It also sounds quite sinister, the way that people conducted themselves around you and
00:35:19 how you had to find not only bits of money, but trying to prove something that you couldn't
00:35:26 prove because you had no responsibility.
00:35:27 And it must have been such a huge contrast for when Horizon was first delivered as a
00:35:32 way out, a new way of doing all of this.
00:35:34 I just wondered if you could just very quickly reflect on your, a bit more of your personal
00:35:37 experience, because I think one way that people can deflect from responsibility is going on
00:35:43 about the process.
00:35:44 So we mustn't forget that there are actual individual people involved.
00:35:46 I mean, when it started going wrong, I used to sit up half the night and print stuff off
00:35:52 and I'd be just literally sat in the office staring at all this paperwork.
00:35:57 But of course you didn't have a paper trail.
00:35:59 You only had, like if you came in and bought something or paid for something with a debit
00:36:04 card, you would get a copy.
00:36:07 But as a merchant, you wouldn't get a copy.
00:36:09 And it would all be held in the computer.
00:36:12 And I'm talking going back to 2003 and it was all a bit magic then.
00:36:18 It all went on behind the screen and you didn't know anything about it.
00:36:22 And to try and actually prove it, you could print off stuff that had happened, but I didn't
00:36:27 actually realise that I couldn't find out.
00:36:31 You know, I just used to look at figures and think, well, it's got to be here somewhere.
00:36:34 You know, I must have done something wrong.
00:36:36 And you actually had no access to it.
00:36:40 You know, you'd phone the help desk and they would actually, well, there was one time I
00:36:43 phoned the help desk and I had a £2,000 discrepancy and they managed to turn it into
00:36:47 four.
00:36:48 And then they took the four off me.
00:36:51 Over a phone call, they were trying to get some help to resolve it.
00:36:53 So every time you try to reach out and try and get some transparency, it just feels like
00:36:58 it was getting worse.
00:36:59 And in the end, you stop phoning them because, you know, then you phone for help, you don't
00:37:05 get it or they make it worse.
00:37:06 And so you stop phoning.
00:37:08 The madness is that because of the numbers we were looking at, there were so many people.
00:37:13 They told us all when we were interviewed, they told us all that it never happened to
00:37:18 anybody else.
00:37:19 And so this is quite important.
00:37:20 If we just reflect on this just for a moment.
00:37:22 So you were categorically told constantly and continuously.
00:37:26 You are the only one.
00:37:28 And you know, and if you actually shift back to 2003/4, social media wasn't around really
00:37:34 like it is now.
00:37:36 And we didn't realise until, because all the village came to court to support me when I
00:37:41 was sentenced, and I believe it was only that that kept me out of prison, because it hit
00:37:47 the daily papers, people started phoning up and we gradually, people had heard of someone
00:37:52 else and gradually we all met each other.
00:37:55 And we had the first meeting in 2009 and we realised, we literally sat around a room like
00:38:00 this and we told our stories and it was like, we're all telling the same story.
00:38:06 We'd all been told we were the only ones.
00:38:08 Miss Helton, I just want to just drill down.
00:38:10 When were you told you were the only one?
00:38:11 Can you remember the last time this was said to you?
00:38:14 What year maybe?
00:38:15 I remember the first time it was said in 2006 when they came round to my house to look for
00:38:19 money.
00:38:20 Who was they?
00:38:21 The Post Office Investigation Team.
00:38:23 Post Office Investigation Team in 2006 made it abundantly clear that you were unique.
00:38:27 Yeah.
00:38:28 2006, when was the last time they said this to you?
00:38:33 Not much after that, probably my interview under caution.
00:38:37 And that was in 2006 as well, but then I got sacked, you see, straight away.
00:38:42 In 2006 you were told, categorically, you were unique and you were the only one.
00:38:46 Which in itself is a lie.
00:38:48 Well, it's also a lie.
00:38:51 And the same people, I mean, subsequently when we got together in the groups, we found
00:38:57 the same investigators were telling the same ones of us that we were the only ones.
00:39:01 Only like a couple of months later they were telling someone else they were the only ones.
00:39:05 Investigator A, for example, came to you in 2006 and said you were the only one.
00:39:11 And then you were speaking to other people who were victims and they said that Investigator
00:39:15 A was saying the same to them.
00:39:18 Which cannot be correct because it was obviously speaking to more than one person that was
00:39:22 a victim.
00:39:23 I just think we need to make sure that was noted.
00:39:24 Thank you so much, Ms. Hamilton.
00:39:25 I've got a series of questions.
00:39:26 I'm going to zip through them quite quickly because I know time is an issue.
00:39:29 And I'm going to come to you first, Dr. Hodgehill.
00:39:34 You're representing 59 former submasters who've had their Horizon IT prosecutions overturned
00:39:40 and they're seeking compensation.
00:39:42 I just have about four questions to get some data from you.
00:39:44 So how many of those 59, your clients, have received interim compensation and how much
00:39:50 have they received?
00:39:51 Is there a way you can give us a bandwidth of that?
00:39:53 To date, 42 have been paid.
00:39:58 Six are awaiting payment.
00:40:02 Six have slight complications involving the official receiver, which we're working through,
00:40:12 which should be resolved in short term.
00:40:17 Three have been refused.
00:40:18 Refused?
00:40:19 Yeah.
00:40:20 I will explore on that later.
00:40:21 So it's three of them refused.
00:40:22 Okay.
00:40:23 And then?
00:40:24 And two, we are awaiting paperwork from the clients.
00:40:29 So that should get to 59.
00:40:32 Okay.
00:40:33 Of the 42, what was the sort of average sum?
00:40:36 Well, they were all 100,000 pounds.
00:40:40 And the three that were refused, what were the reasons why?
00:40:46 Well, we feel quite strongly about those.
00:40:49 They were, again, you can start to get into legal nuances, but they were based on false
00:40:54 confession evidence.
00:40:56 The post office have said essentially that Horizon and the operation of the IT system
00:41:03 wasn't intrinsic to the prosecution.
00:41:07 We are, I say we feel strongly about that and amounting a claim to present to them.
00:41:15 And if it's not appropriately responded to, then we will issue proceedings.
00:41:21 Because confessions, false confessions, were quite a strong part of the story.
00:41:28 You heard from Joan, there was certainly a prosecution strategy which involved, don't
00:41:34 blame Horizon.
00:41:35 Yeah.
00:41:36 And as part of that, make up a story as to what you've done with money that you've supposedly
00:41:41 taken.
00:41:42 And in these cases, they made up stories that when you actually scratch beneath the surface,
00:41:49 firstly, there wasn't enough money to have gone missing from the post office for them
00:41:54 to have taken it.
00:41:56 And secondly, there was no examination of the story that sat behind that.
00:42:02 So people that said we had to remortgage to pay gambling debts or family loans or whatever,
00:42:08 no one made any effort to look at, see what sat behind that.
00:42:13 So there were actually quite fanciful explanations that were offered.
00:42:19 False confessions, if you've been told that the system is functioning, and then you're
00:42:23 told it must be human error, it must be a difficult place to be in that room.
00:42:26 And also if you're told that you're the only person that's happened to, you can sort of
00:42:31 explain how people have come up with responses to try and make sense of something they're
00:42:34 told doesn't make sense.
00:42:36 And it's the only responses that they are in some way complicit.
00:42:40 It's an impossible situation.
00:42:41 Of course, there's an inequality of arms that continues to this day.
00:42:45 So back then, I've always compared it to a jigsaw.
00:42:49 If there's an 800-piece jigsaw, which is just above the number of convictions has been,
00:42:55 each person has one piece.
00:42:56 Post office have all 800, so there's only one person or one party that can see the picture.
00:43:02 And that was obviously post office.
00:43:03 But of course, at the time as well, computer evidence was taken as being reliable unless
00:43:10 someone could prove it to be the opposite.
00:43:15 And you would have someone sat there.
00:43:17 Let's not forget these are sort of ordinary decent folk that sit in small communities
00:43:22 and just about make a living.
00:43:24 They can't afford to spend two, three thousand pounds on a computer expert report.
00:43:29 They can't afford legal fees to do it and presented with that picture and the opportunity
00:43:37 to potentially avoid prison if they're pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and please don't
00:43:41 blame Horizon.
00:43:42 You know, lots of people were in that situation.
00:43:47 And of course, that sort of inequality of arms continues to this day, really, and the
00:43:52 whole mistrust around lawyers, because even now we've only got probably one third of those
00:43:57 that were convicted have popped the head above the parapet and sought advice.
00:44:02 We'll come to that in my second round.
00:44:04 But those that have received interim compensation, when do you think they'll ever have their
00:44:10 cases settled in full?
00:44:12 Well, ongoing process.
00:44:14 I mean, we have some practical issues at the minute.
00:44:16 What I will say in complete fairness to post office is that they've dealt with the interim
00:44:21 payment applications expeditiously.
00:44:22 As soon as the money was made available within a period of a few weeks, payments have been
00:44:28 made other than for the cases that involve the official receiver.
00:44:32 Where we struggle at the minute is in establishing documentary support for various sets of claims,
00:44:39 which we're talking in some instances 20 years on.
00:44:42 HMRC records only last a certain period of time.
00:44:47 Same for DWP.
00:44:50 So we find ourselves in this position where the burden of proof is on the claimant to
00:44:54 establish loss.
00:44:56 And because of post office actions, very often paperwork isn't there and isn't available.
00:45:01 So now we seem to have funding signed off today, it will soon become very apparent how
00:45:07 post office intend to forward offers in compensation.
00:45:11 They have the first cases before them fully pleaded by us.
00:45:15 So we'll see how they respond in the next few weeks.
00:45:18 But what we don't want to see is post office putting up the blockers and saying, well,
00:45:22 you can't prove this loss.
00:45:23 And in some instances, we're short of documentation because of post office.
00:45:28 And there are obviously a number of obstacles that some of your clients will be facing trying
00:45:32 to get compensation.
00:45:34 If there were top three things that could maybe be addressed to make the process a little
00:45:38 bit easier, do you want to share that with us now?
00:45:42 I think that really establishing the burden of proof in circumstances where documentation
00:45:48 is missing is a really, really significant one.
00:45:52 I think we're really coming back to this point around the aging demographic of a lot of the
00:45:58 postmasters, we need to really resolve these things speedily.
00:46:05 And I think the other thing is about awareness.
00:46:08 I think, as I said, there's a real lack of awareness.
00:46:11 And again, I think that might be reflective of the demographic.
00:46:13 I think a lot of elderly people won't use social media.
00:46:18 So what does and doesn't surprise me is that we still, from time to time, get new inquiries
00:46:25 from people that were convicted a long time ago.
00:46:29 But then I think there's equally, there's a bit of a fear of taking on post office again,
00:46:34 because anecdotally, I've heard that post office have written out to all the people
00:46:37 that were convicted.
00:46:39 And some people have written back and said, "Listen, I just don't want to know about this."
00:46:43 And that's obviously incredibly, incredibly sad, because at the minute, they've got a
00:46:46 very huge stain on the character that needs washing away.
00:46:50 Yeah, and the damage has been done.
00:46:52 And this is the issue, age and demographic, and also the shame with anxiety about starting
00:46:57 a process that they can't control again, because it was so damaging the first time around.
00:47:01 Neil, I'm going, Alan, forgive me, I'm going to quickly come up to you.
00:47:05 There were, the post office wrote to 736 convicted sub-postmasters earlier this year.
00:47:12 Correct?
00:47:13 I don't, Neil might know better than I do.
00:47:17 Okay, I'll stay with Neil.
00:47:18 But a considerable amount haven't come forward.
00:47:20 You've also spoken about the reason why.
00:47:23 I'm still struggling to understand if the discrepancy is so huge.
00:47:28 So, I mean, we were talking earlier on, writing is one thing.
00:47:32 Have they actually made enough of an effort?
00:47:35 And why is there that discrepancy?
00:47:37 And how do we try and narrow it?
00:47:40 It's hard to say.
00:47:41 I think it's true.
00:47:42 To some extent, as I say, I know from my own experience that people become incredibly paranoid,
00:47:48 cynical, fearful.
00:47:50 I've got rafts of clients that have got psychiatric medical evidence that say they've had a variety
00:47:56 of disorders from which many of them are still continuing to suffer, even with the benefit
00:48:01 of medication, counselling and all those things.
00:48:03 So you can imagine that people are left to swim alone for many years.
00:48:09 It becomes a vicious circle.
00:48:10 So I think there's a number of people that would fit that category.
00:48:14 I think to demystify it and for people like Joe and others to say actually it's a process
00:48:20 that hopefully at the end of it will give them some measure of comfort.
00:48:26 I think it's just a reiteration of that message.
00:48:28 Sadly some will have died.
00:48:30 I do know stories of people that left the country.
00:48:34 And I suppose if we are to be completely balanced and fair about it, there'll be one or two
00:48:39 people out there whose convictions are actually entirely safe.
00:48:41 So we need to have a little bit of a measure of total balance.
00:48:46 And only 72 have had their cases overturned.
00:48:49 That also puts people off coming forward.
00:48:51 Sorry?
00:48:52 Only 72 people have had their cases overturned.
00:48:56 Do you think that stops them coming forward as well?
00:49:00 It's a process.
00:49:01 So the first raft went through the CCRC.
00:49:05 There's another raft that sits there.
00:49:06 So we've probably got 90 to 100 that sit somewhere within the process.
00:49:11 Some of those will fall away.
00:49:13 Some of those will turn into an acquittal.
00:49:17 So it's not a legal process.
00:49:19 It isn't quick.
00:49:20 And it sort of follows a process and a pattern that starts with review of disclosure that
00:49:27 the post office have given in individual cases.
00:49:29 If there are 736 convicted sub-postmasters and the post office has corresponded with
00:49:36 them, is it a way that data is being shared so people can work out if they've got one
00:49:41 letter, three letters, what level of interaction is taking place?
00:49:46 Because my anxiety is that we're never going to get that figure down unless someone's held
00:49:50 responsible ensuring that the intervention, getting them involved, is quite sensible and
00:49:56 quite deep.
00:49:57 So are you aware of how the post office interact with them or what kind of response they get
00:50:00 back?
00:50:01 Only, again, anecdotally from speaking to the post office.
00:50:07 So I think there's an issue there that maybe we need to draw out with the appropriate minister
00:50:11 because it doesn't mean anything until we know exactly what they've done or what the
00:50:14 response has been.
00:50:15 Because they should know exactly how many have said no thank you, how many have said
00:50:19 maybe or how many haven't got back.
00:50:21 Otherwise we're just going to have this figure for a while here.
00:50:24 Well I guess there will be a number that are not at this address or difficult to trace.
00:50:29 It doesn't take that long to pursue and work it out if they wanted to.
00:50:33 No, well we've no insight into that.
00:50:35 Only from what I'm told, and I say anecdotally, I'm told that some people simply don't want
00:50:41 to know having been approached by the post office.
00:50:43 Well one would hope that that data is being kept and logged and we can always, if the
00:50:47 chair allows, ask if we can have sight of how they are managing it.
00:50:52 My final question and then I'll take it back to the chair.
00:50:56 We obviously are hearing that convicted submasters need more advice and support in overturning
00:51:00 their convictions and seeking compensation.
00:51:02 How do we go about providing this?
00:51:06 How do we as lawyers go about it?
00:51:08 Everybody.
00:51:09 What message do you want to get out today?
00:51:10 Well I think there's an able support network.
00:51:13 Alan does sterling work through the group, the likes of Joe do.
00:51:17 There are plenty of people to reach out to.
00:51:21 We think we're okay and approachable.
00:51:22 We know the ropes.
00:51:23 There's plenty of able lawyers out there that we collaborate with because it's such a hideous
00:51:32 scenario, but we feel very privileged to look after what are just a cohort of badly wronged
00:51:42 normal working class folk like us.
00:51:45 So it brings with it some privilege on our side as well.
00:51:49 They just need to reach out to you don't they?
00:51:51 They do.
00:51:52 Thank you to Joe and Paul in particular for coming and giving their evidence.
00:51:55 Back to you Joe.
00:51:56 Thank you.
00:51:57 I mean it sounds to me like the government might want to think about an independent body
00:52:02 or organisation to reach out to victims if people don't want to hear from the post office
00:52:07 because of their experience.
00:52:08 I mean Joe would you, do you think that would help people if it came from someone other
00:52:12 than the post office offering to provide compensation?
00:52:14 Yeah, or the group, the JFSA, I mean they couldn't be more supportive if you reach out
00:52:21 to them.
00:52:22 You know, because we're all human.
00:52:24 We've all been through it and we know the process.
00:52:28 I can understand if you've gone through the experiences you've set out for us today and
00:52:32 then you receive a letter from the post office, you just run a million miles away.
00:52:35 I personally know two people that have run a million miles from it and they've had letters
00:52:40 from the post office and they won't have anything to do with it.
00:52:43 I think that's something that we'll take forward.
00:52:46 And Dr. Hodgell, just to say that the criminal law and evidence-based computer decisions
00:52:51 is something that ministers were looking at.
00:52:53 I led a Westminster Hall debate before the summer recess because the law is, as you will
00:52:58 know, very significantly out of date which led to lots of these issues and your evidence
00:53:02 has reminded me to chase ministers on that so I will do that as well.
00:53:06 Just a final few questions from me on the historic shortfall scheme.
00:53:10 We've talked primarily today about victims whose convictions have been quashed and the
00:53:14 555 but I just want to take a little bit more evidence on this broader group of people,
00:53:19 not least because it seems like the post office didn't account for the individual so-called
00:53:23 shortfall repayments from individuals so they can go back and track who deserves compensation.
00:53:29 And Neil, you said that the scheme was only open for four months.
00:53:34 It was, from my knowledge of the scheme, it isn't extensive.
00:53:39 We've had quite a lot of inquiries and we directed clients to complete their own application
00:53:45 and once they were processed we were quite happy then to review them and I think we had
00:53:51 of the order of just under 200 inquiries.
00:53:53 How many of those translate to applications, I'm not sure.
00:53:56 Of those we've had, I have knowledge of three offers that have materialised in the scheme.
00:54:03 My understanding is that there were about 2,500 applications of which about 500 were
00:54:09 determined by the middle of this year.
00:54:12 There's been no recent update on that.
00:54:15 My first concerns regarding the scheme were that it in effect acted as a funnel.
00:54:21 So as soon as you made an application to the scheme you were in effect trapped into it.
00:54:27 So if you didn't like the first decision you could appeal it or review it.
00:54:32 I can't remember the terminology.
00:54:34 Beyond that there was an arbitration process.
00:54:37 And the obvious concerns about that were the time that it would take to resolve those claims.
00:54:43 So as I understand it, the last public statement on it was that there were about 20% of the
00:54:50 claims that had been resolved.
00:54:52 Again the ones that I've seen tend to be the ones that appear to be at the lower end of
00:54:58 the scale.
00:54:59 So in my thinking it might be an appropriate time to secure some sort of update from Post
00:55:04 Office as to where they are on the overall numbers.
00:55:08 My other, as I say, quite limited knowledge of the scheme from seeing the offers that
00:55:13 I have is that it brings with it this issue around proof.
00:55:18 One of the offers I've got is an offer based on what Post Office have as limited records
00:55:23 that the Postmaster sits below what he recalls as the level of the shortfall but he's got
00:55:31 no documentation to support that.
00:55:34 So whilst we will invoke a review process, at the moment it's premature to say what the
00:55:40 outcome of that will be and what stance Post Office will take on it.
00:55:45 Paul, just on that issue of evidence, if you've had to shut your Post Offices down and if
00:55:52 all of the information was in the IT system that was the core of this problem, how on
00:55:57 earth would you provide evidence to get compensation?
00:56:02 Did you keep certain documents in hard copy or somewhere else?
00:56:07 No, it's very difficult if you think with, as I said, I was running four Post Offices
00:56:16 and it's coming up now 25 years, you don't keep this type of evidence.
00:56:23 One week you could be putting £100 into one, the following week it could be £500 and I
00:56:28 just realised that you had to put it in because it was the Post Office, you had no choice.
00:56:34 So I never thought that the reason was pinching money off me and nor did anybody else.
00:56:43 It's just a fact that you had to keep on going.
00:56:46 So as far as taking records, no, you didn't look at it that way then, you just didn't
00:56:52 know what was going on really.
00:56:55 And Jo, I assume you agree that you wouldn't write down individual discrepancies if you
00:57:01 thought that they were genuine and you just had to pay them, I assume?
00:57:05 Yeah, well I have actually got a printout of the one where it doubled when I rang the
00:57:08 help desk, I've got a copy of that and within three minutes minus two turned into minus
00:57:14 four.
00:57:15 I mean I have got a copy of that but that's it really.
00:57:18 I mean a lot of the time you had no idea, it would come up and say you should have that
00:57:22 much in the till and you'd look and think, well I haven't.
00:57:27 And there's absolutely no way of finding out and if you rang the help desk, they usually
00:57:31 made things worse.
00:57:34 It just seems like a fundamental flaw to me, the scheme can't work.
00:57:37 There's no double entry at all, you know, you had nothing.
00:57:41 I mean I did it in the paper days when you had cheques and everything else and I never
00:57:46 had a minute's bother.
00:57:48 The moment it went electronic, the moment chip and pin came in, it was just an nightmare.
00:57:53 You couldn't balance anything because you had nothing to compare it to.
00:57:57 How do you appeal this though, Neil?
00:57:59 I mean if the evidence doesn't exist but you've got victims who you believe genuinely have
00:58:05 suffered losses here but the requirement is to present evidence, how do you take that
00:58:12 forward?
00:58:13 Well I think it remains to be seen because the ball sits with post office essentially.
00:58:18 Either as part and parcel of the funding stream that's now being released to see how they
00:58:24 respond to the cases that we've put forward or within the review process of the historical
00:58:31 shortfall scheme because of course post office is a fine balancing exercise.
00:58:34 I don't think between the use of money for the public purse, that's got to be justified
00:58:41 but by the same token acknowledging that these are people that haven't kept documents for
00:58:46 the last 20 years in the same way the HMRC haven't or the post office haven't.
00:58:53 There's new disclosure shortcomings that have just been recently revealed in relation to
00:59:00 some post office records.
00:59:01 So there's a raft of missing documentation across the piece and we shouldn't see why
00:59:06 post masters should be penalised as a result.
00:59:12 Thank you to all of you.
00:59:13 That's been very helpful to set the scene for these two interim hearings for us.
00:59:17 I mean it's plainly obvious why this is referred to as not just a scandal but quite frankly
00:59:22 the largest miscarriage of justice I think by the sounds of it with life changing consequences
00:59:27 for so many of you.
00:59:30 For ministers to publish a written ministerial statement two hours before a session like
00:59:35 this, leaking it to the press the day before, not providing sufficient detail or giving
00:59:40 a statement to the house is quite frankly wholly unacceptable.
00:59:45 It's terrible I agree and so we will be calling ministers in the post office in the new year
00:59:50 to ask many of the questions that we've talked about today and to try to provide as many
00:59:53 answers as possible.
00:59:55 And then as I said on the broader issues we'll have to revisit that once Sir Wynne Williams
01:00:00 inquiry is concluded but we can take these issues on compensation forward and we will
01:00:05 do so in the new year.
01:00:06 So thank you Joe Hamilton, Neil Hudgel, Paul Harry and Alan Bates for your evidence.