Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Euan McColm: Much more scrutiny of Post Office scandal is needed – its final act is far from over

On the face of it, a law which would quash all convictions sounds pretty appealing, but doesn't true justice require more investigation?

ITV's recent drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office has prompted an incredible public and political response. Image: ITV/PA
ITV's recent drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office has prompted an incredible public and political response. Image: ITV/PA

I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything resembling the astonishing reaction to the television drama about the Post Office scandal.

A week after ITV screened Mr Bates vs The Post Office – the story of how a flawed software system screwed up branch accounts, leading to hundreds of subpostmasters being wrongly accused of false accounting and theft – we talk of little else.

Politicians scramble to be seen to help, while TV and radio schedulers fill the airwaves with latest developments. On Wednesday night, alone, there were three separate “specials” about the scandal on terrestrial telly.

Meanwhile, many of those affected – angry, articulate, and fully charged – may be seen and heard on rolling news channels. If you told me Alexander Armstrong and Richard Osman had recorded a Pointless “Jailed Postmasters” episode, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

The facts of the Post Office scandal – that the Horizon software system created by Fujitsu was unfit for purpose, that hundreds of subpostmasters were accused of dishonesty, that many were convicted, that some killed themselves – have been known about for some time. But it took ITV’s brilliant drama, which told how former postmaster Alan Bates led a campaign that exposed the truth about the Post Office’s aggressive actions, despite senior management knowing about Horizon’s problems, to focus minds.

The strength of public reaction – real and justified outrage – sparked politicians into action. Demands for the compensation scheme to be made more efficient and for the wrongly convicted to have their records wiped clean have been answered with a promise from the government that ministers will attempt to pass legislation automatically quashing the conviction of anyone found guilty on the basis of Horizon-generated problems.

Scottish ruling needs more scrutiny

Surprisingly, Scottish politicians have been slow to speak out about this issue. For one thing, any of them could have won a chunk of easy news coverage by speaking up. For another, there are serious questions for both the Post Office and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to answer.

South of the border, the Post Office has the authority to prosecute. In Scotland, however, subpostmasters were charged and tried on the say-so of the fiscal, on the basis of information supplied by the Post Office.

If we accept that the Post Office concealed what it knew about Horizon while running cases in England, can we be sure it was fully candid when reporting to Scottish prosecutors?

Scottish politicians have not only underestimated the strength of public feeling over the Post Office scandal; they’re missing the need to look more deeply into what happened. If key information held by the Post Office about the Horizon system was withheld from the fiscal, then there may be the need for a wider criminal investigation.

It’s splendid to see senior politicians trip over each other to be seen doing the right thing by subpostmasters, but it’s impossible to avoid the unpleasant truth that many of them didn’t give a hoot until Toby Jones popped up last week, in Bafta-winning form, on the box as Alan Bates.

What are the implications of changing the law?

The victims of what may be the worst miscarriage of justice in British history have been struggling for years to access meagre compensation. They may have won a class action against the Post Office, but their victory was followed by them being plunged into the nightmare of yet more bureaucratic intransigence.

On Wednesday, finally awake to the importance of the issue at hand, First Minister Humza Yousaf wrote to Rishi Sunak, calling for intergovernmental cooperation on plans to exonerate those convicted.

There is, I think, some risk that the current proposal may lead to further delays.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and First Minister Humza Yousaf vowed this week to exonerate all victims of the Post Office scandal

On the face of things, a law which would quash all convictions at once sounds pretty appealing. And so horrendous were the experiences of those wrongly dragged into court by the Post Office that we will gladly tolerate the truth that such a law would see some – a minority – guilty people being cleared and compensated. Better a few wrong ‘uns walk free than the former subpostmasters suffer a moment’s more delay than is absolutely necessary.

But what are the implications of changing the law to address this specific issue? If we believe in equality for justice for all, are we happy to see a two-tier system for miscarriages of justice determined on the basis of the popularity of a TV drama?

The final act in the story of the Post Office scandal is far from over.


Euan McColm is a regular columnist for various Scottish newspapers

Conversation