Almost 1,000 people got wrongly convicted of crimes because of faulty evidence from a computer system the Post Office used. Now, the public knows about this mess, and the government has decided to take a second look at the legal rule that allowed all of this to happen.
The individuals affected by these wrongful convictions deserve recognition for their relentless pursuit of justice. Their fight could lead to significant changes in how we treat computer evidence in court. The Post Office Horizon scandal has emerged as one of the most significant miscarriages of justice in UK history. The common thread for all the wrongful convictions was reliance on Fujitsu’s flawed Horizon system. The law assumed the computer was right, putting innocent subpostmasters at a severe disadvantage when seeking justice.
In 1999, a presumption was put into law stating that courts should assume computers operate correctly unless there’s clear proof they don’t. This replaced an earlier law that required proof of a computer’s reliability. This change enabled investigators at the Post Office to pursue cases against subpostmasters based on the faulty Horizon system, without addressing its numerous problems.
For years, the Post Office acted without oversight, prosecuting subpostmasters for crimes like theft and false accounting. Hundreds faced prison time, community service, or wore electronic tags due to accusations based on erroneous data. Many lost their businesses and found themselves in financial ruins, struggling to repay non-existent shortfalls. The aftermath impacted their mental health, leading to multiple suicides related to this scandal.
Proving innocence became a daunting task for those blamed. Seema Misra, a former subpostmaster from Byfleet, Surrey, was sentenced to prison while pregnant in 2010 for theft she didn’t commit. She and her legal team pointed to the Horizon system’s flaws, but were dismissed at the time. After her conviction was overturned in 2021, she commented that the government’s review of computer evidence laws was late but promising.
Jo Hamilton, who worked as a subpostmaster in Hampshire, faced prison for false accounting after experiencing unexplained losses linked to the system. She pleaded guilty to avoid jail time, arguing that it shouldn’t fall on the accused to prove the system’s faults. She welcomed the government’s recent review but noted that it took public pressure and media coverage to spur action.
Lee Castleton, who ran a branch in Yorkshire, went bankrupt after contesting accusations based on Horizon evidence. He criticized the legal framework, stating it unfairly shifted the burden onto defendants to prove their innocence regarding a vast and complex system.
Scott Darlington, another victim, had a conviction for false accounting overturned in 2021 after being wrongfully accused of a £44,000 shortfall. He expressed relief over the government’s decision to review the presumption, noting that concerns had been raised long before.
James Arbuthnot, a peer who advocated for the affected subpostmasters, welcomed the review. He pointed out the absurdity of presuming computer evidence is reliable when many know computers can fail. He stressed that the government had already received warnings about the legal presumption as early as 2019.
While it’s crucial to update the rules, Arbuthnot recognized the challenges ahead. He emphasized a need for balanced legislation that addresses the unique nature of digital evidence without overwhelming the court system.
Experts from various fields are ready to help. Sam De Silva from the British Computer Society acknowledged the review was long overdue. He advocated for a hybrid solution rather than a complete reversal of the presumption.
IT specialist James Christie criticized the presumption’s origin, which arose from a misunderstanding of software systems and reversed the burden of proof onto defendants. This has allowed organizations to avoid accountability for poorly designed systems.
Computer scientist Steven Murdoch noted that the current presumption has hindered justice, highlighting the need for legal changes to prevent future scandals. He emphasized that any reforms should set high expectations for the reliability of computer evidence.
Law expert Stephen Mason praised the government’s decision to revisit the presumption, highlighting how it creates barriers for individuals contesting electronic evidence. Barrister Paul Marshall, who aided former subpostmasters, revealed that the scandal exposed a failure in the justice system to properly address electronic evidence.
The Post Office has concealed known faults in the Horizon system for years, prioritizing its financial interests over justice. Now, the courts are facing unprecedented claims for malicious prosecution due to these profound miscarriages of justice.