I share this comment by John Warren, posted by him on the blog last night, with his permission.
There are three reasons for doing so. First, I have already discussed the end of the pretence that there might be ethical capitalism this morning. As is now all too apparent, the Post Office was very far from moral in its actions.
Secondly, that demise makes clear that corporations have no concern for others in their actions. It is clear that the Post Office had none.
Third, we need to make clear that there are consequences of this. In particular, it is crucial that those causing harm be personally accountable for their actions. They cannot take the upside and none of the risk. In this case, it seems certain that people took their own lives as a consequence of what the Post Office did. Those responsible for that foreseeable outcome should, in my opinion, be tried for manslaughter.
The first part of the Post Office Inquiry has been published today. Post Office Inquiry chair Sir Wyn Williams made 19 recommendations in the report.
When Sir Wyn refers to the “department”, it means the government department for business and trade.
1) Government and/or the Department and where appropriate the Post Office and Fujitsu shall provide written responses to recommendations by 10 October 2025.
2) The Minister and/or the Department in conjunction with the Post Office shall make a public announcement explaining what is meant by the phrase “full and fair financial redress”.
3) The Post Office, the Department and the Minister shall ensure that all decision makers apply the meaning to be given to the words “full and fair” when assessing the amounts to be awarded to individual claimants.
4) All claimants in Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) shall be entitled to obtain legal advice funded by the Department prior to choosing between accepting the Fixed Sum Offer or seeking financial redress which is assessed.
5) Any claimant who opts to have a claim assessed may decide to accept the Fixed Sum Offer at any time thereafter up to and including the date which is three calendar months following the receipt by the claimant of a first assessed offer.
6) A suitably qualified senior lawyer shall be appointed to HSS as soon as is practicable.
7) The appointed person shall be given appropriate powers to ensure that these tasks can be performed and carried into effect.
8) Post Office shall be obliged to make a first offer to a claimant which is no less than the sum recommended by the Independent Advisory Panel.
9) Urgent consideration to whether claimants who have accepted the Fixed Sum Offer in HSS should be afforded the opportunity to appeal against their acceptance of such an offer if they are granted permission so to do.
10) The Department shall issue a supplementary document/announcement clarifying the meaning and intent of the “best offer” principle in the Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeal (“HSSA”) process.
11) The “best offer” principle which will apply in HSSA, as explained in response to Recommendation 10, shall be equally applicable in GLOS (group litigation order scheme).
12) The scheme documents governing GLOS should be amended so that a right is conferred upon claimants to make oral submissions in support of their claim at the hearing convened by an independent panel.
13) The current Dispute Resolution Procedure in HSS should be closed once all claimants currently within the Procedure have either (a) settled their claims or (b) transferred to HSSA.
14) During the nine-month period, the Post Office shall engage in negotiations and/or mediation with any claimants who notify the Post Office of a desire to seek a negotiated or mediated settlement of their claim.
15) No claims for financial redress under HSS shall be entertained after midnight on 27 November 2025.
16) The Department shall make a public announcement in which (a) it clarifies whether there will be any differences in the process for assessing financial redress and the process currently operating and if so, (b) it explains what those differences in the process will be.
17) Government shall establish a standing public body which shall, when called upon to do so, devise, administer and deliver schemes for providing financial redress to persons who have been wronged by public bodies.
18) The Department shall devise a process for providing financial redress to close family members of those most adversely affected by Horizon.
19) By 31 October 2025, the Department, Fujitsu and the Post Office shall publish, either separately or together, a report outlining any agreed programme of restorative justice and/or any actions taken by that date to produce such a programme. (Sky News Website today).
The 19 recommendations are an appalling indictment of Government, and its grotesque foot-dragging, even now, and in full view in the UK the government refuses to take full responsibility for the failure that ultimately lies at its door.
The Government is not protecting its own citizens from its own wretched and despicable failures of governance.
Starmer is a lawyer with vast experience; he didn't need all this to see what had happened.
The Government has wantonly ducked its responsibilities to the victims and the wider public. There but for the Grace of God go us all is the real lesson of everyone of the governed here. British government relies on the vital principle: “rex non potest peccare, – the king can do no wrong”: especially when money, reputation or direct responsibility is involved.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Just such a sad story.
But it also makes me mad no executives from the Post Office or Fujitsu have gone to jail, while young protestors trying to save our planet languish in jail for their committed efforts.
What about Fujitsu? They knew of the failings of the system and have made vast amounts of money despite this? It was clear that many in the Post Office had no real idea how the system worked and whilst their behaviour was appalling towards the sub post masters, it was Fujitsu who allowed a very flawed system to go live, knowing the cash system in particular did not balance transactions correctly with devastating consequences for many sub post masters.
Hazel Murphy asks “What about Fujitsu?” What indeed! They developed a flaw-ridden system, clearly failed to test it adequately at both micro level (individual modules) and macro level (total system stress-tested) before releasing it to a gullible and ignorant customer. Clearly Fujitsu exploited the Post Office’s naivety, but quite how they imagined they could get away with such transparent incompetence is beyond comprehension.
But what about the Post Office? Was its management so ignorant and lax that they didn’t understand the importance of their role in testing the system’s reliability? Was there a culture of endemic belief that all sub-postmasters/-mistresses were essentially thieves? One cross-examination I’m looking forward to is when the PO Finance Director is asked the obvious question: why he thought it might be normal and acceptable for Fujitsu not just to have access to the sub-postmasters’ daily transactions but, astoundingly, were also enabled to alter data after the system went live? We’re not talking about rocket-science here: it’s daily bog-standard branch data whose reliability is ultimately the responsibilty of the PO FD and yet he was relaxed about Fujitsu routinely altering it!
The laxity of senior PO management also calls into question whether the government’s Department for Business and Trade and the relevant Minister were naive and lax themselves. Did nobody at government level suspect that PO management were utterly incompetent and clueless? A big chunk of my accounting career was in systems development and implementation and a vital part of part of the skill set is asking the “what if” questions – again not rocket science, just being awake. Very obviously none of the three main participants in the PO Scandal was awake, so how did it come about? Was it routine ‘British Bumbling’ (we’ll just bumble along and sooner or later it’ll be OK) within PO?; or was it brazen exploitation of an ignorant customer on Fujitsu’s part and, if so, why did they think could/should alter PO base level data?; or was it higher-grade ‘British Bumbling’ at Government/Cabinet level. My view is that it’s a fatal combination of all three: gross incompetence by all parties. Meanwhile, the fact that innocent lives have been lost and/or hugely impaired as a result of that tri-partite incompetence only reinforces the necessity of significant compensation. Any attempt to to minimise compensation would be further proof of the inhumanity of UK governance. Over to you, Rachel from Accounts.
Very few organisations have a fully qualified IT specialist in a senior position where they would have an accountant and/or lawyer.
This makes them gullible whenever they are offered an enticing IT product.
In response to my own question about “Was it routine ‘British Bumbling’ (we’ll just bumble along and sooner or later it’ll be OK) within PO?; or was it brazen exploitation of an ignorant customer on Fujitsu’s part and, if so, why did they think they could/should alter PO base level data?; or was it higher-grade ‘British Bumbling’ at Government/Cabinet level”, I didn’t have to wait long. The Contaminated Bloods Enquiry Report on 9th July makes it clear that ‘British Bumbling’ is yet another routine cause of unforgiveable Government prevarication. What’ll be next?
Correct
I followed a lot of the Horizon inquiry on video and am v impressed with how it was chaired, and with the emphasis on putting the victims first, in every way possible.
I listened yesterday to the Chair’s live presentation speech.
I wonder how many of those later “structural” recommendations in his Part 1 report will be quietly pushed into the long grass of aspiration and good intention, as inquiry recommendations so often are.
I haven’t quite grasped the scale of the injustice, even now. But I have a horrible feeling that either no one or very very few people will be held to account in a court of law.
Favourite word from the inquiry – “robust”.
Thanks
And Fujitsu are STILL being awarded Government contracts.
Not just Fujitsu; what about the enquiry by FRC into EY’s apparent incompetence?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/16/ey-being-investigated-over-post-office-auditing-during-horizon-scandal
Aah good old Ernst & Young. I remember them well from my Phorm/BT digital privacy campaigning days.
So diligent, so thorough, so embarrassingly inept.
https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/hroberts/2008/07/25/ernst-young-audit-overlooks-phorms-violation-of-its-own-privacy-policy/
More recently…
https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/ey-fined-500000-breaching-audit-31418403
But they are no worse than the other big name firms. Breaches and fines seem to be norm nowadays, budgeted for, and just part of their business expenses?
£150 million plus in the UK, alone
Many years ago Wyn and I had rooms next to each other in chambers and we worked together on a couple of cases before he went to the Bench ( initially in Wales). He was one of the most decent members of the Bar that I encountered in my career. For him to draw the conclusions that he did in this first report is a measure of how rotten the senior management of the Post Office had become. At the same time I acted for the Post Office (not, I hasten to add, in connection with any prosecutions). In those days the Post Office had a team of internal lawyers who acted with integrity and professionalism. Then, all of a sudden, they were all made redundant with little or no explanation. All I was told was that new management had taken over and were intent on doing things differently. Having watched some of the testimony of the key figures such as Vennells I now have a glimpse of what may have been going on. I cannot wait for the remainder of Wyn’s report! I am sure he will not disappoint.
Thanks
Cannot a private prosecution of an individual be brought by a group of private citizens using a crowdfunder site? I am thinking of the person who told the investigators to lie to postmasters by saying they were the only one whose accounts did not add up?
I do not know, is the correct answer to that.
The answer is yes, but the CPS/DPP have to consent, and may then take over (and can kill) the prosecution. This is what happened with the private prosecution of BT/Phorm – in the end, the case never got to court.
When the state really doesn’t want something to happen, it doesn’t happen. The trick lies in persuading the state that its interests are best served by allowing you to have your way. Occasionally we win. That’s called politics.