Post Office scandal: The new Horizon report and its recommendations for Restorative Justice
This is a blog by our Communications and Campaigns Manager, Keeva Baxter.
This week, Sir Wyn Williams has published the first volume of his report on the Post Office scandal, which became a major news story following an ITV programme on the topic in January 2024. In this blog, we explore the findings of the report, and what they really mean when they recommend the use of ‘restorative justice’.
What happened?
Since the end of 2001, Post Offices had been using Fujitsu’s ‘Horizon’ accounting technology, which proved to be faulty, recording losses that never actually happened. As a result postmasters were accused of theft and fraud after failing to account for losses that never existed.
What resulted from the errors with the Horizon technology was a series of prosecutions that have amounted to what is now being described as the “largest miscarriage of justice in British legal history”. The report explains that “between 2000 and the autumn of 2013 the Post Office prosecuted postmasters and others who worked in branches and Crown Offices in England and Wales in reliance upon accounting data produced by Horizon. Such data was relied upon to prove that actual losses had occurred in branches or Crown Offices which could only be explained by theft, false accounting or fraud on the part of the person or persons who had been charged.”
The report finds that “Prior to roll out, some employees of Fujitsu had discovered that Legacy Horizon was capable of producing data which was false.” As well as the Fujitsu employees, Sir Wyn Williams finds that “a number of senior, and not so senior, employees of the Post Office knew or, at the very least, should have known that Legacy Horizon was capable of error as described above.” However, none of this was made public, or shared with the postmasters who were facing the devastating consequences of these errors.
What was the impact?
The widespread impact of this scandal is not to be underestimated, with the current number of eligible claimants standing at around 10,000 people, “and that number is likely to rise at least by hundreds, if not more, over the coming months”.
The Post Office have named six former postmasters, who, according to their families, died by suicide “as a consequence of Horizon showing an illusory shortfall in branch accounts.” Seven more people who were not postmasters also died by suicide, and 59 more contemplated it, with ten of those making attempts on their lives.
“The impact on me of the treatment the Post Office subjected me to has been immeasurable. The mental stress was so great for me that I had a mental breakdown and turned to alcohol as I sunk further into depression. I attempted suicide on several occasions and was admitted to a mental health institution twice.”
Others faced struggles with addiction, immediate imprisonment, “psychiatric and psychological problems”, termination of their employment, fines and bankruptcy. The report outlines a number of case studies which demonstrate the devastation of the wrongful accusations on the postmasters and their families.
Where does ‘Restorative Justice’ come in?
A series of recommendations are provided in the report, to begin to repair some of the harm caused by this monumental injustice, and the enormous effect it had on the lives of the people involved. The recommendations primarily revolve around the ‘financial redress’ owed to the victims and how this will be delivered. However, the final, 19th recommendation is as follows:
“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.”
Later in the report, a section on Restorative Justice (p.115) goes into more detail. Sam Stein KC is a barrister who represents many of the victims of both the Post Office scandal, and a range of other major public enquiries, from Grenfell to the National Child Abuse enquiry. In the opening of the enquiry, Stein requested “that each postmaster should have the opportunity to meet with senior representatives of the Post Office. As of 4 September 2024, there had been 64 meetings between postmasters and the Post Office.” The meetings were described as “both difficult and enlightening”.
This is a good start, but with over 10,000 possible claimants, there is much more to be done to ensure that the voices of victims are heard.
A crucial consideration in addressing such widespread harm is ensuring that the victims of crime are asked what justice looks like for them and what they need. So often in cases like this, remedies are procured through the legal system or by the institution that caused the harm, with little consideration for what the victims want. For some, financial compensation will be essential in their healing, for others they may also need to express the harm their family has suffered, get answers directly from the organisation that harmed them or campaign to ensure that this kind of failing is avoided in the future.
Simon Recaldin, the former Director of the Post Office’s Remediation Unit “described some of the small steps that POL (Post Office Ltd) have taken to address concerns that were not related to financial redress, for example offering references, presumably in an employment context, and placing articles in the local press explaining the exoneration of a postmaster.” This demonstrates that through talking to the people most affected, they have found other challenges that the Post Office could address to begin to repair some of the harm that was caused.
Sam Stein KC has advocated for a programme of Restorative Justice, laid out in the report, comprising of the following elements:
a) ongoing psychiatric and counselling support for postmasters and their families;
b) bursaries to assist with the retraining of postmasters and for the education of their children whose education was disrupted by this scandal;
c) a tangible memorial scheme to mark what he described as the largest miscarriage of justice in British legal history; such a scheme should sympathetically record the experiences of postmasters and how profoundly they and their communities were failed by the Post Office and others;
d) restitution and restoration of reputation: in many cases postmasters’ reputations were traduced in their local communities and regionally; postmasters’ reputations must also be restored within their own local communities through engagement with those communities and the local press;
e) an entrepreneurial fund; and,
f) a fund for affected family members.
Whilst all of these measures can provide crucial reparation, the proposed ‘Restorative Justice programme’ doesn’t represent the full extent of Restorative Justice as we know it. Without the possibility of further meetings, a platform to get their side of the story across, a way to get answers to their questions and an opportunity for those harmed to expressly state what they need to move forwards, more can be done.
Ultimately, we welcome the inclusion of Restorative Justice in the report, whilst warning against a sole focus on financial redress without consideration of the importance of the victims voice. We hope that through the measures laid out in the report, the victims can begin to heal and move forward.
