First off I'd like to touch on the Crowd Justice funding which is now complete. The stretch funding allowed us to hit a final total of £104,259 thanks to the very generous contributions of the general public and Postmasters past and present. It is a massive achievement to raise such a substantial sum considering the current circumstances with Covid-19. Again please remember to keep the email receipt for payment as when / if we are successful in recovering at least the legal costs of £46 million any pledges can be refunded if you so wish.
This is also a reminder that the Post Office Historical Shortfall scheme it setup to address the grievances of Postmasters who were not part of the litigation is coming to a close on the 14th August 2020 at midnight. Please ensure if you are going to make an application it is done so before this date. You can find all the details about the scheme on the link below including the application form.....do NOT let the Post Office get off lightly if you have been affected at anytime and please share this with Postmasters or anyone you know who has worked or ran a Post Office branch :-
There is also a helpful Q & A PDF which includes a written address or email should you have any further questions, the link is below :-
https://www.onepostoffice.co.uk/media/47357/historicalshortfallscheme_qanda_v4.pdf
I would also personally suggest you seek free legal advice from either Hudgells Solicitors or Wardhadaway Solicitors either before or just after submitting your application on what is the best course of action to take. It is only my opinion but having seen previous mediation schemes setup by the Post Office and their history of trying to mislead anyone they can including MP's and a High Court Judge, I doubt the Shortfall Scheme will offer you the best outcome. Again the mentioned solicitors will give you far better advice than I am able to. I have included the links to both firms below which includes their contact details....you would want Stephen Lewis at Wardhadaway Solicitors and Neil Hudgell from Hudgells Solicitors :-
https://www.wardhadaway.com/updates/post-office-compensation/
https://www.hudgellsolicitors.co.uk/group-actions/post-office-horizon-scandal/
Finally over the past week Tony Collins of Campaign4Change has written two excellent articles. One shows proof that Ministers in government agreed with Post Office stepping up its fight against Horizon IT victims which added tens of millions to their legal costs and another talking about why junior ministers are playing down Post Office's role in the scandal yet Boris Johnson Prime Minister and Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg are saying it how it is. Here are a couple of snippets from the articles :-
Business minister Paul Scully last month distanced government from the litigation between sub-postmasters and the Post Office over its Horizon IT system. He said that government cannot pay compensation because it was not a party to the litigation. On 22 June 2020, Scully wrote to former sub-postmaster Alan Bates, who led the litigation. In the letter, which is likely to have been drafted by his officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Scully said,
“Unfortunately, as stated in our previous correspondence, Government cannot accept any requests for payment as it was not party to the litigation, which has now been settled.”
But it has emerged that ministers last year were advised on the litigation and supported continuing it despite a “Commons Issues” judgment in March 2019 that showed the Post Office was losing the case.
Ministers could have intervened at that stage because, under Treasury guidelines, Whitehall can step in when arm’s length bodies such as the Post Office “fall into disrepute”.
Despite the March 2019 judgment, the Post Office – with the support of officials and ministers – stepped up the legal action, changed its litigation strategy, replaced its lawyers (see notes below), tried to have the judge removed and launched three appeals which delayed hearings and added millions of pounds to the costs of both sides. In taking the further actions, the Post Office attracted more strident criticism from the High Court.
To Commons’ Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg and prime minister Boris Johnson the Horizon IT scandal could hardly be a more serious matter.
Johnson described locking up people, removing their livelihoods and making them bankrupt on account of the output of a flawed computer system as a “disaster” and a “scandal”.
Rees-Mogg said of the Horizon IT affair that there is “no worse scandal than imprisoning people or unjustly taking away their livelihoods when they are accused of crimes that they did not commit”.
But junior ministers sum up the injustices using an agreed form of words that repeat the Post Office’s own explanation of its role in the scandal. That form of words – “got things wrong” – implies that the Post Office merely made mistakes.
Post Office chairman Tim Parker said,
“We accept that, in the past, we got things wrong in our dealings with a number of postmasters …”
The words “got things wrong” have since been repeated by junior ministers Paul Scully at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which helps to fund the Post Office, his predecessor Kelly Tolhurst and Alex Chalk, a junior minister at the Ministry of Justice.
But lawyers say that “got things wrong” goes nowhere near explaining the Post Office’s withholding of relevant evidence of Horizon’s flaws and weaknesses from courts, judges and juries, thus allowing people to go to prison on the basis of data from a flawed system. Nor do the agreed words explain the following up of prosecutions with civil court action to claim tens of thousands of pounds from the accused.
Barrister Paul Marshall, who has published papers on the Post Office IT scandal, describes the institution’s conduct as “mendacity on an epic scale”.’
I highly recommend you read both articles as Tony has a great handle on how things are being played out. The Parliamentary Ombudsman complaint will hopefully expose these continued lies and cover-ups.
I have left a link to both articles below :-