ROGER ALLEN and OTHERS v POST OFFICE LIMITED

A conviction founded on an apparent branch shortfall is unsafe where the reliability of Horizon data was essential to the prosecution, there was no independent evidence of an actual loss, and failures of investigation and disclosure prevented an effective challenge to that data. Such failures may make the trial unfair and, where sufficiently egregious, amount also to an affront to the conscience of the court.

It is insufficient that Horizon played some role in the relevant transactions or that the system had known defects. The appellant must demonstrate that Horizon reliability was essential to the prosecution. Independent evidence of loss or dishonesty prevents the case from falling within that category.

Nine former sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses challenged convictions for theft or false accounting. Seven had been prosecuted by Post Office Limited. It accepted that their cases depended on unexplained shortfalls generated by Horizon, that Horizon evidence was essential, and that investigation and disclosure had been deficient.

Roger Allen and Alan Robinson had instead been prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions. Mr Allen appealed following a Criminal Cases Review Commission reference. Mr Robinson renewed an application for leave after refusal by the single judge. Each relied on alleged Horizon-related shortfalls, but the prosecution cases concerned irregular encashment of benefit order books.

The central issue was whether each case was a “Horizon case”, so that the reliability of Horizon data was essential to the prosecution and there was no independent evidence of an actual loss.

1. Seven appeals allowed. The court granted extensions of time and leave to appeal for Pauline Stonehouse, Angela Sefton, Anne Nield, Janine Powell, Gregory Harding, Marissa Finn and Jamie Dixon. It allowed each appeal on both abuse-of-process grounds and quashed all their convictions.

2. The court applied the approach in The Queen v Josephine Hamilton and others [2021] EWCA Crim. A “Horizon case” requires both that Horizon reliability was essential to the prosecution and that there was no independent evidence of an actual loss, as distinct from a Horizon-generated shortfall. In the seven successful cases, those conditions were met. Post Office Limited had failed to investigate and disclose material bearing on Horizon reliability, despite its duty to do so. The resulting prosecutions were unfair and, given the egregious failures, an affront to the conscience of the court. Guilty pleas did not render the convictions safe.

3. The court further observed that it was improper to make acceptance of a guilty plea conditional upon the accused refraining from blaming or criticising Horizon. In the cases of Mr Harding and Mr Dixon, that condition independently reinforced the conclusion that the prosecutions brought the justice system into disrepute.

4. Allen appeal dismissed; Robinson applications refused. Neither appellant established that Horizon reliability was essential to the prosecution. Mr Allen’s case was supported by evidence of irregular encashments, benefit-loss reports, unsigned pension dockets and missing order books, independently of Horizon. Mr Robinson had admitted stealing order books and cashing their orders; the limited evidence of earlier shortfalls did not show that they were Horizon-related. A role for Horizon in recording transactions, or evidence of its general defects, did not suffice.

5. The court considered the fresh evidence in Mr Allen’s case de bene esse, but dismissed his appeal. It refused Mr Robinson’s applications for an extension of time, leave to appeal and fresh evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In this judgment, [2021] EWCA Crim 1874 , seven appeals were allowed and the convictions quashed. Roger Allen’s appeal was dismissed. Alan Robinson’s applications for an extension of time, leave to appeal and fresh evidence were refused.
• Crown Court — The applicants had separately been convicted of theft or false accounting in proceedings brought by Post Office Limited or the Department for Work and Pensions. No lower-court citation is stated.