Richard Hawkes & Ors. v Post Office Limited

Where a prosecution for dishonesty depends upon the reliability of Horizon data and there is no independent evidence that a branch suffered an actual loss, the prosecution is a Horizon case. If Post Office Limited failed to investigate known reliability concerns and to make material disclosure, its pursuit of the prosecution is unfair and an affront to justice.

A guilty plea does not prevent an appeal succeeding in those circumstances. A conviction founded on such an unfair prosecution is unsafe and must be quashed.

Five former sub-postmasters or branch managers sought long extensions of time, leave to appeal, and permission to adduce fresh evidence against convictions obtained in five different Crown Courts. Each had pleaded guilty to offences of dishonesty after an apparent branch shortfall had been recorded through the Horizon accounting system.

Post Office Limited did not resist the applications. The common issue was whether each prosecution was a Horizon case: one in which Horizon reliability was essential and there was no independent evidence of an actual loss, coupled with unfairness arising from the handling of Horizon reliability and disclosure.

1. The appeals were allowed and all five convictions were quashed. The court granted the necessary extensions of time, gave leave to appeal, and received the fresh evidence.
2. The court applied the approach established in The Queen v Josephine Hamilton and others [2021] EWCA Crim 577. Significant defects in Horizon created a material risk that an apparent branch shortfall did not represent missing cash or stock. Post Office Limited knew of serious reliability concerns, but failed adequately to investigate them or to consider and make relevant disclosure.
3. Each application was a Horizon case. In every case, Horizon reliability was essential to proof of the alleged shortfall. There was no independent evidence of an actual loss. Each applicant had either denied taking money or said that the shortfall was unexplained, while admitting that false accounting entries had been made to conceal it.
4. Post Office Limited’s failure to investigate the concerns raised, and to disclose material capable of undermining its case or assisting the defence, made each prosecution unfair and an affront to justice. That conclusion applied notwithstanding the applicants’ guilty pleas.
5. Accordingly, the convictions of Richard Hawkes, Grant Ian Allen, Jack Smith, Duranda Clarke and Robert John Boyle were unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted extensions of time and leave to appeal, received fresh evidence, allowed all five appeals, and quashed the convictions.
• Crown Courts: The applicants had pleaded guilty to offences of dishonesty in proceedings at Norwich, Chester, Manchester Crown Square, Chelmsford and Nottingham, and had been sentenced by the respective judges.