MARGARET WHITE & Anor. v POST OFFICE LIMITED

A prosecution is a Horizon case only where Horizon data was essential to prove an alleged shortfall and there was no independent evidence of an actual loss. The presence of Horizon records in the evidence does not suffice. The inquiry is fact-specific and a stay for abuse of process remains exceptional.

An appellant must provide an arguable basis for contending that the conviction is unsafe. A bare assertion that Horizon was relevant cannot justify a long extension of time. A guilty plea does not necessarily prevent a successful appeal where the conviction is unsafe.

Mrs White had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Oxford to two counts of false accounting arising from alleged branch shortfalls. The respondent accepted that her case was a Horizon case because the alleged shortfalls could not be established independently of Horizon data.

Mr Cameron had been convicted after trial in the Crown Court at Wood Green of ten thefts involving unauthorised withdrawals from customers’ Post Office card accounts. He sought a very substantial extension of time to appeal, contending that Horizon was essential to the prosecution case. The central issue was whether his prosecution was a Horizon case in the relevant sense.

1. Mrs White’s appeal was allowed. The respondent accepted, properly, that hers was an unexplained-shortfall case in which Horizon evidence was essential and there was no independent evidence of loss. In the light of the court’s previous Horizon decisions, the convictions were unsafe notwithstanding her guilty pleas. Time was extended, leave was granted, the appeal was allowed and both convictions were quashed.

2. A Horizon case requires evidential dependence on Horizon. It is not enough that Horizon records formed part of the prosecution evidence. The system’s data must have been essential because there was no independent evidence of an actual loss. Where the alleged shortfall might instead have resulted from known bugs, errors or defects, the case may engage category 1 or category 2 abuse of process. The remedy of a stay nevertheless remains exceptional and requires a fact-specific assessment.

3. The applicant bears the burden of advancing an arguable basis for an unsafe-conviction appeal. Under section 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, a conviction remains valid until quashed. A person seeking a long extension of time must therefore show an arguable basis for concluding that the case was a Horizon case; a bald assertion of Horizon relevance is insufficient.

4. Mr Cameron’s application was refused. The prosecution was supported by direct evidence from customers that unauthorised withdrawals had depleted their accounts, evidence identifying transactions associated with Mr Cameron, and an audit showing a branch shortfall. Horizon logs supported that evidence rather than supplying its sole foundation. The court rejected the asserted timing anomaly and held that there was no material suggesting unreliability in Horizon. His case was not a Horizon case, so the extension of time and leave to appeal were refused.

5. Obiter, appeals on behalf of deceased former sub-postmasters remain subject to the ordinary rules. Those bringing such an appeal must establish arguable grounds and meet the familiar fresh-evidence criteria in section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The court cannot speculate about what the deceased person might have said.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Mrs White was granted an extension of time and leave to appeal; her appeal was allowed and her convictions were quashed. Mr Cameron’s application for an extension of time, and consequential application for leave to appeal, were refused.
• Crown Court at Oxford: Mrs White pleaded guilty on 5 November 2007 to two counts of false accounting and was sentenced on 3 December 2007.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: Mr Cameron was convicted after trial on 3 May 2007 of ten counts of theft and was sentenced on 1 June 2007. No appeal was then brought.