R v Sheila Coultas & Anor.

A conviction is unsafe where proof of a branch shortfall depends wholly on Horizon data, there is no independent evidence of actual loss, and material evidence of unexplained discrepancies or system problems was not investigated or disclosed. This may be so despite a guilty plea, particularly where the plea was entered without knowledge that the system could generate unexplained shortfalls. Fresh evidence may justify an extension of time, leave to appeal and the quashing of convictions where it demonstrates that the prosecution was unfair and an affront to justice.

Two former sub-postmistresses applied for long extensions of time to appeal convictions entered after guilty pleas. Ms Coultas had pleaded guilty to three counts of false accounting concerning a substantial branch shortfall. Mr Ingham had pleaded guilty to theft and false accounting after a similarly substantial shortfall was identified.

Both applicants relied on fresh evidence concerning unexplained losses, known problems with the Horizon accounting system, and failures by Post Office Limited to investigate or disclose relevant material. The central issues were whether the cases were Horizon cases, whether the prosecutions were unfair, and whether the convictions were unsafe despite the guilty pleas.

The court granted the necessary extensions of time, received the fresh evidence, granted leave to appeal and allowed both appeals.

1. Applicable approach. The court referred to its earlier Horizon appeals, including R v Josephine Hamilton and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 577. A Horizon case was one in which the reliability of Horizon data was essential to the prosecution and there was no independent evidence of an actual loss distinct from a Horizon-generated shortage. The court treated material failures to investigate and disclose known reliability problems as directly relevant to the safety of convictions.
2. Ms Coultas. The evidence proving the alleged shortfalls was wholly dependent on Horizon printouts. There was no independent evidence of actual loss. Post Office Limited knew that the replacement sub-postmistress had reported continuing unexplained losses at the same branch, yet there was no evidence that the computer was properly examined or that ARQ data was obtained. Ms Coultas had entered her guilty pleas without knowing that Horizon bugs could cause unexplained shortfalls. The prosecution was unfair, and her convictions were unsafe notwithstanding the pleas.
3. Mr Ingham. Mr Ingham had contemporaneously reported unexplained losses and had indicated that he could not explain the figures. His replacement later reported similar unexplained losses. The evidence of the alleged shortfalls was again wholly derived from Horizon, with no independent evidence that the losses were genuine. The court also recorded the prosecutor’s continuing duty of disclosure after conviction. The failure to disclose the later evidence rendered the prosecution unfair and the convictions unsafe.
4. Orders. The convictions of both applicants were quashed. An order was made authorising reimbursement of Ms Coultas’s travel expenses.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 27 April 2023, extensions of time were granted, fresh evidence was received, leave to appeal was granted, and both appeals were allowed. The convictions were quashed: [2023] EWCA Crim 606.
2. Crown Court at Lincoln — On 25 February 2008, Ms Coultas pleaded guilty to three counts of false accounting and received a conditional discharge for 12 months.
3. Crown Court at Caernarfon — Mr Ingham pleaded guilty on 12 December 2005 to theft and false accounting. On 16 January 2006 he was sentenced to concurrent terms, including 15 months’ imprisonment.