R v Alan John Reynolds & Ors

Where a prosecution depends essentially on Horizon accounting data and there is no independent evidence of an actual loss, the reliability of that data is fundamental. A prosecutor’s failure to investigate and disclose known concerns about Horizon can prevent an accused person from fairly challenging the prosecution case and can reverse the practical burden of proof.

Such a prosecution is an abuse of process both because a fair trial is impossible and because it affronts the conscience of the court. A guilty plea does not cure that unfairness where it was entered without disclosure of material going directly to guilt. The resulting conviction is unsafe.

Three former Post Office workers were separately prosecuted after Horizon recorded apparent branch shortfalls. Each denied taking money or stock, but admitted falsifying figures or transactions to conceal unexplained shortages and pleaded guilty to fraud or theft in the Crown Court.

Following a review by Post Office Limited, each applicant received a letter indicating that the reliability of Horizon was likely to have been essential to the prosecution. They sought long extensions of time, leave to appeal and admission of fresh evidence. The respondent did not oppose the applications.

The central issue was whether each prosecution was a Horizon case in which the unreliability of Horizon data and failures of investigation and disclosure made the conviction unsafe despite the guilty plea.

1. The court granted extensions of time, received the fresh evidence, granted leave to appeal, allowed all three appeals and quashed every conviction.

2. Applying R v Josephine Hamilton and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 577, each case was a Horizon case. Horizon data was essential to each prosecution, and there was no evidence independent of Horizon of either the alleged shortfall or any actual loss.

3. Each applicant had denied theft and had identified an unexplained shortfall. Those accounts plainly required investigation into Horizon’s reliability. Post Office Limited made no relevant investigation and did not disclose the known concerns about the system.

4. Those failures deprived the applicants of a fair opportunity to challenge the alleged losses. They also meant that the prosecutor treated a Horizon-generated shortage as an established loss and, in practical effect, required the applicants to disprove it. Each prosecution was therefore an abuse of process because a fair trial was impossible and because the prosecution affronted the conscience of the court.

5. The guilty pleas did not preclude relief. Each was entered while the applicant and their representatives were kept ignorant of material bearing directly on alleged guilt. Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the convictions were consequently unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 317, the court granted extensions of time and leave to appeal, admitted fresh evidence, allowed the appeals and quashed all convictions.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: Mr Reynolds pleaded guilty to fraud and received a community order.

• Crown Court at Southwark: Miss Ali pleaded guilty to four theft offences.

• Crown Court at Isleworth: Mr Bangay pleaded guilty to fraud and received a suspended sentence.