Redress process for Post Office Horizon victims could go on for years
More than 900 subpostmasters were wrongfully prosecuted by the Post Office between 1999 and 2015 after faulty Horizon software made it look as though money was missing from their accounts.
The previous Conservative government said those who had their convictions quashed were eligible for £600,000 payouts – with victims such as Amanda and Norman Barber accepting the fixed offer.
Despite losing their business and home, the Warrington couple said they found it 'almost impossible' to provide the details required to have their case individually assessed so did not want to risk 'getting less'.
Unexplained shortfalls in their accounts at Thelwall Post Office eventually led to them being prosecuted over a deficit of £5,600 – despite using around £200,000 of their own money to attempt to balance the books.
Both received a community order of 12 months and 100 hours' community service.
Speaking about the redress process, Amanda, 55, said: 'We were being asked to produce evidence we simply couldn't get our hands on with regards to our losses as we are talking going back 15 years.
'We found it almost impossible to provide the details needed to go down the route of having our case individually assessed.
'It just didn't seem worth it. I think subpostmasters are still being left in an impossible situation when it comes to seeking true and full redress.
'Given the time it would take we simply couldn't risk a full assessment and getting less, particularly because the lack of documents we had.
'It got to the stage where, when the £600,000 was offered, it seemed the best way to bring years of torture to an end.'
Redress has been a key issue for subpostmasters since the scandal came to light, with many finding the various compensation schemes difficult to navigate.
Lead campaigner Sir Alan Bates previously described the various processes as 'quasi-kangaroo courts', telling The Sunday Times that the Department for Business and Trade 'sits in judgment of the claims and alters the goal posts as and when it chooses'.
The chairman of the Horizon IT inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, is due to publish his findings on redress on Tuesday, with Amanda Barber saying she will join other subpostmasters in attending the report's publication event.
She said: 'We feel we just need to be there to hear what is said.
'Lives were ruined and compensation has been made too hard to get, and too little by far.'
One law firm involved in securing redress for victims, Hudgell Solicitors, said it still had more than 700 ongoing compensation cases to resolve.
Solicitor Neil Hudgell said the firm had agreed damages for more than 300 people, totalling £170 million, but said the redress process had 'far too much red tape to get through'.
He said: 'We have seen inconsistencies between the various compensation schemes, which remain over-engineered and over-legalistic, with far too much red tape to get through.
'There has also been a repeated failure to give the benefit of the doubt to subpostmasters in appropriate circumstances.
'It's made it far too long a process for so many people who have been through so much, and are now in the latter stages of their lives.
'It has been retraumatising for many, and increasing numbers are sadly passing away without seeing redress.'
Addressing how long it could take for all claims to be settled, the solicitor added: 'At the current speed, we are looking at another two to three years.'
Mr Hudgell said one client who was initially offered £50,000 has seen their offer rise to £500,000.
He added: 'It is not a one-off glitch, but a stark illustration of a very common issue.
'It has been a painful process for all, and ended with a new appeals process being confirmed earlier this year, in recognition that many people had been under-compensated.'
In a statement, the Department for Business and Trade said: 'We are grateful for the inquiry's work, which has revealed the immeasurable suffering that victims of the scandal have endured.
'This Government has quadrupled the total amount paid to affected postmasters to provide them with full and fair redress, with more than £1 billion having now been paid to over 7,300 claimants.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Former government minister delivers verdict on Nigel Farage as PM
Michael Gove has asserted that Nigel Farage is not a 'plausible prime minister ' and will not be ready for the role even in four years. The senior Conservative minister praised Farage's communication skills but questioned Reform 's team, policies, and programme for effective governance. Gove suggested Reform 's recent electoral success is due to being a 'repository of anger' against the political classes, rather than offering a compelling vision. He also described Farage as a 'bulwark against greater extremism' and recalled helping him resolve an issue with The Times newspaper.
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Withholding facts about suspects risks endangering the British public
How much does the public need to know about the background of suspected criminals? On Sunday, the shadow home secretary Chris Philp called on the Government to ensure that the immigration status and nationality of all offenders was published 'for each crime and as quarterly totals'. Otherwise, he said, 'we risk a repeat of the rape gang scandal where horrendous crimes were covered up because of the identity of the perpetrators'. Philp's reference to 'each crime' suggests he was referring to convicted offenders. But what happened with the grooming gangs was a scandal because allegations were not prosecuted or even investigated. The Conservative MP was responding to concerns that Warwickshire Police had not revealed the background of two men accused of involvement in the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton. In contrast to the earlier cases, those defendants were promptly charged. It's reported that the accused are asylum seekers from Afghanistan. But Warwickshire police, following national guidelines, have not confirmed that. On Monday, Nigel Farage accused the police of a 'cover-up' after officers reportedly advised local councillors not to disclose that the suspects were asylum seekers for fear of 'inflaming community tensions'. The Reform UK leader argued that police forces should release the name, address and immigration status of people after they were charged with a crime. Not to be outdone, the Home Secretary said on Tuesday that police guidance needed to be changed. Asked if she thought the immigration status and ethnicity of suspects should be disclosed, Yvette Cooper told the BBC: 'We do want to see more transparency in cases. We think local people do need to have more information.' She had asked the Law Commission to speed up its review of the restrictions on prejudicing criminal trials. In March, the Government's independent law reform advisers responded with a brief consultation paper, focusing on an aspect of its current inquiry into contempt of court liability. Final recommendations are expected in the autumn. After Axel Rudakubana murdered three young girls at a dance class in Southport in July 2024, Merseyside police disclosed that he had been born in Cardiff. But confirmation that the suspect was a British national did little to ease the growing but false belief that the massacre at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class was the work of an asylum-seeker. Reporters told the Law Commission that the widespread public disorder that followed was an indirect result of contempt laws. By constraining the information that public authorities could disclose, the law helped create an information vacuum into which misinformation, disinformation and counter-narratives could spread unchecked. That, said the Law Commission, raised the question of whether there should be contempt of court liability for those who risk prejudicing a criminal trial by releasing information in the interests of public safety or national security. Changing the law would provide a defence for the police. But it might also make it harder for the defendant to receive a fair trial. For example, publishing information about a defendant's past misconduct – even, for example, that the accused had entered the UK illegally – might in some cases be prejudicial. In practice, though, juries are expected to ignore whatever they may remember from the time of arrest. If a retrial is ordered in a notorious case, the second jury may be told that a previous jury had failed to agree. And if extremely prejudicial material has been published, the Law Commission suggested that a defendant could be tried by judge alone. It should be possible for incontrovertible facts about suspects – such as nationality – to be published at the time of an arrest without, as the law puts it, a 'substantial risk that the course of justice… will be seriously impeded or prejudiced'. As the Home Secretary recalled, Scotland Yard had announced in May that several individuals arrested under the National Security Act were Iranian nationals. Their immigration status was disclosed by the Crown Prosecution Service when three of them were charged, Cooper added. But good reasons must be shown for publishing anything about a suspect that is not necessary to avoid confusion with someone of a similar name. Some people are arrested but not charged while others are charged but not convicted. And there is a risk that merely reporting an individual's immigration status or nationality may be positively misleading. More important in assessing the threat to the public in terrorist cases is the suspect's religion – though this is not something a defendant can be required to disclose. As so often, there is a balance to be struck. If the police have to announce every suspect's nationality, immigration status, ethnicity and religion, cases will take longer to process and prejudice will be more likely. Far from deterring public disorder, it may provoke it.
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
How will the UK-France migrants return deal work as it comes into force?
The treaty was laid in Parliament on Tuesday, and will take effect from Wednesday with detentions expected in the coming days. The UK-France deal, which will also bring approved asylum seekers under a safe route to Britain, was agreed last month on the last day of French President Emmanuel Macron's state visit to the UK. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer bids farewell to French President Emmanuel Macron (Leon Neal/PA) Here is a closer look at the plan and what the issue is. – What is the concern over the Channel crossings? Some 25,436 migrants have arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel this year – a record for this point in the year since data began being collected in 2018. This is up 48% on this point last year (17,170) and 70% higher than at this stage in 2023 (14,994), according to PA news agency analysis of Home Office data. At least 10 people have died while attempting the journey this year, according to reports by French and UK authorities, but there is no official record of fatalities in the Channel. Ministers want to end the crossings because they 'threaten lives and undermine our border security'. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said smuggling gangs have been allowed to take hold along the UK's borders over the last six years, making millions out of the dangerous journeys. On Tuesday, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claimed the failure to stop migrants crossing the Channel is putting community cohesion at risk. Data on the crossings of migrants in 'small boats' like inflatable dinghies has been collected since 2018. In the first year of data, just 299 people were recorded to have arrived in the UK this way. Since 2018, 94% of migrants who arrived by small boat crossing have claimed asylum in the UK, or 145,834 out of 154,354 people. This is my message to the people smuggling gangs: we will end your vile trade. For the very first time, migrants arriving via small boat will be detained and returned to France. My government has led the way in taking our countries' co-operation to a new level. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 10, 2025 – What has the Labour Government's approach been to the issue? Since Labour came to power last July, the party has vowed to 'smash the gangs'. Ministers are seeking to ramp up enforcement action against smugglers with new legislation to hand counter terror-style powers to police, and new criminal offences aiming to crack down on the illegal trade. The Government is also seeking to reset the UK's relationship with Europe over the crossings, and France has agreed to change its rules to allow police to intervene when boats are in shallow water, rather than requiring them to still be on land. Meanwhile ministers are hoping to deter new arrivals promised jobs when they come to the UK by cracking down on illegal working and deportations of ineligible asylum seekers. Borders are being breached by criminal gangs worldwide. Life-threatening Channel crossings have occurred for years – it is time to act. Border Security Command is how we fight back. — Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) March 4, 2025 – What is the new deal and how will it work? Last month, the Prime Minister and French president agreed a plan to send back small boats migrants, with an asylum seeker being sent to the UK in exchange in equal numbers. Under the pilot scheme, adults arriving on a small boat can be detained and returned to France for the first time. The trial is set to run until June 11 2026, pending a longer-term agreement or cancellation by either the UK or France with one months' notice. Asylum seekers accepted to come to the UK under the deal would travel via a safe, legal route, 'subject to strict security checks'. Those in France could express an interest to apply for asylum to the UK through an online platform developed by the Home Office, and would then carry out the standard visa application process and checks. Priority will be given to people from countries where they are most likely to be granted asylum as genuine refugees, who are most likely to be exploited by smuggling gangs, and also asylum seekers who have connections to the UK. If accepted, they would be given three months in the UK to claim asylum, and would be subject to the same rules for all asylum seekers not allowed to work, study or have access to benefits. Their claim could still be rejected during their time in the UK, and they could then be removed from the country. It is not clear what the criteria will be for deciding which migrants who arrive in the UK by small boat will be sent back to France, other than being aged over 18. New arrivals will be screened at Manston processing centre, in Kent, which is current procedure, before individuals determined to be suitable for the pilot and for detention, will be picked and held in an immigration removal centre. Their removal is expected to be made on the grounds of inadmissibility, that they have arrived from the UK from a safe country where their case can be heard instead, because an agreement is in place with France. The treaty confirms the migrants would be returned back to France by plane. It also agrees for a joint committee to be set up to monitor the agreement and arrange logistics. Migrants will be able to appeal against the decision based on exceptional circumstances. The Home Office said it had learned from the 'lengthy legal challenges' over the previous government's Rwanda scheme and would 'robustly defend' any attempts to block removal through the courts. For the very first time, migrants arriving via small boat will be detained and returned to France in short order. This Government is breaking the business model of criminal smuggling gangs and securing our borders. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 10, 2025 – How many people will be part of the pilot and much will it cost? No official number of migrants has been confirmed to take part in the pilot, but it is understood numbers will grow over the pilot period and depend on operational factors. The Home Secretary has said the Government does not want to put a number on the amount as she believes it could aid criminal gangs. It has been reported that about 50 a week could be sent to France. This would be a stark contrast to the more than 800 people every week who on average have arrived in the UK via small boat this year. There is no funding to France associated with this agreement, and operations around the returns and arrivals will be paid for from the existing Home Office budget. – What has the reaction been to the deal? Opposition politicians were scathing about the Prime Minister's deal with Mr Macron, with shadow home secretary Chris Philp claiming the small percentage of arrivals to be removed would 'make no difference whatsoever'. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also branded it a 'humiliation'. Meanwhile refugee charities have also criticised the plan and have urged the Government to provide more safe, legal routes for asylum seekers instead. Reacting to the plan coming into force, Amnesty International UK's refugee rights director, Steve Valdez-Symonds, said: 'Once again, refugees are treated like parcels, not people, while the public is left to pay the price for, yet another cruel, costly failure dressed up as policy.'
