COMPENSATION AND HOW POST OFFICE SCANDAL WILL BE HANDLED IN SCOTLAND

By Bill Heaney

The Scottish Parliament has stamped cross-party approval on a bid by Pauline McNeill MSP to expedite the exoneration of Scottish sub-postmasters and mistresses whose convictions were based on evidence from the Post Office’s Horizon computer system.

The Labour member asked First Minister Humza Yousaf whether he will provide an update on what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC., on this matter.

Mr Yousaf told her: “The role of the Lord Advocate as head of systems of prosecution is an independent function. I hope that you are assured by the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and I have had discussions with the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General on a number of occasions.

“We continue to press the United Kingdom Government to extend its Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill to cover sub-postmasters and mistresses in Scotland.

“Just today, the justice secretary has written to the UK Government with suggested amendments in order to achieve that. I am happy for that letter to be made public.

“If the UK bill is not extended, we will introduce Scottish legislation. Although Scottish legislation can be introduced, it would need to be passed after the UK bill.

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, First Minister Humza Yousaf and Labour MSP Pauline McNeill.

“That is essential so that we can take into account any amendments that are made during the passage of the bill at Westminster, to ensure that there is compatibility with UK legislation, because the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have no responsibility for, or power over, the UK compensation scheme.”

Pauline McNeill replied: “We now know from recent coverage in the press that people at the top of the Post Office lied all the way about Horizon—and that goes down to our Crown Office.

“However, the Crown Office accepted an interim report by the accountancy firm Second Sight as corroboration that the Horizon system was okay, despite the fact that the director of the firm said that the report revealed ‘system flaws’ with Horizon.

“The onus has so far been on postmasters themselves to appeal their convictions, and I am sure that we agree that that is wholly unacceptable.

“I wonder whether the First Minister agreed with Kevin Drummond KC that the Lord Advocate could present a petition to the court of criminal appeal to inform the court that the convictions had been found on flawed evidence and could invite the court to overturn the convictions?

“We all want the quickest route to justice, and that might be a quicker route. Does the First Minister agree that the miscarriages of justice could be dealt with quicker in Scotland, where those miscarriages of justice took place, and that our Crown Office should be responsible for the actions that it took?”

The First Minister replied: “I entirely agree with Pauline McNeill that the onus cannot and should not be on sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, who have waited far too long for justice.

“I also reiterate what the Lord Advocate said a number of months ago—or certainly a number of weeks ago—that she would be willing to update members directly on the questions that they have.

“Any petition going to the courts would not be a matter for me as First Minister; it would of course be a matter for the Lord Advocate.

“There may be some difficulties in identifying so-called Horizon cases, which is slightly more complex here in Scotland.

“I know that Pauline McNeill will completely understand this, but the Post Office cannot bring forward private prosecutions in Scotland in the manner in which it can in England.

“Secondly, the Crown has often chased the Post Office for further information to be able to triage Horizon cases, and that information has often not been forthcoming.

“In Scotland, prosecutions do not simply rely on one piece of evidence—on Horizon data, for instance—and there would often have to be corroborative evidence in such cases.

“Triaging those cases can therefore be a bit more challenging.”

He added: “I do not disagree with the premise of Pauline McNeill’s question at all. If there is a quicker way or route to get justice—at the same time, we do not want those convictions that are sound to be overturned, with those people then liable for compensation—we will explore every avenue that we can.

“We want no delay whatever, and we will continue to work with the UK Government to do the simplest thing, which is to ensure that the UK legislation applies UK-wide.”