Issue 328  13th January 2024

Hundreds of innocent postmasters who were wrongfully convicted due to the Horizon scandal will have their names cleared under new laws to be brought forward by the government. The blanket exoneration will overturn hundreds of convictions, brought about thanks to erroneous Horizon evidence, clearing the names of many people who have had their lives ruined. The Government has committed to making sure these convictions are overturned later this year, meaning victims do not need to wait years and years for the justice they deserve.

Once this legislation is passed and convictions have been quashed, individuals will be entitled to at least £600,000 in compensation to rebuild their lives... In the coming days, the government will consider whether this blanket exoneration should apply to the small number of convictions which have been upheld by the appeal courts. The government recognises that this Bill may lead to the overturning of some convictions that were rightfully brought. In line with the wishes of some of the victims, the government will therefore introduce safeguards to make sure anyone who was rightly convicted, and is now trying to take advantage of compensation schemes, can be prosecuted in the future. Legislation will apply to England and Wales only. Conversations with other UK jurisdictions remain ongoing.

Ministers need to “immediately” update the law to acknowledge that computers are fallible or risk a repeat of the Horizon scandal, legal experts say. In English and Welsh law, computers are assumed to be “reliable” unless proven otherwise. But critics of this approach say this reverses the burden of proof normally applied in criminal cases.

Stephen Mason, a barrister and expert on electronic evidence, said: “It says, for the person who’s saying ‘there’s something wrong with this computer’, that they have to prove it. Even if it’s the person accusing them who has the information.” Mason, along with eight other legal and computer experts, was invited by the government to suggest an update to the law in 2020, following a high court ruling against the Post Office, but the recommendations they submitted were never applied. He and colleagues had been expressing alarm about the presumption as far back as 2009. “My view is that the Post Office would never have got anywhere near as far as it did if this presumption wasn’t in place,” Mason said...

James Christie, a software consultant who co-authored the recommendations for an update to the law, said the changes could come in two stages. “The first would require providers of evidence to show the court that they have developed and managed their systems responsibly, and to disclose their record of known bugs. If they can’t … the onus would then be on the provider of evidence to show the court why none of these failings or problems affect the quality of evidence, and why it should still be considered reliable.”

Rape complainants should be told pre-recording evidence could harm their chances of securing a conviction at trial, researchers say. "Special measures" allow them to be interviewed and cross-examined before the trial and away from the defendant. But a University College London study, the first of its kind, found 20% fewer rape convictions in such cases.

Special measures, under Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, were introduced in 2016. In 2021, they were expanded to cover adult rape complainants, in a flagship government policy aimed at increasing the number of cases coming to trial. The study looked at conviction rates in comparable trials, with both adult and child complainants, from 2016 onwards. And when all offences were considered, it found 10% fewer convictions in trials employing special measures. For rape, convictions were 20% lower...

John Riley, from the Criminal Bar Association, who both prosecutes and defends rape cases, said: "The complainant's police interview serves as an investigative tool and their evidence in chief. The quality of this interview can be very varied. Sometimes, the complainant is some distance from cameras. The defendant is always in person before the jury. The absence of a witness in person in both parts of the complainant's evidence can have a negative impact on the jury."

The new chair of the Bar Council has called on political party leaders to pledge funding for additional criminal pupillages as the backlog in criminal cases reaches unprecedented levels. Delivering his inaugural speech at Lincoln’s Inn this week, Sam Townend KC suggested “an eye-catching manifesto commitment to match-funding 100 additional criminal pupillages, perhaps badged as up to 500 new prosecutors in five years, at a cost of no more than £1.5 million per year”.

The match-funding scheme, currently run by The Council of the Inns of Court, provides chambers with a grant to cover part of a pupillage award or an additional pupillage. The scheme is predominantly used by sets engaged in legal aid funded work, and supported 33 pupillages last year. The chair’s appeal comes as the crown court backlog exceeded 66,000 for the first time ever, with the new chair describing the criminal and family justice systems as “at the point of structural failure”...

The fate of three men accused of murder is unclear after a jury error as the verdict was being given. Confusion at the Old Bailey arose when the jury forewoman stated they were not guilty, but later admitted she had meant to say no verdict had been reached. The men, accused of murdering Adrian Keise near Waterloo station, remain in custody a day after the error was made. Their defence barrister now fears his clients are being held illegally. The trial of the three accused men had been expected to conclude on Wednesday, but the jury has remained unable to reach a verdict. The prosecution has now been given seven days to consider whether or not to seek a retrial in the case.

The jury of 11 men and women had deliberated for 10 hours and 46 minutes, before being called back into court for what was expected to be a majority verdict. The forewoman was twice asked by the court if verdicts had been reached on which they all agreed, before she stated the defendants, from south London, were not guilty. Soon after the jury was discharged however, Judge Charles Gratwicke received a note indicating a mistake had been made, forcing him to reassemble the court. The judge questioned the forewoman about what happened and she admitted her mistake in saying the jury had reached a unanimous verdict when it had not. The judge then told jurors he would accept a verdict on which at least 10 agreed and told them to resume deliberations. But the jury was discharged for a second time after deliberating for a total of 12 hours and 44 minutes, having still been unable to reach a verdict. Judge Gratwicke was told they had been unable to agree on verdicts in relation to murder and manslaughter...

The Bar Council has called on Parliament to review the safeguards around private prosecutions in the wake of the Post Office Horizon scandal...

..."Those bringing private prosecutions almost inevitably have a vested interest. It is important to recall that the CPS itself was created in the 1980s to remove the decision on whether to prosecute for more serious crimes from the police in order to separate the decision to prosecute from those invested in the investigation. It is time for Parliament, in a measured way, to review the issues surrounding private prosecutions and we echo the request of Sir Bob Neill MP that the Government re-visit the recommendations of the Justice Committee inquiry on safeguards. At the very least, Parliament should give careful consideration to introducing enhanced oversight, and possibly formal regulation, to ensure the power to prosecute is not abused"...