Some defence lawyers acting for Post Office Horizon scandal victims during their prosecutions adopted a ’culture of defeat’ and failed to offer adequate representation, a study co-led by UCL has found.
The UCL and the University of Exeter researchers interviewed 28 of the victims and their families at length and found a recurring view that defence lawyers were outmanoeuvred, out of their depth or uninterested in what their clients had to say, the way they treated their clients at times amounting to profound carelessness.
The Post Office’s Horizon IT computer scandal is widely regarded as the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history.
The role of Post Office lawyers was scrutinised by the Horizon IT public inquiry, which ended last year, but relatively little attention has been paid to the defence lawyers, courts and judges during the period when prosecutions took place between 2000 and 2013.
During that time, more than 700 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and others were prosecuted for offences such as theft, fraud and false accounting, with some going to prison. Thousands more lost their businesses, livelihoods and homes due to wrongful accusations made by the Post Office.
It later emerged that a faulty computer system, called Horizon, as well as corporate incompetence and potentially problematic lawyering, were to blame.
Co-author of the study Dr Karen Nokes (UCL Faculty of Laws) said: "Sub-postmasters we spoke to indicated a desire to plead not guilty, generally their lawyers in essence said they had no choice or emphasised the threat of prison. Most felt they had no alternative but to change their plea to guilty. But they often did so on a basis that was not fully informed."
Professor Richard Moorhead, who leads the research team, said: "Lawyers treated plea decisions as routine, when for the sub-postmasters they were life changing. Protestations of innocence were not taken seriously. Their opponent behaved appallingly, but client stories were also not fully understood or investigated by those they had to put faith in. Whilst advice to plead was well received by some, who were thankful that plea agreements kept them out of jail, others still bear the scars of sometimes profound carelessness in their treatment by their lawyers and the courts."
The researchers interviewed 35 people - 26 former sub-postmasters, six partners, two adult children and one sibling. Particular care was taken to protect their welfare during the process.
While some sub-postmasters reported having a positive experience with their legal representation, many described a lack of belief from their lawyers, the study found.
Those lawyers often appeared to be influenced by the Post Office’s role - a large, trusted organisation - as prosecutor.
One described their lawyer saying, "No twelve people on a jury would believe that a prestigious government organisation would have a dodgy computer system."
Several defence lawyers emphasised to their clients how they were up against "a powerful," well-resourced institution, and often explicitly said that fighting the case was pointless.
Lawyers left to advise clients in the absence of disclosure from the Post Office typically encouraged their clients to plead guilty in the hope they would escape jail, sidestepping rather than addressing the client’s protestations of innocence.
The research suggests that the consequences of a guilty plea and the particular need to advise a client who is innocent that they should not plead guilty were either ignored or not taken seriously enough.
The report said it would be a mistake to assume that the pressures and cultures that allowed injustice to happen were not still operating in the criminal justice system.
It recommended there should be clear and comprehensive guidance about how guilty plea decisions should be handled and about the baseline level of investigation that should be done by lawyers prior to a plea decision.
Many victims said their lawyer appeared overwhelmed by the amount of work they had, and the report says this should also serve as a wake-up call for how the system is administered and funded.
The study was carried out by the Post Office research project and Evidence-Based Justice Lab, run by Dr Sally Day, Professor Moorhead and Professor Rebecca Helm from the University of Exeter Law School, and Dr Nokes.
Dr Day said: "Experiences of sub-postmasters show how both broader systemic issues in the criminal justice system and defence practices impacted the scandal.
"Low legal aid rates and austerity measures, in addition to severe case backlogs, shortages of defence lawyers, and high workloads, with a culture that often assumes defendant client guilt, have contributed to the prioritisation of guilty pleas over quality service and client care."
Nick Hodgson
- E: nick.hodgson [at] ucl.ac.uk
- Mobile: 07769 240209
- University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT (0) 20 7679 2000
