Post Office Horizon scandal: Justice for sub-postmasters

We welcome the significant progress that has been made since our last report in delivering redress. We recognise that payment rates have improved across all schemes. However, we regret that thousands of sub- postmasters are still waiting for the full and final redress they are owed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 11)

We recognise the challenges the Government faces in tracing, contacting, and engaging with sub-postmasters to notify them of their right to redress, particularly where contact details are unavailable or where individuals are understandably reluctant to engage, due to their trauma and mistrust in the system. However, like claimants’ lawyers, we are concerned that many affected individuals are still unable to access the redress they are owed –either because they have not been contacted or due to distrust in the system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 12)

Post Office Ltd and the Government must make every effort to ensure that outstanding offers are issued and remaining claims are fully settled. Without exerting pressure on vulnerable claimants, we recommend that every effort be made to ensure that all redress payments are completed in

In order to ensure that redress reaches all those wronged by this scandal the Government and Post Office Ltd will need to work sensitively with victims who have suffered traumatic experiences and are understandably distrustful of them. To do this we recommend they work with trusted partners, such as the Restorative Justice Council, to develop more creative and proactive methods of outreach and engagement to encourage victims of the scandal to claim the redress they are owed. (Recommendation, Paragraph 14)

We welcome the creation of a family redress scheme and that the Government are working with stakeholders to develop that scheme. We are concerned that the definition of close family should not be too narrowly drawn. (Conclusion, Paragraph 18) 38

We urge the Government to consult as widely as possible on the development of the scheme to ensure that the mistakes of previous schemes are not repeated. We recommend that the Government publishes the outcome of its consultations with stakeholders on the development of this scheme. We further recommend that the definition of a “close family member” should extend beyond spouses and children (both natural and by marriage). The Department for Business and Trade should consider parents, siblings, aunts and uncles, and nieces and nephews who can genuinely demonstrate adverse consequences of the scandal in its definition of “close family member”, to ensure that all those entitled can access the redress they are owed. (Recommendation, Paragraph 19) Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS)

Post Office Ltd has acted pragmatically in administering the payment of fixed-sum offers under the Horizon Shortfalls Scheme (HSS). We welcome the large number of claims that have been paid over the last year via this route. The HSS, however, remains a laboriously slow process, especially for sub-postmasters going through a fully-assessed claim. Offers at the end of this long process are frequently wholly inadequate. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the HSS is broken for these claimants. It is unacceptable in principle that Post Office Ltd continues to play a central role in paying redress to the sub-postmasters that it so badly wronged. (Conclusion, Paragraph 29)

We are unconvinced by the Department’s justification for why the Department cannot take ownership of remaining HSS claims. If the Department accepts the need for separation between initial decision- making and appeals processes, it is entirely within its power to establish a new, distinct and properly resourced appeals mechanism. Resourcing constraints are not an acceptable reason to justify retaining a system that is clearly failing claimants and contributing to unacceptable delays to them accessing fast and fair redress. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30)

As it is nearing completion, we reluctantly conclude that Post Office Ltd should continue to administer all remaining HSS claims for the £75,000 fixed-sum that were received prior to the 31 January 2026 deadline. All remaining complex HSS cases should be transferred to DBT to be assessed. The Department should move swiftly to establish to this and ensure the process is properly resourced. (Recommendation, Paragraph 31)

The Government has not properly implemented Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendation to provide legal advice for HSS claimants. Sub- postmasters have already waited far too long for the redress they are owed. Requiring sub-postmasters to progress through the HSS without 39 legal support, merely to reach the stage at which they can obtain funded advice when appealing through the HSSA, adds delay without benefit. They should not be subjected to further unnecessary obstacles to their redress. Legal advice should be available earlier in the process, as Sir Wyn originally recommended. (Conclusion, Paragraph 34)

We welcome the fact that individuals appealing their awards under the Horizon Shortfall Scheme Appeals (HSSA) process are able to access funded legal advice, and we support the continuation of this provision. However, we are concerned that this should not create a gap in support for those eligible individuals who are still progressing through the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) and have not yet received their payment award. We recommend that any eligible individual currently going through the HSS who has not yet settled should also be entitled to funded legal advice should they wish to access it. This will ensure that they are not disadvantaged or forced to delay seeking assistance until the HSSA stage. (Recommendation, Paragraph 35) Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS)

The Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS) appears to be working well for overall for claimants who have had their convictions overturned, but unnecessary delays remain. We welcome the positive change for claimants that now have a basic safeguard in the form of a guaranteed minimum payment of £600,000. Given that all eligible claimants are now effectively guaranteed at least £600,000, we cannot understand how restricting access to the full amount until the later stages of the process serves any practical purpose. It appears to disadvantage individuals who have already waited far too long for the redress they are owed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 39)

Every eligible, wrongly convicted applicant to HCRS now has a right to at least £600,000 in compensation. The Government must immediately take the compassionate act of making this payment upfront to all those eligible as soon as possible, regardless of whether sub-postmasters then seek additional redress through the fully-assessed route. (Recommendation, Paragraph 40) Quashed Convictions

We heard that former sub-postmasters David and Glenys Eaton suffered greatly as a result of inconsistencies in the process and application of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024. They told us they are 40 concerned that individuals eligible to have their convictions quashed under the 2024 Act may be missed because of incomplete historical records. We share their concern. We do not think Post Office Ltd should be satisfied that the data it provided to the Ministry of Justice was as complete as possible. We have identified evidence of one significant gap and are concerned that there may be many more. (Conclusion, Paragraph 46)

We deplore the poor historical state of record keeping by the Ministry of Justice, Post Office Ltd, the Crown Prosecution Service and Royal Mail Group. Action must be taken to mitigate the risk that individuals eligible to have their convictions quashed are being missed. We recommend that Post Office Ltd undertakes a further, comprehensive review of its archival records to ensure that all Horizon-related cases, particularly those involving more than one family member, have been identified. We also recommend that the Ministry of Justice conducts a renewed review of all available data sources, including Post Office Ltd records, Crown Prosecution Service datasets and court records, to verify that additional cases have not been overlooked. Finally, we urge the Government to work with sub-postmaster representative organisations to issue a public appeal encouraging anyone who believes they may have been wrongly convicted as a result of Horizon to come forward and provide their details to the Ministry of Justice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47)

We heard that Ministry of Justice checks to identify individuals eligible to have their convictions quashed are not always sufficiently thorough. This results in unnecessary requests for information and an unjustified burden on victims. Some sub-postmasters who were incorrectly told they were out of scope of the 2024 Act have been re-victimised. (Conclusion, Paragraph 52)

The Ministry of Justice must ensure all records available to the department are rigorously checked before issuing requests for additional information. This would help prevent unnecessary re-traumatisation and prevent exacerbating sub-postmasters’ understandable distrust in the system. Vulnerable individuals should be offered legal aid to respond to requests for information. (Recommendation, Paragraph 53)

The case of Mrs Eaton demonstrates that the Ministry of Justice’s internal review process is not a fail-safe. Internal panels do not always appear to consider all available evidence, and individuals are not consistently given the benefit of the doubt. The absence of an external appeal mechanism undermines confidence in the system. The burden placed on victims is greater than the Ministry of Justice’s stated processes suggest. (Conclusion, Paragraph 58) 41

The Ministry of Justice should establish a formal, transparent appeals mechanism, with access to independent review outside the Ministry of Justice. Claimants should have access to legal representation, and where government error has caused them additional cost, they should be fully reimbursed and compensated. (Recommendation, Paragraph 59) Role of Fujitsu

We welcome Fujitsu’s acceptance that it bears responsibility for the failures of Horizon and its recognition that it must contribute to the redress bill. A substantial proportion of the total redress costs will need to be paid by Fujitsu. We consider it unsatisfactory that no interim payment has been made or is intended to be made by Fujitsu. This dishonours a company that has made significant profits from taxpayer funded contracts. (Conclusion, Paragraph 63)

The lack of clarity around the figure, or percentage, that Fujitsu will contribute to redress is deeply concerning. While Fujitsu is waiting for the final version of Sir Wyn’s report, there is no guarantee that the report will specify a recommended figure or percentage. Should it not, negotiations between the Government and Fujitsu will be required, risking further delay to securing Fujitsu’s contribution to the redress bill. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)

Fujitsu must live up to its commitment to make a significant contribution to the redress bill. The final redress amount sought from Fujitsu should take into account appreciation and interest on the borrowing that funded the Government’s contribution, as well as the legal and administrative costs incurred. The Government should seek an interim payment from Fujitsu as a matter of urgency. (Recommendation, Paragraph 65)

We recognise that Fujitsu has, to an extent, recused itself from bidding on new Government contracts. However, the scale of ongoing payments from the UK Government to Fujitsu remains substantial. We are concerned that the value of these contract extensions came to light only through the Committee’s correspondence with the Government, rather than through proactive disclosure. (Conclusion, Paragraph 69)

We recommend that the Government should publish, on a regular and transparent basis, the value of all contracts and contract extensions awarded to Fujitsu across the public sector. We further recommend that Fujitsu extend the scope of its current self-imposed moratorium and refrain from bidding for any new Government contracts other than where 42 essential service continuity requires it, either directly, as part of a group or consortium, or as sub-contractor to any supplier seeking taxpayer-funded contracts. (Recommendation, Paragraph 70) Capture

We are concerned by emerging evidence that bugs in pre-Horizon IT systems, and/or failures of disclosure and investigation in these cases, may have contributed to unsafe convictions. Although the number of confirmed Capture-related cases is currently small, incomplete records mean the true figure may be higher. It is worrying that this may represent the tip of another iceberg. (Conclusion, Paragraph 77)

Given the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)’s revelations about (a) cases involving software other than Capture and Horizon, and (b) the difficulties in compiling the necessary information in many historical cases relating to Capture and other IT systems used by Post Office Ltd, there are indications that it may prove impossible for those who suffered a miscarriage of justice decades ago to receive redress through the current investigative process. This is despite the CCRC’s obvious and painstaking efforts to ensure justice is now served. The urgency of this process, not least for those in the later stages of life, cannot be overstated. (Conclusion, Paragraph 78)

The Government should bring forward legislation to quash Capture-related convictions, as it did for those relating to the Horizon IT system in 2024. (Recommendation, Paragraph 79)

Post Office Ltd must learn from past mistakes and should think carefully before opposing appeals against pre-Horizon convictions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)

The Department must ensure it understands the extent of the problem. Therefore, it must urgently investigate the number of potential cases relating to Post Office pre-Horizon IT systems to judge whether there has been a further mass miscarriage of justice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 81) 43