Key Facts
- •Three applicants (Reynolds, Ali, Bangay) were convicted of dishonesty based on evidence from the Post Office's Horizon accounting system.
- •Each applicant pleaded guilty.
- •Applicants applied for an extension of time to appeal their convictions, arguing they were unsafe.
- •The prosecution did not oppose the applications.
- •The Horizon system had known bugs and errors, and the Post Office failed to disclose these issues to the applicants.
- •The Post Office asserted Horizon's reliability, effectively reversing the burden of proof.
- •Applicants' guilty pleas were based on a lack of disclosure of material evidence regarding Horizon's unreliability.
Legal Principles
A guilty plea does not necessarily bar an appeal against conviction if the conviction is unsafe.
R v Josephine Hamilton and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 577
A prosecution is an abuse of process if it is not possible for the trial to be fair and if it is an affront to the conscience of the court for the defendant to face prosecution.
R v Josephine Hamilton and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 577
In 'Horizon cases' where Horizon data was essential to the prosecution and there was no independent evidence of actual loss, the prosecution was an abuse of process due to the unreliability of Horizon and the failure of disclosure by the Post Office.
This case, referencing previous Horizon cases.
Outcomes
Extension of time granted.
Applicants' applications were not opposed and the court found the convictions to be unsafe.
Fresh evidence received.
The statements setting out applicants' recollections were deemed relevant.
Leave to appeal granted.
The court found the convictions to be unsafe.
Appeals allowed.
The court found the prosecutions to be an abuse of process and the convictions unsafe.
Convictions quashed.
The prosecutions were an abuse of process, and the convictions were unsafe due to the lack of disclosure of material evidence.