Investigators in the Horizon computer scandal interviewed post masters when their mental health was poor and they couldn’t understand the questions being put to them, a judge has revealed.
Lady Dorrian said Post Office agents spoke to people suspected of stealing cash from the company at a time when they were experiencing distress.
The Lord Justice Clerk made the remarks in the light of interviews that had been carried out after the Post Office’s Horizon system generated inaccurate information wrongly accusing post masters of theft.
In a written judgement published by the Court of Criminal Appeal today, Tuesday April 30, Lady Dorrian wrote of the reasons why prosecutors didn’t contest a number of cases which came before the court in the past year.
The Crown didn’t contest the appeals brought before Lady Dorrian and her colleagues Lord Matthews and Lord Armstrong.
The Crown’s decision led to the convictions of William Quarm, Aleid Kloosterhuis, Susan Sinclair, Colin Smith, Robert Thomson and Judith Smith being quashed.
The judgement tells of how Scottish prosecutors concluded that the six post masters had been the victims of a miscarriage of justice. The evidence generated by the Horizon computer system was unreliable and could not be relied upon to secure safe convictions.
Lady Dorrian referred to interviews that had been carried out in cases involving Aleid Kloosterhuis, of the Isle of Gigha, and William Quarm, who ran a Post Office branch in North Uist.
Writing about Aleid Kloosterhuis, Lady Dorrian said the investigator tasked with interviewing her made an “incorrect and misleading report” to prosecutors about what emerged from the interview.
Lady Dorrian wrote: “When she made the admissions she was experiencing mental health difficulties.
“In the course of the interview she often appeared confused, not understanding questions or answering in an incoherent way which is at some points difficult to understand at all.
“The admissions in any event were made only in relation to a restricted sum. Despite this, the Post Office Limited (POL) investigator submitted an ‘incorrect and misleading’ standard prosecution report to the Crown which suggested Ms Kloosterhuis made admissions in relation to the entire shortfall.”
Writing about Mr Quarm, Lady Dorrian added: “The interview was conducted when, on the POL’s investigators’ own assessment, the appellant appeared to be in a daze and not understanding the questions put to him.”
Since last year, the appeal court has been dealing with a number of past prosecutions which have been sent to it by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
The body investigates potential miscarriages of justices and it believed issues surrounding six sub postmasters should be looked at by appeal judges.
The six were entitled to appeal against the convictions for crimes of dishonesty arising from their roles as sub postmasters at the Post Office.
Between 2000 and 2014, more than 700 sub-postmasters across the UK were falsely prosecuted based on information from the Post Office’s computerised accounting and sales system, Horizon.
Since then, many Sub Post masters in England have had their criminal convictions for theft, fraud and false accounting overturned.
The SCCRC referred the cases of Ms Kloosterhuis, 64, William Quarm - who was being represented posthumously - Susan Sinclair, 57, Colin Smith, 62, Judith Smith, 60, and Robert Thomson, 63, to the appeal court in Scotland.
The SCCRC concluded that the five who pleaded guilty did so in circumstances that were, or could be said to be, clearly prejudicial to them.
It also concluded that new information about Horizon which has emerged since Mrs Sinclair’s trial, would have had a material bearing on a “critical issue” at her trial and may have explained why there was a shortfall of funds at the Post Office branch where she worked.
It found that the prosecution could be seen as oppressive because the absence of the relevant evidence rendered the trial unfair.
Susan Sinclair was convicted in 2004 after a trial at Peterhead Sheriff Court of one charge of embezzlement and was sentenced to 180 hours’ community service.
Robert Thomson pleaded guilty in 2004 at Alloa Sheriff Court to one charge of embezzlement. He received 180 hours of community service and was fined £5,000. His conviction was quashed last week.
In 2009, Judith Smith pleaded guilty at Selkirk Sheriff Court to one charge of fraud and was admonished by the court.
Then, in 2010, William Quarm pleaded guilty at Lochmaddy Sheriff Court to one charge of embezzlement and was given 150 hours community service.
The other two cases date from 2012, when Aleid Kloosterhuis pleaded guilty at Campbeltown Sheriff Court to one charge of embezzlement and was sentenced to 12 months’ in jail.
In 2013, Colin Smith pleaded guilty at Dunfermline Sheriff Court to one charge of embezzlement and was ordered to do 180 hours of unpaid work.
All six have had their convictions quashed.
In the judgement published on Tuesday, Lady Dorrian explained the reasons why the Crown didn’t oppose the appeals.
She spoke of how the Crown believed that in some of the cases, the incorrect information generated by Horizon was the main source of evidence for the prosecution.
Scottish prosecutors believed that if the Horizon data was incorrect then the convictions couldn’t be supported and had to be quashed.
Lady Dorrian also wrote of how in some of the cases, information generated by Horizon wasn’t the main source of evidence. However, the Crown did not contest these appeals for “public interest reasons”.
She wrote: “We agree with the Crown that the trial in any case in which the Horizon evidence was essential to conviction, whether as the primary evidence or as essential corroboration, cannot be considered to have been fair.
“Not all of the present appeals were accepted to be Horizon cases. Ultimately, the Crown conceded even those which it did not accept were Horizon cases, primarily for public interest reasons.”
Yes! I would like to be sent emails from West Coast Today
I understand that my personal information will not be shared with any third parties, and will only be used to provide me with useful targeted articles as indicated.
I'm also aware that I can un-subscribe at any point either from each email notification or on My Account screen.