Post Office Scandal in UK (Part 3): How the giant machinery of government and administration can crush lay people
08 Sep 2025 09:45:11
The last article has already described in detail the sufferings of the sub-Postmasters who were blamed for the shortfalls. Their lives were ruined. They endured the pain through no fault of their own. They had to bear the brunt unnecessarily.
When Sub Postmasters were slapped with cases of money laundering and theft by the Post Office in the UK, they had to fight it legally. The Post Office, too, did everything to defend its stand in the court of law. The lawyers representing the Post Office, too, were not given all the essential data, but the department succeeded in proving the Sub Postmasters guilty; many were sent to jail, and some paid for the unexplained shortfalls from their own pockets. The last article has already described in detail the sufferings of those who were blamed for the shortfalls.
In 2009, when Computer Weekly made the exposé and brought the problem to light, it made clear that the entire exercise was a scandal. A 4-episode series on the subject was aired in January 2024, and this resulted in a huge public outcry. It added to the pressure ( Mr Bates vs Post Office - a TV drama ), and the public opinion compelled the Post Office and the government to take the cognisance seriously.
Post Office attempted to discredit and silence Mr Bates, too. ( He is one of the prosecuted persons; he refused to accept that he was guilty and fought an unnerving battle for justice.)
Initially Post Office tried to cover it up. It tried to suppress the truth in every possible way. The Post Office even tried to force the victims to abandon the campaign for justice. Sub Postmasters were often intimidated and demeaned whenever they raised concerns.
The senior management actively dismissed the concerns and suppressed the evidence of Bugs and Errors. The evidence contradicted the Post Department's claim, but it still showed full faith in the Horizon system. When the company initially accepted some sort of systemic failure, the Post Office demanded that they change the statement, as they thought it could potentially be very damaging.
They wanted to maintain the line that the system was robust and working well, and chose to pursue the innocents instead. They edited the statements of Fujitsu’s witnesses and pressured them to change the statements in the guise of tidying the report. It seemed that the Post Office was protecting its reputation and, in a way, avoiding the financial liability too.
When the Horizon’s whistleblower was to give an interview to the BBC, the Post Office even threatened the broadcasters to suppress the key evidence. They tried to smear its reputation. The experts who were to participate in the programme were intimidated. The BBC Panorama journalist was invited to the Post Office headquarters, and they repeated their position that the Post Office had no way to change, alter, or modify the existing transaction data externally. The documents obtained by Panorama for the programme showed that the Post department knew the truth about the system and the defects, probably for years altogether, and their claim was obviously not true.
Post Office appointed a forensic accountancy company ( Second Sight ) ( 2013 ). ( Forensic accounting is to use investigative skills to interpret the data to report financial misconduct like fraud and financial crimes ) It seemed they wanted to use it to sweep the issue under the carpet. This backfired as Second Sight reached close to find that sub-Postmasters were not thieves or fraudsters, and they were not at fault. They were about to publish their report in March 2015, but the post department closed the scheme.
Surprisingly, the department even tried to manage a judge who recused himself from the case later. How can a government department go to such a level to prove its point at the cost of great human suffering? Deliberately or otherwise, many politicians, directors, and civil servants also helped in this classic cover-up.
In December 2019 judgment by the court was published, which stated that the Horizon system was not sufficiently robust; it had bugs, defects, and errors that could have caused shortfalls in Branch accounts. It was also stated that the investigation into the causes was very poor. Significant problems related to accuracy were found with the system, and probably the fact was known to the Post Office and the Fujitsu company, too.
During the civil litigation, an instance of a Fujitsu engineer causing a discrepancy was found. When the chief architect was cross-examined, it was clear that the errors were generated outside the branches. The expert accepted that remote access was possible, and the Fujitsu staff had unrestricted access to the system. Without the knowledge of the Post Office, it could alter and manipulate the accounts.
The company also admitted that the lawyers who defended the Post Office did not have the facts related to the faults. The company, however, stated that all the issues related to Bugs, Errors, and defects were shared with the Post Office in time. A report by a private company had also warned ( as early as 2010 ) Post Office directors about the unrestricted access of the Fujitsu staff. Obviously, the post department was in denial for a long period. Despite all this, the Post Office aggressively pursued legal actions against the Sub Postmasters, which resulted in convictions and immense personal hardship. Even the post department did not raise the issue of recurrence of bugs with the company.
Thus, the Sub Postmasters and other staff were made to undergo the investigation and prosecution.
Initially, the CEO of the Post Office ( between the period of 2012 and 2019 ) too had rejected the claim of the numerous Sub Postmasters on the faults of the system and toed the line of the department. She dismissed the article published by Computer Weekly, rather focused on protecting the brand. Later, when she was cross-examined, she broke down and apologised to Sub Postmasters and their families, stated that she was misinformed by the staff, and said that she trusted them. She felt sorry for the devastation of lives, for being wrongly accused and prosecuted. Her role was heavily criticised. Later, she was stripped of her award for her service to the Post Office. She finally resigned from the Post Office in 2019.
The behaviour of the post department and Fujitsu was described as ' wholly unacceptable '. Now the company is committed to supporting the inquiry. It showed readiness to engage with the government on the contribution to the compensation, also. Even the Post Office expressed concern about its conduct and approach to evidence, denial of disclosure, and resistance to objective scrutiny.
In a landmark judgement, it was stated that ' Post Office acted in such a way as to subvert the integrity of the criminal justice system and public confidence in it '.
More about the inquiry and actions taken by the Government in the next which would eventually be the last article on the Post Office scandal.
When Sub Postmasters were slapped with cases of money laundering and theft by the Post Office in the UK, they had to fight it legally. The Post Office, too, did everything to defend its stand in the court of law. The lawyers representing the Post Office, too, were not given all the essential data, but the department succeeded in proving the Sub Postmasters guilty; many were sent to jail, and some paid for the unexplained shortfalls from their own pockets. The last article has already described in detail the sufferings of those who were blamed for the shortfalls.
In 2009, when Computer Weekly made the exposé and brought the problem to light, it made clear that the entire exercise was a scandal. A 4-episode series on the subject was aired in January 2024, and this resulted in a huge public outcry. It added to the pressure ( Mr Bates vs Post Office - a TV drama ), and the public opinion compelled the Post Office and the government to take the cognisance seriously.
Post Office attempted to discredit and silence Mr Bates, too. ( He is one of the prosecuted persons; he refused to accept that he was guilty and fought an unnerving battle for justice.)
Initially Post Office tried to cover it up. It tried to suppress the truth in every possible way. The Post Office even tried to force the victims to abandon the campaign for justice. Sub Postmasters were often intimidated and demeaned whenever they raised concerns.
The senior management actively dismissed the concerns and suppressed the evidence of Bugs and Errors. The evidence contradicted the Post Department's claim, but it still showed full faith in the Horizon system. When the company initially accepted some sort of systemic failure, the Post Office demanded that they change the statement, as they thought it could potentially be very damaging.
They wanted to maintain the line that the system was robust and working well, and chose to pursue the innocents instead. They edited the statements of Fujitsu’s witnesses and pressured them to change the statements in the guise of tidying the report. It seemed that the Post Office was protecting its reputation and, in a way, avoiding the financial liability too.
When the Horizon’s whistleblower was to give an interview to the BBC, the Post Office even threatened the broadcasters to suppress the key evidence. They tried to smear its reputation. The experts who were to participate in the programme were intimidated. The BBC Panorama journalist was invited to the Post Office headquarters, and they repeated their position that the Post Office had no way to change, alter, or modify the existing transaction data externally. The documents obtained by Panorama for the programme showed that the Post department knew the truth about the system and the defects, probably for years altogether, and their claim was obviously not true.
Post Office appointed a forensic accountancy company ( Second Sight ) ( 2013 ). ( Forensic accounting is to use investigative skills to interpret the data to report financial misconduct like fraud and financial crimes ) It seemed they wanted to use it to sweep the issue under the carpet. This backfired as Second Sight reached close to find that sub-Postmasters were not thieves or fraudsters, and they were not at fault. They were about to publish their report in March 2015, but the post department closed the scheme.
Surprisingly, the department even tried to manage a judge who recused himself from the case later. How can a government department go to such a level to prove its point at the cost of great human suffering? Deliberately or otherwise, many politicians, directors, and civil servants also helped in this classic cover-up.
In December 2019 judgment by the court was published, which stated that the Horizon system was not sufficiently robust; it had bugs, defects, and errors that could have caused shortfalls in Branch accounts. It was also stated that the investigation into the causes was very poor. Significant problems related to accuracy were found with the system, and probably the fact was known to the Post Office and the Fujitsu company, too.
During the civil litigation, an instance of a Fujitsu engineer causing a discrepancy was found. When the chief architect was cross-examined, it was clear that the errors were generated outside the branches. The expert accepted that remote access was possible, and the Fujitsu staff had unrestricted access to the system. Without the knowledge of the Post Office, it could alter and manipulate the accounts.
The company also admitted that the lawyers who defended the Post Office did not have the facts related to the faults. The company, however, stated that all the issues related to Bugs, Errors, and defects were shared with the Post Office in time. A report by a private company had also warned ( as early as 2010 ) Post Office directors about the unrestricted access of the Fujitsu staff. Obviously, the post department was in denial for a long period. Despite all this, the Post Office aggressively pursued legal actions against the Sub Postmasters, which resulted in convictions and immense personal hardship. Even the post department did not raise the issue of recurrence of bugs with the company.
Thus, the Sub Postmasters and other staff were made to undergo the investigation and prosecution.
Initially, the CEO of the Post Office ( between the period of 2012 and 2019 ) too had rejected the claim of the numerous Sub Postmasters on the faults of the system and toed the line of the department. She dismissed the article published by Computer Weekly, rather focused on protecting the brand. Later, when she was cross-examined, she broke down and apologised to Sub Postmasters and their families, stated that she was misinformed by the staff, and said that she trusted them. She felt sorry for the devastation of lives, for being wrongly accused and prosecuted. Her role was heavily criticised. Later, she was stripped of her award for her service to the Post Office. She finally resigned from the Post Office in 2019.
The behaviour of the post department and Fujitsu was described as ' wholly unacceptable '. Now the company is committed to supporting the inquiry. It showed readiness to engage with the government on the contribution to the compensation, also. Even the Post Office expressed concern about its conduct and approach to evidence, denial of disclosure, and resistance to objective scrutiny.
In a landmark judgement, it was stated that ' Post Office acted in such a way as to subvert the integrity of the criminal justice system and public confidence in it '.
More about the inquiry and actions taken by the Government in the next which would eventually be the last article on the Post Office scandal.