Accessing Injustice
Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the golden thread that runs through the criminal justice system. Does it?
Our second working paper based on in-depth interviews with those affected by the Post Office (PO) Scandal is published today.
Accessing Injustice? Experiences of representation and the criminal justice system during the Post Office Scandal. It explores a subject which so far has not been considered in-depth in the context of the scandal. I set out here the executive summary but encourage anyone interested to read the full report. It raises issues for the professions, the courts and the government (as guardians of the criminal justice system and funders of legal aid), and other related bodies, like the Sentencing Council. We hear a lot about efficiency and backlogs. We hear very little about the quality of the system. What we do hear tends to the political and rhetorical.
Whilst there has been extensive consideration of the conduct of Post Office Limited (POL), Fujitsu, government and other associates of those three (most notably lawyers for POL), there has been very little, if anything, written about experiences of the criminal justice system more generally and about defence representation in particular.
Our report considers legal representation of subpostmasters and mistresses (SPMs), particularly in the context of experiences of POL investigations through audit and interviews. It then looks at when and how lawyers were instructed. It provides rare insight into how SPM’s understanding of their innocence and expectations of fair treatment inhibited a belief that representation was needed and explores the implications of this.
The report discusses how choice of representation was constrained and haphazard and how funding (be it private or legal aid funding) complicated an already difficult process.
SPM’s perceptions of criminal defence lawyers and the work that they did for them were underpinned by a sense that the egregious conduct of POL, and the operation of the criminal justice system and of legal aid, meant they were at a significant disadvantage.
A range of views on criminal defence lawyers were expressed. Although respondents almost uniformly ended up with adverse outcomes, views ranged from the positive to the negative. Overall, concerns about poor communication and a lack of proactive defence predominated. SPMs came to see that the legal system’s norms undermined protections, and there was a common sense of futility given POL’s position, power, and conduct.
Accounts of advice on guilty pleas suggested there was inadequate counselling on the impact and meaning of such pleas, and advice treated guilty pleas as, or close to, inevitable, regardless of protestations of innocence.
Whilst concerns about their lawyers were common, they were often seen as outgunned, out of their depth, and/or giving the ‘best’ advice they could in the circumstances. Often, the risk of imprisonment and its ramifications was enough to persuade the innocent that a plea was in their interests. On the other hand, some SPMs questioned that advice, and others were dismayed that their claims of innocence were not investigated or taken seriously. The general approach of defence lawyers towards eliciting a plea as described by SPMs here is inconsistent with the professional view on how plea decisions ought to be taken.
As ever, we are grateful to everyone involved in the production of this work, especially the victims of the Scandal. The time they spent talking to us was invaluable. It is also a good time to acknowledge, with grateful thanks, that the project is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
So much to be learned here… a sample size & temporal scope of significance - with almost identical charges/offences prosecuted against a self selected group of *good character* citizens who were vetted & signed the OSA. The major *variable* here were the defence teams & the judges.
The report discusses how choice of representation was constrained and haphazard and how funding (be it private or legal aid funding) complicated an already difficult process.
SPM’s perceptions of criminal defence lawyers and the work that they did for them were underpinned by a sense that the egregious conduct of POL, and the operation of the criminal justice system and of legal aid, meant they were at a significant disadvantage.”
Such an important point Richard about the biased imbalance of power between Post Office ( master) and SPMs ( servants). This could also explain why there were no whistleblowers in Post Office employees and Fujitsu employees ( both servants). There is no way an employee could afford legal support against the might of the master. I wanted to reply to my grievance appeal in November 2023 yet I was caught in a double bind my unite reps feared for me if I did that yet the senior Unite officers prevaricated and withheld support for me saying I had to go it alone. I never ascertained if my speaking up constituted whistleblowing or not. Several whistleblowing institutions suggested my materials did not warrant the status of whistleblowing. I had to give up on the idea in the end as I had been made too ill.