Settlement of Accounts

From its Royal, state origins in 1635, through its dissolution into separate, still Royal, state-controlled entities some three-hundred years later in 1969, and its subsequent series of privatisations in the decades since under the Tories, the once venerable if eccentric institution of what was the General Post Office has become the sorry collection of assorted public and private companies that we see today. BT, Openreach, Royal Mail and most notoriously today, The Post Office Ltd. Leaving aside all the faults that the first three most definitely have, it's the latter that of course, finally, commands our interest today.That the horrors perpetrated on so many good people has finally got the ear of a decently sized audience and subsequently shamed a woefully indifferent body-politic into actually responding to issues that have been a matter of fact and in the public domain for so long, is to be applauded.

But more, much more needs to be done to redress this 'affront to justice'. Immediate exoneration by whatever means, appropriate financial compensation for those victims still lucky enough to be alive and sane enough to savour their salvation from these monsters, are but the first and most pressing steps that need to be expedited. Any subsequent inquiries into the matter need to centre on the criminal liability of the perpetrators of this hideous crime. Simply shaming the former CEO of The Post Office Ltd. - a nominal title, anyway; and one that has no place in a private, limited company - although well-deserved in Paula Vennell's case, is not sufficient. The systemic failures and subsequent cover-ups are bad enough, but someone holds the ultimate, legal responsibility for the whole affair. Setting aside Fujitsu, who should ultimately be held in breach of contract for failing to provide a robust and well-maintained system, the question remains that of responsibility for the Post Office's part in the affair.

It is a private, limited company. There are rules that pertain to such entities and the directors of them, laid out clearly in company law. The filing of accurate accounts & returns, and accurate and true record-keeping are the fundamentals of running a company legally; at least in the UK and most western democracies. I would argue that the demonstrated shortcomings of the Post Office Horizon system and the subsequent admission by Post Office Ltd. that the system faults actually existed and led to accounting errors that were subsequently blamed on innocent sub-postmasters and wilfully and cynically covered up by the company, amounts to a gross admission on Post Office Ltd.'s behalf that their accounting was both faulty and produced false returns: a serious offence under company law. This resulted in the effective theft of sub-postmasters' money and assets, often resulting in false imprisonment of the victim, and surely the defrauding of HMRC. Those ultimately responsible for this are the directors and company secretary of that company. Criminal investigations and prosecutions should be the natural outcome. It might seem like scapegoating, but someone has to be accountable. The law is the law: it applies to all: sub-postmasters and their employers alike.