THE Bishop of Manchester, Dr David Walker, has warned that the proposed laws — which he supports — to clear the names of the victims of the Post Office scandal carries the danger of unexpected consequences for the rule of law within the UK.
The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill is under scrutiny in Parliament, while the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, currently in its sixth week, continues to take evidence. The Revd Paula Vennells, the previous group chief executive officer of Post Office Ltd, is anticipated to provide evidence next week.
Speaking within the House of Lords in the course of the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday, Dr Walker said that he hoped that the Bill would swiftly pass into law. “The many victims of this long-running scandal and injustice must now profit without further undue delay,” he said.
Parliament, nonetheless, was not the same old route for the overturning of wrongful convictions, he said. “We have to tread very fastidiously when acting in ways in which move us on to territory more normally occupied by the courts and the judiciary. That is especially essential in Britain, because we give such huge weight to precedent.”
While Lord Offord of Garvel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State within the Department for Business and Trade, who moved the Bill, had assured peers that this mustn’t be viewed because the setting of a precedent, Dr Walker argued that this unusual approach needed careful consideration.
“What one government do today, regardless of how warily, could also be drawn on by future governments in ways in which stretch the unique intentions well beyond breaking point,” he said. “Our best defence against that — perhaps our only defence — is to set down very clear principles, not merely general assertions, on the outset.”
Dr Walker pointed peers to the United States, and warned: “It is just not beyond imagination that far-Right movements in Europe, notorious for combining political organisation with street violence, might, should they gain a say in government, seek to overthrow their criminal associates’ convictions.”
He continued: “The query is how we in Britain safeguard the rule of law for the long run, while ensuring that the Post Office victims are speedily exonerated.”
There were 4 easy criteria that set this particular case apart, Dr Walker suggested.
First, the emergence of latest evidence: “For me, that is essentially the most compelling argument for the plan of action we’re taking today. Our justice system is predicated solidly on evidence, and where fresh and powerful evidence emerges, we’d like to have the option to take it under consideration in a timely and effective way.”
Second, the danger that somebody who had in reality stolen money might go free: “The principle that it is healthier that a guilty person go free than an innocent one be convicted lies at the foundation of our British justice system,” Dr Walker said. “It is enshrined within the requirement that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt — yet it goes back much further, to the book of Genesis.”
Third, it was essential that the case was “well clear of partisan political territory”, he said. “Were any major grouping in your Lordships’ House to feel that the Bill contained political bias in any direction, it will not be secure for us to proceed.”
Dr Walker’s final argument hinged on the big variety of cases. “We are coping with such numerous convictions that handling them in some other way would tie up the court system and delay justice for the Post Office victims, and even for others in unconnected cases, who couldn’t get their matters to court,” he said.
“It is that combination — the compelling latest evidence, the presumption of innocence, the political neutrality, and the sheer variety of cases — that permits me to supply my support to the Bill.”
Lord Orford, responding to the talk, said that he understood the concerns of Dr Walker and others in regards to the legislative approach. “We all share their respect for an independent judiciary,” he said.
“We agree that the separation of powers is a crucial a part of our justice system, but public confidence and faith within the system are also vital. This is a miscarriage of justice on a scale never seen before, and the circumstances are exceptional.”
Other approaches had been considered and rejected. “Ultimately, no reform wanting this legislative approach provides the swift treatment needed consequently of those unprecedented circumstances.”
In closing, he said that the Government recognised the profound impact of the Horizon scandal. “We all know of examples in our local area where lives have been ruined, and each is a really sad story by itself. Therefore, we legislate with that on the forefront of our minds, and the target of this Bill is to exonerate those that were so unjustly convicted of crimes that they didn’t commit, and supply fair redress as swiftly as possible.”
The Bill was committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
