Miscarriage of justice meaning

Justice Secretary Alex Chalk branded the Horizon affair an ‘appalling miscarriage of justice’. Kevin Hollinrake, the minister responsible for postal services, said the ITV drama, ‘Mr Bates vs the Post Office’, has only strengthened the government’s determination to see justice delivered as swiftly as possible. The mini-series offers a fictionalised portrayal of the ordeal faced by hundreds of branch managers who were unjustly prosecuted on the basis of the defective Horizon accounting system between 1999 and 2015. Addressing Parliament on the evening of 8 January 2024, Hollinrake explained that the government had ‘devised’ options to settle the remaining convictions, but that consultation with senior members of the judiciary was required before any announcement could be made. He stressed that it is vital “we get to the bottom of what went wrong, of who knew what, and when” to rebuild public confidence in the postal service and in the British justice system. While acknowledging the sheer scale of the issue, he added that the government remains unwavering in its resolve to...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Pay Tax Europe—EU Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning WEC report says there is an overwhelming case for bereavement leave for those who miscarry during pregnancy In a freshly published report, the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) contends that paid time off should be available to all women and partners who experience a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. The Committee plans to table amendments to the government’s flagship Employment Rights Bill in the name of WEC’s Chair, Labour MP Sarah Owen, urging ministers to support or adopt those changes. In brief, the report’s conclusions and recommendations include: a baby loss certificate alone is insufficient and should be underpinned by statutory support sick leave is neither appropriate nor adequate as employer support following a miscarriage or pregnancy loss there has been encouraging progress among...

The Post Office Horizon scandal stands as a stark case of private prosecutions going awry. How did this happen? Between 1999 and 2015, hundreds of self-employed Post Office workers (sub-postmasters) were wrongly taken to court for false accounting, theft and fraud. The accusations stemmed from defects in Horizon, the accounting system supplied by Fujitsu. Horizon appeared to show cash missing from branch accounts—but the funds had not vanished. While some were imprisoned, bankrupted, stripped of their contracts or saw their personal lives fall apart, the Post Office maintained for years that nothing was amiss with Horizon’s data. From the early 2000s, however, the system was erroneously flagging shortfalls at individual branches. In 2009, Computer Weekly reported claims that Horizon was flawed and highlighted prosecutions of sub-postmasters. The Post Office began to look into the issues, yet in 2015 the then chief executive, Paula Vennells, told a parliamentary committee there was no evidence of any miscarriage of justice. Four years later, the Post Office agreed to settle...

The interests of justice test The sole criterion for permitting an appeal against conviction is whether the conviction is unsafe. The identical standard applies where the proposed grounds rely on fresh evidence that was not placed before the court at trial. Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (CAA 1968), the Court of Appeal may admit fresh evidence if it is considered necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. This jurisdiction covers appeals against conviction, appeals against sentence, and references to the Court of Appeal made by the Home Secretary. The same powers extend to hearings determining applications for leave to appeal, as well as to the appeal proper, or to an appeal challenging the findings of a Newton hearing. CAA 1968, s 23 operates only where a right of appeal exists under CAA 1968, s 1. Once the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction under CAA 1968, s 1, it has no jurisdiction to entertain a further application for leave...