Earlier today myself & Boldon resident Chris Head went to Downing Street to hand in his petition calling for an independent inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal. People have been jailed, made bankrupt & committed suicide due to this scandal. Time to act @BorisJohnson.

#PostOfficeScandal Post Office scandal victim dedicates OBE to 'sub-postmasters we have lost' Betty Brown, the oldest surviving victim of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, received an OBE at Windsor Castle today. Brown was one of hundreds of sub-postmasters wrongly accused of stealing, and was forced out of her County Durham branch in 2003 - despite her and her late husband spending more than £50,000 of their savings to make good on losses which didn't exist. The award "won't be a Betty Brown medal," the former sub-postmaster said, but will be for "all the sub postmasters that we have lost". The Horizon IT system was responsible for more than 900 sub-postmasters being wrongfully prosecuted because of it providing incorrect information. Thousands were forced to make up for the alleged losses at their branches across the UK. More than a billion pounds has been paid out in compensation to victims of the scandal, according to the government.

#PostOfficeScandal Today in the Court of Appeal a directions hearing will take place for 3 Capture Cases (the system used prior to Horizon) which the @PostOffice continues to fight. In the last @CommonsBTC session chaired by @liambyrnemp Post Office chair Nigel Railton said that he would welcome legislation to overturn the convictions of Capture victims and that it was the right thing to do. So why do the Post Office continue to do everything they can to fight these cases? Their excuse is that they have a duty to the courts to do so after receiving legal advice from lawyers….hmmm now where have we heard that one before⁉️ The Bates vs Post Office GLO litigation was fought tooth and nail due to apparent legal advice received, the Hamilton vs Post Office was fought on the exact same basis, and now history repeats itself with the Capture cases! I thought the Post Office were sorry for their past actions and the harm they have caused, I thought they were supposed to be learning lessons…it appears when it comes to the treatmet of victims in the Post Office scandal, nothing has changed. It is the same old, say one thing to the Business and Trade committee, MP’s, media and the general public and behind closed doors hide behind your lawyers and carry on as normal destroying peoples lives. In a recent exchage of letters from the HCAB board chaired by Professor Chris Hodges OBE, they note their dissatisfaction with the Post Office’s position. Hodges says :- “I am writing on behalf of my colleagues on the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board: Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Beamish and Professor Richard Moorhead. We are most concerned at the news that the Post Office is objecting to some applications in the Court of Appeal to overturn convictions, recently relating to Capture cases. Our view is that such action presumably reflects technical legal advice but the outcome gives entirely the wrong impression to the public and especially to those victims whose appeals are concerned. Please could you explain the reasons for such objections? To the extent that they are based on legal advice that the Court of Appeal may expect the prosecuting authority (the Post Office) to adopt an adverse stance so that the Court has the benefit of assessing contrary views, we regard that as inappropriate in the context of this scandal, and suggest that the Court should be asked to review the position. It would also be helpful to have the authorities on which the views stand.” A few days later @PostOffice chair Railton responds :- "I understand why this is of concern for the Advisory Board, for those impacted and for the public at large, but I would like to assure you that Post Office's decisions in these and all other cases before the Court of Appeal are taken with a great deal of thought and consideration. As the former prosecutor, Post Office also has a duty to assist both the Court and appellant. Where directed by the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Rules, Post Office must file a Respondent's Notice addressing the legal and factual issues that may be relevant to the Court's consideration of the appeal. That document necessarily addresses the grounds of appeal and the @ccrcupdate Statement of Reasons with regard to the law and established legal principles." Hodges fired back with an extraordinary letter, unimpressed by Railton’s and by default the @PostOffice defence of their position calling it inexplicable and unconscionable :- "The Post Office's public stance as expressed to the Select Committee is that these convictions should be overturned. Yet they are arguing to the Court of Appeal that they should not be. That seems to us and to public commentators to be inexplicable and unconscionable. You and the Post Office have been on record as apologising for horrendous harm to SPMs. Yet this stance actually causes fresh harm and insult to them. It completely undermines any trust in statements that the PO is sorry, has changed, and can now be trusted. The rationale given is excessively legalistic, and avoids making a policy choice based on what we would view as sound human values, and its effect on victims and public opinion. During early discussions with Counsel for the Post Office on Horizon convictions, we heard similar arguments to those advanced in your letter, about the obligation on them to support the Court of Appeal by taking an adversarial, defensive view of convictions. To put it in layman's terms, taking arguments that could be made or might ordinarily made rather than should be made. We never saw convincing justification that this was required of them by way of legal authority. We would invite you please to to let us see that authority and reasoning. Your letter seems to shift responsibility for the decision towards your legal advisers. The advisors on which PO rely have been involved for some time and were involved in the post-Hamilton defence of convictions, in ways which properly provoked some controversy during Nick Read's tenure. Some come from the same chambers as counsel now under the spotlight through the PO Inquiry for matters of significant concern. Without in any way questioning the propriety of their decision-making, we do wonder if they come to these matters with the appearance of sufficient independence when advising on matters with a considerable history where they have played an active role. There appears to us to be no reason why the PO could not make a statement to the Court of Appeal that in the current situation, where the PO has caused such harm to the victims, it does not feel right or conscionable that it should object to any appeals brought by victims or having been independently reviewed by the CCRC, and it trusts that the PO will understand the reasons for this. The decision on this should be taken by the PO Board. The advice of lawyers to the PO Board should be treated as advice rather than a binding decision, and that advice should be subjected to a degree of common sense - which has not, in our view, yet happened." Read the full letters below and ensure to follow @nickwallis for (I hope) live tweeting of the directions hearing at the Court later this morning. I will be on @LBC talking about this hearing.