Obviously, one’s first instinct is to agree that parliament should step in and decree that all the hundreds of sub-postmasters convicted in the Post Office scandal should be exonerated without their appeals needing to be heard. But I suspect that instinct is wrong, for at least two reasons. The first is the precedent. These are individual criminal cases (though with strong common characteristics). If parliament feels it can interfere with such cases, it is usurping the process of law. Once MPs feel they can decide questions of individual guilt, where’s the end to it? Politicians cannot judge evidence to a legal standard. Justice will become politicised. The political proclamation of unproved innocence could be almost as noxious as that of unproved guilt. Think, for example, of what might happen to past terrorist cases in Northern Ireland. The second reason is that the sub-postmasters themselves deserve individual consideration of their claims. It should be established with proper evidence that their convictions were unsafe so that the world can see exactly how they were wronged. The problem with the existing appeals procedure is its slowness, justice delayed being justice denied. The hunt should start for justice speeded up, but still properly delivered.

Mr Bates vs the Post Office, the drama that has captured the public imagination, was made by ITV.

QOSHE - Notes / The joys of the wireless - Charles Moore
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Notes / The joys of the wireless

6 0
11.01.2024

Obviously, one’s first instinct is to agree that parliament should step in and decree that all the hundreds of sub-postmasters convicted in the Post Office scandal should be exonerated without their appeals needing to be heard. But I suspect that instinct is wrong, for at least two reasons. The first is the precedent. These are individual........

© The Spectator


Get it on Google Play