ROGER ALLEN and OTHERS v POST OFFICE LIMITED

ROGER ALLEN and OTHERS v POST OFFICE LIMITED

Convictions in the seven unopposed cases were quashed because they were 'Horizon cases' where unreliable computer data was essential to the prosecution, and the Post Office failed in its duties of investigation and disclosure, resulting in unfair trials and an affront to justice. In the cases of Allen and Robinson, the appeals were dismissed because Horizon reliability was not essential to the prosecution and there was independent evidence of loss.

Parties
Appellant: Roger Allen; Appellant: Alan Robinson; Appellant: Pauline Stonehouse; Appellant: Angela Sefton; Appellant: Janine Powell; Appellant: Anne Nield; Appellant: Gregory Harding; Appellant: Marissa Jane Finn; Appellant: Jamie Dixon; Respondent: Post Office Limited; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeals of Stonehouse, Sefton, Nield, Powell, Harding, Finn, and Dixon allowed; convictions quashed. Appeals of Allen and Robinson dismissed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Disclosure Obligations, Reliability of Evidence, Quashing of Convictions, Guilty Pleas, Computer Evidence
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Abuse of Process Disclosure Obligations Reliability of Evidence Quashing of Convictions Guilty Pleas Computer Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Allen

Appellant

Alan Robinson

Appellant

Pauline Stonehouse

Appellant

Angela Sefton

Appellant

Janine Powell

Appellant

Anne Nield

Appellant

Gregory Harding

Appellant

Marissa Jane Finn

Appellant

Jamie Dixon

Appellant

Post Office Limited

Respondent

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions based on Horizon computer system data are unsafe due to reliability issues and disclosure failures
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution's conduct amounted to abuse of process (category 1 and/or category 2)
  3. 3 Whether guilty pleas preclude appeals in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions in the seven unopposed cases were quashed because they were 'Horizon cases' where unreliable computer data was essential to the prosecution, and the Post Office failed in its duties of investigation and disclosure, resulting in unfair trials and an affront to justice. In the cases of Allen and Robinson, the appeals were dismissed because Horizon reliability was not essential to the prosecution and there was independent evidence of loss.

Court Disposition

Appeals of Stonehouse, Sefton, Nield, Powell, Harding, Finn, and Dixon allowed; convictions quashed. Appeals of Allen and Robinson dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications for extension of time granted (Stonehouse, Sefton, Nield, Powell, Harding, Finn, Dixon)
  • Applications for leave to appeal granted (Stonehouse, Sefton, Nield, Powell, Harding, Finn, Dixon)