What the Post Office scandal can teach the Christchurch attacks inquiry

Opinion: I have continued to muse on the inquiry into the UK Post Office Horizon scandal (dramatised in Mr Bates v the Post Office) that has been going on for close to three years now. I feel there is much we could learn from it.

Although a different subject matter, I have been contrasting the way the inquiries into the terror attacks on Christchurch’s mosques on March 15, 2019, have been handled.

First, we had a Royal Commission into the attacks, with terms of reference that were determined by central government without input from the affected community. The hearings were behind closed doors, and although it didn’t take three years, much of the evidence that sits behind their report will not be released for 30 years.

And as we have seen, the inquest, which is ongoing, has had snippets on the news creating the impression that first responders are being blamed. They are not. It is system failures that are being uncovered, and we must learn from them. But it’s now five years down the track. And what is worse is that many families have had to wait until the inquest to get basic answers to questions about their loved ones – answers they should have been given years ago.

There has been nothing restorative about the approach here, and this must change.

I was watching the report on the Sydney shopping mall attack. The state premier has already announced there will be a fully resourced inquest that will look into all the issues relating to the perpetrator’s state of mind and any other matters.

The statement said the funding would allow the inquiry to proceed with “trauma-informed care for victims and families”.

What’s wrong here? Why can’t we learn from each other?   

Returning to the Post Office Horizon inquiry, having the hearings livestreamed on YouTube means people can follow the inquiry and listen to the evidence in real time. I suspect the numbers tuning in have increased in the wake of the television series.

The inquiry’s terms of reference are very broad and enabling them to get to the truth of what has occurred.

The inquiry is designed to produce a public summary of the failings associated with the Post Office Horizon IT system, so that we can understand what went wrong, and assess whether lessons have been learned and whether concrete changes have taken place or are underway.

The inquiry has been divided into several phases. Phase four, which focused on the action against sub-postmasters and others, only just concluded in February this year. In the summing up of this phase, one of the counsel described what had been a “parade of liars, bullies, amnesiacs and arrogant individuals”.

It’s a shocking indictment on a corporatised government entity that used to be one of the most trusted of British institutions – the Post Office.

I note the original report-back date was Autumn 2022, but this is a very complex and detailed case, and with some of the recent disclosures of recordings of Post Office executives and lawyers there is much more to come.

Who knew what and when? That’s going to be the main question. The hearing of evidence from the former chief executive Paula Vennells (next month), and head of partnerships Angela van den Bogerd will be compelling viewing. Did they lie to the parliamentary select committee all those years ago? What about those who killed themselves after being charged? Could corporate manslaughter charges follow?

Watching an inquiry and the methodical questioning of a witness to build the evidence is not the same as a television drama, unless you enjoy watching grass grow. That said, there are gems: those moments where you understand what drives someone to take up a cause and never let go until justice is done.

I tuned into watch knowing Alan Bates would be giving evidence at the opening of phases five and six, which cover redress, access to justice, responses to the scandal, and governance.

How many times do we get the corporate line? It seems that protecting the brand is more important than facing up to the reality that a system itself might be faulty

Bates came across as a thoroughly decent man, who has been meticulous in his approach to the Post Office and the faults within the Horizon system from the outset. Watching leading counsel walk him through his statement of evidence and all the correspondence, we could see just how much trouble he had gone to in order to help the Post Office correct what was clearly a fault.

He would not, as others did, sign off on the balances generated by Horizon, nor did he make up the shortfall. He explained he was only liable for a shortfall caused by his own “negligence, carelessness or error”, and this was a system error.

Ultimately, his contract was terminated by the Post Office. According to documents disclosed at the inquiry, Alan Bates was “unmanageable”!

But the evidence is that everything he did was above board and in keeping with the terms of his contract.

One of the pieces of evidence was a letter his MP received when she wrote on his behalf. It seemed to blame him for the branch being closed suggesting interim arrangements could have been made if he had agreed.

This prompted a letter from him, which acknowledged that they did make a sort of request to use the premises and facilities at a time when they had taken away his livelihood, investment and life savings. He regarded this as an insult.

He said it seemed that the organisation would do anything and everything to try to keep the failures of Horizon hidden.

When he was asked what made him think that, Bates said the field personnel didn’t understand the system themselves, so they just followed the corporate mantra that Horizon was robust.

That sounds so familiar. How many times do we get the corporate line? It seems that protecting the brand is more important than facing up to the reality that a system itself might be faulty.

The closing line of this letter prompted counsel to suggest it might be considered to be prophetic:

“I can assure you of my continued and now increased resolve to bring the real facts of what is going on to those who will have no choice but to act, regardless of whether it takes years.”

I hadn’t realised Bates had only worked for the Post Office for five years, which he agreed was a relatively short time for a postmaster, but that was down to the Post Office as he pointed out. Counsel noted he had spent more than four times that period campaigning.

It only takes one person to stand up against injustice, but it requires a culture of inquiry to be embedded within government to ensure the truth comes out. This inquiry is 20 years late.

I hope Alan Bates receives a knighthood for his service and for standing up for what is right. He turned down an honour because the former chief executive had received a CBE for services to the Post Office.

Although she has announced she has renounced her CBE, I suspect a forfeiture will be required before Bates would take the honour he so richly deserves.