What are the legal effects of the Bill?

In any event, no-one (I think) disputes that parliament can enact such legislation if it chooses, and that as a matter of law it will be effective to overturn or eradicate those criminal convictions to which it applies.

Clause 1 provides that certain convictions for “relevant offences” are automatically quashed on the coming into force of the Bill. In summary, this applies where the following conditions are met:

•    The offence was committed between 23 September 1996 and 31 December 2018
•    The offence was one of false accounting, fraud, handling stolen goods, money laundering, theft, or an ancillary offence
•    The convicted person was engaged in a “post office business”
•    They were alleged to have committed the offence in connection with (or for the purposes of) the post office business
•    At the relevant time, the Horizon system was being used for the purposes of that business
•    The offence was prosecuted by the Post Office or the Crown Prosecution Service
•    The conviction has not previously been considered by the Court of Appeal (i.e. that court has not already rejected an appeal, or refused permission to appeal). [Those whose appeals have been successful have by definition already been cleared, so will not need to rely on the Bill.]

The Bill extends only to England and Wales. The government believes the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive are best placed to legislate to overturn convictions in those jurisdictions.

Will the Bill create sufficient legal certainty?

The Bill seeks to define with clarity the categories of conviction which are to be overturned. It does not however name the individuals whose offences are overturned. When the government originally announced the terms of the proposed legislation, the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg (Flaw in the ointment) criticised it as containing an “obvious and fundamental flaw. Although it will clear hundreds of people who were wrongly convicted, nobody will know who they are”. ²⁸ rozenberg.substack.com/p/flaw-in-the-ointment

Clauses 4 and 5 seem designed to deal with that point. 

Clause 4 requires the secretary of state to take all reasonable steps to identify those convictions quashed by the Bill. The explanatory notes say that “such steps may include, but are not limited to, reviewing case data from the Police National Computer, court records, records held by Post Office Limited such as employment records, and CPS data”. In each such case the secretary of state must notify the convicting court, which must replace the record of conviction with a record that the conviction has been quashed by the Bill. The secretary of state must also notify the convicted individual (or, if they have died, their personal representatives) that their conviction has been quashed.

Clause 5 makes similar provision for the deletion of police cautions.

It remains to be seen if there will be any particular cases where there is doubt or dispute about whether the Bill applies – for example whether a particular offence was sufficiently closely related to the carrying on of a “post office business”, or where there is simply a gap or inconsistency in the information held. For the purposes of identifying those offences quashed by the Bill (or determining which cautions should be deleted), the secretary of state must consider any representations, whether from the individual in question or anyone else (clauses 4(5) and 5(4)). That at least implies the possibility that there might be conflicting views about whether a given case is covered by the Bill, and thus the possibility of legal challenge if the secretary of state’s conclusion is disputed.

What compensation is payable?

The Bill does not itself provide for compensation. The government has separately established the Overturned Convictions Scheme. Under that scheme, a person wrongfully convicted as a result of Horizon evidence is eligible to claim compensation of £600,000, once their conviction has been overturned.  Those whose convictions are quashed by the Bill will thus become eligible for that payment. The “optional upfront offer of £600,000” is described as “a straightforward route to settlement. Alternatively people can submit a full claim” (presumably if they believe they are entitled to a higher payment).

What if compensation is paid to the guilty?

As the government has accepted, there is the possibility that some genuine convictions might be quashed by the Bill, and thus that compensation might be paid to some people who were in truth guilty of a crime. To cater for that possibility, anyone receiving financial redress is to be required to sign a “legal statement” that they did not commit the offence for which they were originally convicted. If that statement is later found to be untrue, the individual will be at risk of further criminal proceedings (not for the original offence – for which they will have been exonerated by the Bill – but for fraud in the making of the false statement), and civil proceedings (to recover the compensation paid).

The government will be desperate to avoid another scandal – of fraud on the compensation scheme.