New report says many subpostmasters felt pressured by legal advisers to plead guilty
Many subpostmasters caught up in the Post Office scandal felt pressured by their lawyers into pleading guilty, according to a new report that examines their experiences within the criminal justice system. The study found that a large number of former subpostmasters believed they were not listened to, were disbelieved, or felt processed without proper consideration of their circumstances as their cases moved forward.
The report, titled Accessing Injustice? Experiences of representation and the criminal justice system during the Post Office Scandal form part of the wider Post Office Project. It is overseen by Professor Richard Moorhead with contributions from Dr Sally Day, Professor Rebecca Helm and Dr Karen Nokes. The findings are based on interviews with 26 former subpostmasters, 6 partners, 2 adult children and 1 sibling.
According to the study, the principle of innocent until proven guilty had, in part, been undermined by what participants described as a culture of defeat. Although some subpostmasters said they experienced supportive and engaged representation, this was not the majority view. Those who reported positive experiences often said they worked with lawyers who already knew them or with junior lawyers who seemed less resigned to the pressures of the system.
Embed from Getty Images
The report found that many interviewees believed their lawyers were out of their depth when faced with the power and resources of the Post Office. This perception influenced how the advice was given and how cases were managed. A frequent complaint was that lawyers did not treat plea discussions as meaningful decisions that required careful investigation of the facts. Instead, many subpostmasters felt steered toward guilty pleas even when maintaining innocence.
The process for choosing legal representation was described as constrained and confusing. Funding arrangements added complications. Most subpostmasters qualified for legal aid for their criminal cases but not for issues related to debt or contract termination. Participants reported beginning their cases in states of high stress with little understanding of what to expect from their lawyers or from the legal process. Some said their lawyers appeared uninterested in their accounts or did not seem to believe them.
Interviewees reported that when they wished to plead not guilty their lawyers usually urged caution. Many described a strong emphasis on the benefits of sentence reductions for early guilty pleas and a focus on avoiding custodial sentences. One subpostmaster explained that both their solicitor and barrister, as well as an independent barrister, offered the same advice. The individual said that all three recommended a guilty plea, and they followed that advice.
The report emphasised that while subpostmasters did agree to plead guilty, they often did so without having been fully informed. It recommended that the Sentencing Council review guidance on credit for guilty pleas and that the Law Society and Bar Council revisit competence standards. The aim would be to set clearer expectations for the level of investigation required from lawyers before advising on plea decisions.
Professor Moorhead said the research showed that lawyers sometimes treated plea decisions as routine matters even though the consequences for subpostmasters were life-changing. He said some welcomed advice that kept them out of prison, but others were left with long-lasting distress about their treatment by both lawyers and the courts.