Get the latest tech news

The justice system's role in non disclosure of Horizon material

Dr Andrew Green argues that the rules of evidence relating to computer produced material have been ‘misrepresented in a way that intimidates defendants’ and material relating to the Horizon computer system and Fujitsu’s role in selling a defective system have been concealed in secret court hearings where Post Office lawyers argued that it would not be in the public interest to disclose it. The subpostmasters who are the victims of the most extensive miscarriage of justice that has ever happened in the UK criminal justice system, blame in part the law relating to the admissibility of computer generated evidence.

They could assure judges that the Horizon program is ‘robust’ – a word which appears to be a synonym for infallible in their usage – that it’s tried and tested and reviewed, and that there is no access to the data it holds by Post Office or Fujitsu staff. (See also Rowena Mason and Russell Scott, ‘Kemi Badenoch failed to raise Horizon scandal when she met Fujitsu at Davos,’ Observer 11 February 2024: ‘Exclusive: FoI request shows [Business Secretary] was warned by civil servants of “risk” but focused instead on tech firm’s investment in UK.’) The logic of the Post Office argument – that many subpostmasters are dishonest – would mean that to disclose detailed information about the working of Horizon would facilitate the commission of crimes in future, which might be made harder to detect.

Get the Android app