Civil servants accused of fresh Post Office cover-up

Officials hid ‘explosive’ secret report from National Audit Office, according to newly released emails

Sub-postmasters and their supporters awaited the first volume of a report into the scandal earlier this week Credit: Leon Neal/ Getty

Senior civil servants have been accused of covering up a report that could have exonerated sub-postmasters wrongly accused of theft.

According to newly released emails, government officials removed any reference to a secret report that contained “explosive” evidence about vulnerabilities in the Horizon computer system and bullying by Post Office prosecutors in correspondence with the National Audit Office (NAO).

The report, which was compiled by Sir Jonathan Swift KC in 2016, was previously found to have been buried by the Post Office as it prepared to fight a legal case against more than 500 former sub-postmasters.

However, The Telegraph can now reveal that civil servants at the UK Government Investments (UKGI) department, which manages the state shareholding in the Post Office, also kept the Swift review secret from the NAO.

The revelation comes after the official inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal said it was likely 13 people took their own lives as a result of the miscarriage of justice.

Sir Wyn Williams, the chairman of the public inquiry, said Post Office bosses knew Fujitsu’s Horizon software was faulty but had “maintained the fiction” that a version of it “was always, always accurate”.

In emails seen by The Telegraph from November 2018, UKGI officials recommended deleting reference to the Swift review in correspondence with the National Audit Office (NAO), the Government’s financial watchdog. The Swift review was critical of the Post Office’s tactic of pressuring sub-postmasters into pleading guilty to false accounting.

The NAO asked UKGI for information while it was investigating the Post Office’s decision to use public money to defend a lawsuit led by the former postmasters in 2018.

This prompted immediate concern among UKGI officials, who raised fears internally about how documents could be used.

Following a meeting to discuss the issue, a UKGI official sent an email to Richard Callard, head of risk and compliance, and Richard Watson, UKGI’s general counsel, that said: “I would not include specific reference to Jonathan Swift in the timeline for the NAO as I am not sure this was made public.

“Just say the Chair (Tim Parker) undertook a review, and that when you talk to the NAO, you can say you understand he took some independent legal advice as part of it or something.”

Two minutes later, Mr Watson replied: “I would just remove the reference entirely. As I understand it, the Swift review was never concluded.”

Soon after, the UKGI civil servant responded: “Thanks Richard. I will remove the Swift review then.”

The Government has since claimed that UKGI did not have access to the Swift report until 2020.

However, officials’ awareness of its existence and decision to delete reference to it will raise questions about their decision-making, particularly as lawyers and former ministers claim that suppression of the Swift Report contributed to the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history.

“This new disclosure is very important,” said Paul Marshall, a barrister who acted for three sub-postmasters in their appeals against their criminal convictions.

“It tends to confirm a view I have held for a long time that it is possible the Government and civil servants were complicit in a cover-up.”

It will also support claims by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, a former Post Office minister, who previously told a government inquiry that the “explosive” Swift review had been “buried and suppressed”.

‘Airbrushed from the narrative’

The internal UKGI emails were obtained by Eleanor Shaikh, a teaching assistant who has campaigned for justice for the sub-postmasters, under the Freedom of Information Act.

She told The Telegraph: “Instead of an impartial and transparent response to the NAO, the UKGI officials buried a document which threatened the very foundation of the Post Office’s defence. Their carefully crafted communications allowed for plausible deniability.

“They knew the Swift review existed but actively colluded to airbrush it from the narrative. They were acting in the interests not of justice but of the Government.”

When asked about the NAO’s request during the Post Office Inquiry, Mr Watson, the UKGI’s general counsel, denied knowledge of the Swift report.

He said: “I can confirm categorically I had not seen a copy of Swift’s written advice to the Post Office chair at the time we were engaging with the NAO and I did not even know it even existed. At no stage was it ever suggested we knew otherwise. It was not until 2020 that the existence of the written [Swift] advice came to my attention.”

Mr Callard also denied knowledge of the review. “I was not informed the Swift report even existed,” he told the public inquiry.

Patrick Green KC, the barrister who represented the sub-postmasters in their lawsuit against the Post Office in 2018, previously said: “The Swift review is an incredibly important document and we would have wished to have shown it to the court if it had been available to us.”

Despite its importance, former Post Office chairman Tim Parker did not disclose the Swift review at any point during the High Court case. He said he took this decision based on advice from the Post Office’s leading council at the time.

The UKGI declined to comment.

A Post Office spokesman said: “We are determined that past wrongs are put right. The Post Office is absolutely committed to supporting the public inquiry and fair redress to victims as quickly as possible.”

A NAO spokesman said: “We are satisfied the information provided at the time was sufficient for our requirements.”