The Post Office Scandal: Philosophical Thoughts

This scandal first came to my attention when a Panorama documentary investigating the matter was aired on BBC One in April 2022. And with the more recent dramatisation on ITV airing last month, ‘Mr Bates vs The Post Office’, I was even more shocked at the behaviour and actions of those in charge at the Post Office. How is it that so many innocent people were persecuted? It certainly has shaken my faith in the justice system and should be a wake-up call to everybody that it may forever be flawed.

It is now evident that the British Post Office have been directly responsible for ruining the lives of thousands of Post Office branch managers (otherwise known as subpostmasters) by accusing them of fraud, theft, and false accounting between 1995-2005. Subpostmasters all over the country were confused when they experienced regular accounting shortfalls. However these shortfalls were actually the result of the Post Office’s shoddy computer system called Horizon. Even though the Post Office knew the system was faulty, they (shockingly) decided to cover up the truth and continued to prosecute subpostmasters for years. It also should be noted that the Post Office are essentially part and parcel of the government, therefore they did not need to go through many of the juridical hoops that other organisations would be required to go through. Over 900 subpostmasters were convicted (with 236 serving a prison sentence), and many were forced to pay back the money that they had apparently stolen, often in the realm of thousands of pounds.

The whole scandal ruined lives. Not just in the form of financial loss and reputation, but in physical and mental health. Some subpostmasters even took their own lives. The whole escapade is now being called the biggest miscarriage in justice in the history of the United Kingdom. And the Post Office are now going through the thick of it. The whole nation is in uproar as many of the victims are still yet to receive any compensation, and the Post Office ultimately still have a lot to answer for (i.e., who let this happen and how will they be prosecuted?).

My heart goes out to all those who have suffered, particularly those who served time in prison. I’ve not been to prison, but I assume it’s a terrifying place. As if the long drawn out days in confinement aren’t enough, you have the delightful prison foe to contend with. But if you’ve done nothing to deserve being there, the devastation must be soul-destroying. The very thought of knowing you are innocent, yet having the highest order in the land - our government, law enforcement, and juridical system - fail you so tremendously, is enough to force you to re-evaluate your faith and trust in anything.

I previously had confidence that the government had rapidly progressed throughout the last few centuries to provide us with the best ethical system of individual rights, freedom, and protection. So why are innocent people going to jail for crimes they didn’t commit? The scandal reveals the answer to be quite simple. The criminal justice system is only as good as law enforcement is fair, or as lawyers are skilled, or as jurors are open-minded. It is a human endeavour and therefore subject to error, misconduct, ignorance, arrogance, greed, or power. So, to what extent can we trust those in charge?  

The foundations of authority are well explored and defended in the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ pioneering work Leviathan (1651) which establishes why law exists in the first place. This is essential into understanding more about misjustice.

Hobbes recognised that a state of nature without authority would be horrific, as similarly depicted in The Purge (2013-) films. Chaos would ensue, violence would dominate, and trust between people would become impossible. Life, as Hobbes put it, would be “nasty, brutish, and short”. The reason why law and order has ensued is because as rational thinking beings we recognise that the best way for people to survive and for society to flourish is through cooperation. Law enforcement is necessary to maintain mandatory compliance from everyone, and Hobbes felt that many of us would stray if this was not the case. These ideologies really embody the founding principles of legislation, otherwise known as social contract theory. We sacrifice some of our own freedom (by following the law) in exchange for protection against malevolence; this is mutually beneficial for everyone and helps the world run smoothly. 

But what if those in power are wrong, bias, corrupt, or just plain evil? Hobbes defended any given authority in charge, even if flawed, stating “humane affairs cannot be without some inconvenience”. We should therefore put up and shut up, simply because we are condemned to be human and should respect authority for the sake of authority.

Perhaps all we can do is hope that any unfortunate souls who feel the brunt of misjustice shout loud enough so that they are heard. In the case of the subpostmasters, only now are they being heard by the government. The impact of what happened to them can never be compensated for. But we have to make sure that we don’t give up and continue the fight when we see or experience injustice. If we don’t fight, then there is no hope for those who are wrongfully accused. And if we don’t fight, there is no hope for the system ever improving. But, if Hobbes is right, the system will forever be flawed because we are, at the end of the day, human beings. As the great philosopher Plato insinuated in Republic, who will ever police the police? In other words, those with power will always have an element of control, despite what their moral choices may be.