Committee publication · Correspondence · 11 March 2026

Letter from Howe+Co relating to the Ministry of Justice's response to questions posed by the Committee on the Post Office Horizon scandal, 24 February 2026

Inquiry: Post Office Horizon scandal: Justice for sub-postmasters

Summary

Howe+Co solicitors respond to the Ministry of Justice's written evidence on the Post Office Horizon scandal compensation scheme, raising critical concerns about the MoJ's failure to identify eligible beneficiaries, contact those initially deemed ineligible, and provide an appeals process. The letter uses their client Mrs Glenys Eaton's case—which required judicial review to succeed—to demonstrate systemic failures in the scheme's administration.

Key findings

MoJ has no reliable methodology for identifying potential beneficiaries of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024; it passively receives data from external sources rather than proactively establishing a pool.
Over 73 cases (7% of identified potential beneficiaries) have not been progressed in two years; over 25% of persons initially deemed ineligible have not been contacted by MoJ, contradicting oral evidence given to the Committee.
MoJ confirmed in written response there is no separate 'appeals' process despite Minister Alex Davies-Jones assuring the Committee in oral evidence that a 'clear and transparent appeal process' existed.
Mrs Eaton's case demonstrates systemic failures: MoJ initially rejected her eligibility despite evidence available from October 2024, only conceding eligibility in November 2025 after pre-action judicial review protocol was issued.
Without legal recourse or funds (secured only via her husband's compensation), Mrs Eaton would have received no redress; many other eligible victims lack knowledge, expertise, or resources to challenge initial decisions.

Tone

Adversarial

Topics

post-office-horizon-scandalcompensationjustice-administrationprocedural-fairness

Key actors

Howe+Co (solicitors), Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Department for Business and Trade (DBT), Liam Byrne MP (Chair, Business and Trade Committee), Mrs Glenys Eaton (client), Mr David Eaton (client's husband), Alex Davies-Jones (Minister)

Notable line

“The systems and processes previously and currently in use by MOJ/DBT are patently unreliable and deficient.”

Key Quotes

“… given the age of the cases, there is no way for government to confirm the exact numbers of how many individuals were prosecuted and convicted by the Post Office due to Horizon.”
— Ministry of Justice (written response to Committee) · explaining inability to establish reliable beneficiary pool

“The caseworkers utilise detailed guidance to make their assessments and there is no separate 'appeals' process to case -working ." [Emphasis added] …”
— Ministry of Justice (written response to Committee) · confirming absence of appeals process despite ministerial oral evidence to the contrary

“… a clear and transparent appeal process”
— Alex Davies-Jones (Minister, oral evidence) · assurance given to Select Committee regarding appeals mechanism [Q158]

“Mrs Eaton was only able to mount this threat through the use of funds available through her husband's compensation .”
— Howe+Co · describing how Mrs Eaton's ability to pursue judicial review depended on financial resources unavailable to most victims

“… the information upon which the MoJ made its final decision in November 2025 was available to it from the outset in October”
— Howe+Co · demonstrating MoJ only engaged substantively with evidence after legal action commenced

View original document →

Source · parliament.uk record ↗