What next for the Post Office Inquiry?

The Post Office Inquiry has now completed its live hearings. Here are the answers to key questions about what happens next.

What was last week all about?

Closing statements from the legal representatives for core participants (ie the organisations and individuals deemed to be central to the Post Office scandal). There were statements from Horizon designer Fujitsu, Post Office Limited and the Department for Business and Trade, as well as former chief executive Paula Vennells and key prosecution witness Gareth Jenkins.  In addition,  lawyers representing dozens of victims of the scandal were each given an hour to make submissions.

How was last week relevant to the legal profession?

Although most of the content of the closing submissions was largely known, the hearings were fascinating for conveying a sense of how lawyers are key to the whole scandal and likely to be central to chair Sir Wyn Williams’ final report. Postmasters’ representatives cited the ‘smug triumphalism’ of lawyers celebrating convictions that turned out to be unfair. They heavily criticised the handling of expert witnesses, disclosure, the Bates litigation and lawyers’ attempts to protect the Horizon system. Jenkins’ representative insisted he was not properly briefed about his role as an expert, while Vennells’ lawyer directly named various solicitors she believed had withheld information from her.

So what now?

There is a lot of reading for Williams and his team to do. The inquiry has lasted for more than two years and taken on seven different phases, each featuring dozens of live witnesses and many more who submitted written evidence. The page count for disclosure of the 270,000 or so documents submitted to the inquiry comes to more than 2.2m. The inquiry has heard from 298 witnesses, some over the course of several days. The scale of the task of assessing, analysing and processing this material into a report is gargantuan. Or, as Williams put it in his own inimitable style at the close of the final submission: ‘Well, there we are’.

What is Maxwellisation?

After closing statements, the inquiry will continue gathering and analysing evidence, drafting the final report and beginning a process known as Maxwellisation. This is where, under rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006, the inquiry needs to give anyone who it is proposed significantly or explicitly to criticise in the report a reasonable opportunity to respond.

When will the report be published?

We don’t know. And nor, he confirmed, does Sir Wyn Williams. He said: ‘I make no promises other than I will report as quickly as I sensibly can once I am satisfied, and I’ll need to be satisfied, of all my crucial conclusions. That is, without doubt, many months away but I hope it’s not much longer than that.’

What about the police and SRA investigations?

Any criminal or regulatory action stemming from the inquiry is likely to be put on hold until after Williams reports. The Met Police revealed last week that it has 100 officers working on the case, with dozens of people of interest under investigation. Potential offences being assessed include perjury and perverting the course of justice. Solicitors and barristers are among those whose role is being looked at by the police. No-one is expected to be charged until the inquiry has reported.

The SRA has made clear its preference for waiting for Williams’ report. The regulator has said it is investigating a number of solicitors working on behalf of the Post Office which cover ‘multiple, multi-faceted issues’. It is felt the task of bringing any regulatory action is best left until the full facts have been brought out by the inquiry, although that position is under constant review. Even if Williams’ report is released in the summer, it would be a surprise to see any individual before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal before the end of 2025.