³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

On 13 March 2024 the UK Government introduced the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill which, if passed, will automatically quash on coming into force any convictions which fall within the scope identified on the face of the Bill. Details of the UK Bill can be found on the UK Parliament website:

The Scottish Government believes that the best way to deliver a quick, fair and equal solution for all affected sub-postmasters is through a UK-wide Bill, and will continue to press the UK Government to deliver a solution that provides this.

We will introduce Scottish legislation if necessary, but any such legislation cannot be passed in the Scottish Parliament until after the UK Bill has been passed to ensure full compatibility with both the UK legislation, and the UK compensation scheme in which the Scottish Government has no locus.

I refer the member to the answer to question S6W-25624 on 18 March 2024. All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at /chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers .

The Scottish Government is aware of this proposal. During the Lord Advocate’s statement to Parliament on 16 January 2024, I am aware there was discussion of this issue. The Lord Advocate explained that:

‘… It is misleading to suggest that I could simply attend the appeal court with a list of cases and tell the court of criminal appeal to quash the convictions. There is such a process but, for reasons of sound public policy and in recognition of the constitutional role of our court of appeal, prosecutors always have to be able to explain why they are no longer relying on a conviction. As I have explained, not every Horizon case will involve a miscarriage of justice. In some cases, there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction. That is demonstrated by the material from England and Wales that shows that, of the cases that have been referred to the Court of Appeal in England, only some—not all—have resulted in a conviction being quashed because of a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it is not as simple as my providing a list of convictions to be quashed.’

I refer the member to the answer to question S6W-25624.on 18 March 2024. All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at /chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers .

I refer the Member to the answer to PQ S6W-26520 on 18 March 2024 for information about correspondence between myself and UK Government Ministers on this matter.

The UK Government announced on 22 February that they will introduce legislation to reverse only the convictions of sub-postmasters convicted by courts in England and Wales and introduced a Bill in the Westminster Parliament on 13 March. Scottish Government officials participate in a Devolved Administrations Working Group established by the UK Government which meets regularly to discuss issues relating to the development of legislation to quash the wrongful convictions of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. This will assist in the development of equivalent legislation that will apply to sub-postmasters and post office employees convicted by courts in Scotland if the UK Government does not change its position on legislating only to reverse the convictions of those convicted in courts in England and Wales.

All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at /chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers .

The Scottish Government is aware of the reported comments by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales.

Any expedited process for hearing appeals is a matter for the judiciary, who are independent of Scottish Ministers. This process would also only be able to consider those cases which have been referred back to the courts and would not be able to address, for example, any cases where consideration by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been delayed by difficulties in obtaining timely information from the Post Office, or where no person has approached the Commission for their case to be reassessed.

Given that the UK Government has introduced legislation for England & Wales the Scottish Government plan to ensure, insofar as possible, equal treatment for Scottish sub-postmasters. Any Scottish solution will need to be compatible with both the proposed UK Government legislation and the UK compensation scheme in which the Scottish Government has no locus.

In preparation for issuing Mr Hamilton’s report, civil servants seconded to the Secretariat applied draft redactions in the period 15 to 21 March 2021. The Scottish Government received Mr Hamilton’s final report on 22 March 2021 at 00:02. The report was then redacted by civil servants in the Organisational Continuity Team for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the court orders made by Lord Woolman and Lady Dorrian and to remove any personal data where processing of personal data would not be lawful under data protection law.

The report was published on the same day, 22 March 2021, in line with the commitment given to Parliament on 4 March 2021 by Nicola Sturgeon , at

No ministerial direction was made in relation to the redactions to the Hamilton Report. The Ministerial Code sets out the appropriate process for any referrals by the First Minister to the independent advisors. In accordance with that process, the former Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, was the Minister with overall responsibility however he had no involvement in the redaction process.

The report was redacted for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the court orders, and to redact any personal data where processing of personal data would not be lawful under data protection law, by the Scottish Government’s Organisational Continuity Team. None of the civil servants from the Organisational Continuity Team was a special adviser and no Special Advisers were involved in the redaction process of the Hamilton Report.

Please note we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested relating to names. This information is personal data of a third party, and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

The Scottish Government seconded one individual to provide a Secretariat function to the Independent Advisor on the Ministerial Code while he conducted his review. Ahead of publication, Mr Hamilton requested additional secretariat support. Four additional permanent civil servants below the grade of Senior Civil Service were seconded to support the Secretariat from the SG Organisational Continuity Team (OCT) for a limited period from 15 March 2021, primarily to support the redaction and publication process. None of those civil servants was a Special Adviser and Special Advisers were not involved in the process of deciding what parts of the Hamilton Report to redact.

Please note we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested relating to names. This information is personal data of a third party, and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Mr Hamilton’s report was published on 22 March 2021. In his letter, which is published alongside the report, Mr Hamilton makes clear that redactions were necessary in order to comply with the court orders in place (made by Lord Woolman and Lady Dorrian), in order to avoid the risk of jigsaw identification.

It would not be appropriate to publish further material that was provided in confidence to Mr Hamilton for the purpose of his investigation. Following a Freedom of Information request for the full text of the Hamilton Report, the Scottish Government provided the Scottish Information Commissioner with the full text of the report, and, in , the Commissioner confirmed that he was satisfied that disclosing the information would lead to the identification of complainers, either directly or indirectly, contrary to the civil and criminal orders, and that the Scottish Government had complied with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act in responding to that request.