The Post Office Scandal: learning from the past

School of Law Teaching Fellow Dr Kisby Dickinson writes about how her ESRC-funded PhD on Crime, Communications Technology and Regulation links to the Post Office Scandal

The Post Office scandal calls into question processes of private prosecution, but more broadly raises important questions about power dynamics, information imbalance, and how this can be abused to undermine processes designed to protect us from miscarriages of justice.

It has raised questions about digital evidence, and the role of in-house lawyers and corporations within the criminal justice processes.

Historical perspectives

My PhD research was concerned with the relationship between communications technology, crime and regulation from a historical perspective, and I focused primarily on the electric telegraph.

I engaged in depth with the Post Office as a regulator of telegraph-facilitated crime.

Whilst I was concerned with the 19th and 20th centuries, as the scandal broke and more information came into the public forum, I was struck by the persistence and prevalence of themes I had identified within the institutional records relating to staff as a suspect population, a culture of secrecy and suspicion, and a significant imbalance of power and information between white-collar and blue-collar workers.

I was also struck by the fact that, despite no longer being an ‘arm of the state,’ the Post Office has retained powers to this effect, by maintaining an internal police force and prioritising internal, private prosecutions.

My research revealed that between 1899 and 1954 the Post Office was prosecuting or dismissing between 296 and 864 staff per year for ‘dishonesty.’

This was sustained through internal policing efforts, which included the laying of ‘tests’ to see whether Post Office workers would offend, as well as watching and gathering evidence which then was used to support dismissals or prosecutions through an entirely internal process of investigation and prosecution.

Learning from the past

There is a long and sustained history of the Post Office prioritising reputation, profit and public perceptions of the organisation over legitimacy and accountability.

I maintain that the history of this culture and practice should not be overlooked in the contemporary scandal, not least to ensure the institution, and others, do not repeat the same behaviours.

Where something is culturally embedded in an organisation, it is important to understand how and why we arrived at that point, to prioritise change and accountability moving forward.

I have written more about this in the Howard League for Penal Reform bulletin.

The scandal has raised questions about the integrity of processes of private prosecution and the role that big organisations and institutions play in a private justice context.

There are continuities here about how the criminal justice process plays out in the context of cyber-crime and where powerful institutions and organisations are both victim, employer and prosecutor, and the implications this has for principles such as the separation of powers, intended to protect the integrity of the criminal justice process.

I don’t think we can look at, or critique the right to privately prosecute, for instance, without understanding the history and context of that right.

More generally, I think this raises questions about how to maintain the rule of law, access to justice, and accountability in a world where corporate giants are increasingly powerful.