Delaying justice
Sir: Charles Moore argued (Notes, 13 January) that sub-postmasters in the Post Office/Horizon scandal should not be pardoned ‘en masse’, but rather that each case should be treated individually. He gives two reasons: the possible future risks associated with precedent and because each claim, being different, merits separate consideration. Theoretically, he may well be correct, but this would inevitably add many more wasted years to the endlessly protracted legal process. It would serve only to delay further the justice and the compensation to which the victims are entitled. The only real beneficiaries would, of course, be the lawyers.
Richard Longfield
Weston Patrick, Hampshire
Ancient precedent
Sir: Charles Moore says we should resist the urge to exonerate sub-postmasters without their appeals being heard as this would be a dangerous precedent, but there is a very ancient precedent: a royal pardon, now only given on the advice of HMG. Surely no more deserving cases could be found and it could be done very quickly.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in