Adrian Montagu was instructed as a defence witness in the prosecution of former sub-postmistress Patricia Owen in 1998
An IT expert claims he told Post Office bosses almost 30 years ago that their first computer system was faulty and should not be used to prosecute people – but was ignored.
Adrian Montagu, 77, was instructed as a defence witness by Patricia Owen, a sub-postmistress who was convicted of stealing £2,178 from her branch in 1998.
She died in 2003 but her family have always insisted she was innocent and vowed to clear her name.
They believe Capture, a piece of software rolled out to Post Office branches in the 1990s, produced unexplained shortfalls and was to blame.
Ms Owen’s case is one of 29 prosecutions currently being investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the only body with the power to refer them to the Court of Appeal, to be quashed.
Thanks to Mr Montagu’s hidden evidence, her family finally have hope that her conviction will be overturned.
It follows months of reporting by The i Paper on claims that dozens of sub-postmasters were wrongly convicted in a scandal that predated the notorious Horizon system.
The Government has now accepted Capture was faulty and will open a new compensation scheme for those affected this autumn.
But those who were criminally prosecuted by the Post Office will not be able to apply unless their convictions are overturned.
Capture ‘capable of producing gibberish’
After hearing about the scandal, retired IT consultant Mr Montagu approached Ms Owen’s family via their solicitor, Neil Hudgell, and confirmed that he examined the Capture software back in 1998.
Mr Montagu has unearthed a copy of the report he produced at the time, which said Capture “is quite capable of producing absurd gibberish” and has “several insidious faults… which would not be necessarily apparent to the user”.
The bombshell evidence has been passed to the CCRC and it is hoped that commissioners will make a decision on whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal this summer.
The case also raises fresh questions about why the Post Office chose to pursue Capture prosecutions in the first place.
Mr Montagu told The i Paper that in the months before Ms Owen went on trial, he visited the Post Office’s IT team in person in order to obtain a copy of the Capture software and warned them about using it as evidence.
“I went along to their offices, I met two guys there and I said, ‘look this programme is flaky isn’t it?’” said Mr Montagu.
“They said: ‘Well, every programme’s got bugs in it.’ I said, ‘Yeah, but how bad are they?’
“I can remember having a conversation about the bugs and they admitted there were bugs in the programme.
“But they were quite hard-nosed about everything, they were saying ‘no, no, it’s perfectly alright, the main function of the programme is perfectly OK’ sort of thing.
“I later found out it was very, very flaky.
“They knew that the sub-postmistress in this case was being prosecuted, and they knew the reason why I was there was that there was a feeling that the software may be at fault.”
The i Paper has previously revealed how the Post Office’s Capture team sent out numerous newsletters and bulletins to sub-postmasters in the 1990s in which they admitted the software could cause accounting errors.
But at the same time, the number of private prosecutions carried out by the Post Office’s Investigation Department increased dramatically – from only two in 1992 to 93 by 1998.
By the time Horizon arrived in 1999, the Post Office was carrying out hundreds of prosecutions every year.
Mr Montagu says he spent some “considerable time” preparing to give evidence at Ms Owen’s trial.
He says he attended Canterbury Crown Court in Kent and was even introduced to the judge before proceedings began.
Mr Montagu said he had come with a large screen to carry out a demonstration to the jury and that he was expecting to be asked to explain how Capture was capable of producing faults.
“Basically, ’10 times 10 equals 110 doesn’t make sense’ and I can demonstrate that kind of thing,” he said.
But for reasons which remain a mystery, Mr Montagu says he was not called to give evidence.
“I was a bit shocked but [Ms Owen’s barrister] said ‘I’m not going to need you anymore’, so off I went,” he said.
“I was a bit surprised by it all. It’s odd – the guts of this case was about how the programme, we believed, was not functioning as it should.”
‘I told people how innocent I thought she was’
Court reports obtained by The i Paper from the Kentish Gazette in June 1998 reveal how Ms Owen, who started working for the Post Office in 1987, wept in court and told jurors she “loved her job and wouldn’t steal from anybody”.
She was given a six-month jail sentence suspended for two years.
Her family say she never recovered from the shame of being convicted and believe it contributed to her death at 62.
Mr Montagu says he has always felt uncomfortable about Ms Owen’s prosecution.
“I wrote a letter to her saying how shocked I was to hear about the result,” he said. “I said I would keep her files on record in case there was an appeal.
“This was a situation which I had been very concerned about for years.
“And I spoke to my wife about it, spoke to other people about it, about how innocent I thought she was.”
According to the CCRC’s guidance, the watchdog will “normally need to identify something new and significant” in order to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal.
“This could be fresh evidence or a new legal argument, such as a new witness or a new scientific development,” the guidance says, and must not be something covered in the original trial.
Given that Mr Montagu was not called as a witness during proceedings in 1998, Ms Owen’s family believe his testimony should fulfil the criteria of “fresh evidence”.
He says he remains willing to give evidence in court if required.
“Yes – I will do whatever is necessary,” Mr Montagu added.
“If I put my personal hat on, I think that justice delayed is justice denied.”
A spokesperson for the Post Office said: “We have been very concerned about the reported problems relating to the use of the Capture software and are sincerely sorry for past failings that have caused suffering to postmasters.
“We are determined that past wrongs are put right and continue to support the Government’s work as well as fully co-operate with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.”
A CCRC spokesperson said: “We have received applications regarding 29 convictions which pre-date Horizon; 25 of these applications are being actively investigated by case review managers, and two more recent applications are in the preparatory stage and will be assigned to case review managers before the end of June.
“We have issued notices under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to Post Office Ltd [POL] requiring them to produce all material relating to the applications received.
“To date, POL have provided some material in relation to 17 of the cases and confirmed that they hold no material in relation to another five. The CCRC is awaiting a response from POL in relation to six cases.”