Falcon, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2014, the Applicant, employed as a post clerk at a post office in The City, was suspected of fraud under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. The Crown Prosecution Service ("CPS") prosecuted her, and the case was committed to the Crown Court at The City. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 2nd September 2015 to three months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with an order to pay compensation and a statutory surcharge. Over eight years later, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal her conviction and to introduce fresh evidence. The applications were referred to the full court by the Registrar.

At the time of the offence, the Applicant was in her early 30s, married, and caring for young children. She had a good character and had worked at the post office since age 18 but had received no formal training on the Horizon accounting system installed by Company A. She was diligent but faced wage deductions for any mistakes. In December 2014, she discovered a shortfall of £933.69 in her cash declaration, which she could not explain. Fearing wage deductions, she falsified figures over several weeks to conceal the discrepancy until she could resolve it. In February 2015, her employer discovered the issue and reported it to the police. During police interviews, the Applicant admitted falsifying figures but denied taking any money, attributing the discrepancy to administrative error.

The CPS made inquiries to Company A's security manager regarding possible administrative errors, receiving no indication of system faults. The Applicant later provided a witness statement describing the distress caused by the prosecution and community ostracism. She only became aware of known problems with the Horizon system in late 2022 or early 2023 after receiving a letter from the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

This case is part of a series of cases where former post office employees challenged convictions based on the unreliability of data produced by the Horizon system. Prior appellate decisions had established that Company A was aware of serious problems with Horizon but failed to disclose these, resulting in unfair prosecutions relying on unreliable data.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant's conviction is unsafe due to reliance on unreliable Horizon system data.
2. Whether the prosecution constituted an abuse of process under category 1 (unfair trial) or category 2 (affront to conscience) abuses.
3. Whether an extension of time should be granted for leave to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• This is a Horizon case where prosecution relied on unreliable data from the Horizon system.
• The prosecution was an abuse of process, specifically category 1 abuse, rendering the conviction unsafe.
• The Applicant's guilty plea was entered in ignorance of material information about Horizon's reliability.
• There was a failure of disclosure of critical information by Company A, which would have led to different legal advice and potentially a different plea.

Respondent's Arguments

• The CPS accepts this is a Horizon case and that the conviction is unsafe.
• The CPS took appropriate steps to obtain information from Company A but was unaware of material facts due to Company A's failure to disclose.
• The CPS would not have charged or would have discontinued proceedings had it known of Company A's non-disclosure.
• The prosecution was not an affront to the conscience of the court since the CPS did not act improperly.
• Any abuse of process should be limited to category 1, as the CPS's conduct did not amount to category 2 abuse.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the prosecution was reliant on Horizon data, without independent evidence of actual loss. The Applicant was kept ignorant of material evidence due to Company A's failures in investigation and disclosure, which prevented a fair trial. Although the CPS prosecuted the case, it was unaware of the undisclosed material facts. The court distinguished between category 1 abuse (unfair trial) and category 2 abuse (affront to conscience), finding that while the CPS did not act improperly and thus no category 2 abuse occurred, the Applicant's prosecution was a category 1 abuse because the failure of disclosure made a fair trial impossible. Consequently, the guilty plea was entered in ignorance of critical information, rendering the conviction unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the extension of time, granted leave to appeal, admitted fresh evidence, allowed the appeal, and quashed the Applicant's conviction.

The direct effect is that the Applicant's conviction is overturned due to the unsafe nature of the conviction stemming from reliance on unreliable Horizon data and failures of disclosure by Company A. No new precedent was set beyond the reaffirmation of principles established in prior Horizon cases. The court also emphasized its commitment to the efficient and swift handling of similar Horizon appeals, noting this was the seventy-first such conviction quashed and highlighting procedural improvements for expedited appeals.