Sir Alan Bates has criticised the UK government's handling of compensation for subpostmasters affected by the flawed Horizon IT system, calling the process unfair and arbitrary while demanding an independent body to oversee claims after years of legal battles and inadequate payouts.
Sir Alan Bates has issued a scathing critique of the UK government's handling of compensation schemes for the victims of the Horizon IT scandal, branding them “quasi-kangaroo courts.” His remarks capture the deep-seated frustration among more than 900 subpostmasters wrongly prosecuted from 1999 to 2015 due to the flawed Horizon accounting software. This system falsely indicated financial anomalies, leading to devastating personal and financial repercussions, including wrongful convictions and tragic suicides.
In his piece for the Sunday Times, Bates, a relentless advocate for justice, expressed dismay that his own compensation offer is less than half of what he originally sought. He raised serious concerns about the arbitrary nature of current compensation criteria, alleging that the Department for Business and Trade has been changing the rules at will. “Claims are often rejected based on legalistic technicalities,” he noted, underscoring the failures of a system that was designed to deliver fair and straightforward redress.
The previous government may have pledged significant compensation—up to £600,000 for those with overturned convictions—but many victims, including Bates, find themselves still lacking adequate compensation. The group litigation order (GLO) scheme, established between 2017 and 2019 to address the claims of 555 primary applicants, has failed to satisfy. Even the option for claimants to seek an independent review, supposedly overseen by a retired High Court judge, has not granted the sense of justice that so many desperately seek.
Calls for a radical overhaul are growing louder as Bates demands an independent body to manage compensation claims, a viewpoint echoed by numerous campaigners and legal professionals familiar with the matter. Critics of the government's management of the scandal have pointed out that despite a High Court victory in 2019 and promises to expedite compensation, the processes remain mired in complexity and red tape, echoing the frustrations felt under the old regime.
Recent revelations indicate that many victims are being offered compensation sums far below their original claims. Bates has roundly rejected several of these offers, describing them as “cruel” and “derisory.” He advocates for a systematic overhaul of the current framework, arguing that a dedicated governmental body could improve both the efficiency and transparency of the compensation process, thus preventing further injustices from occurring.
The Post Office scandal starkly illustrates the failures in systems designed to safeguard citizens, underlining the urgent need for decisive action to deliver the justice that has been long denied. While government representatives have voiced acknowledgment of the suffering experienced by the subpostmasters and promised enhanced oversight, the grim reality remains that many victims continue to feel abandoned by the very institutions intended to support them. As Bates pushes for judicial review to ensure equitable treatment, the pursuit of justice rages on, with many clinging to the hope for a more just future free from the failings of the past.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative is recent, published on May 24, 2025. Similar reports have appeared in reputable outlets, such as The Guardian and The Financial Times, over the past year, indicating ongoing coverage of the issue. The report cites Sir Alan Bates' recent comments, suggesting timely reporting. However, the repetition of similar content across multiple outlets may indicate recycled news. The narrative is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No significant discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were noted. No earlier versions of this specific content were found. The inclusion of updated data alongside older material suggests an attempt to provide current information while recycling previous content.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
The direct quotes from Sir Alan Bates are consistent with his previous statements reported in other reputable outlets, indicating potential reuse of content. No variations in wording were found, suggesting the quotes are directly sourced from prior reports. No online matches were found for the specific phrasing used in this report, indicating potential originality or exclusivity.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Irish News, a reputable organisation. However, the report relies heavily on a press release, which may not provide the same level of scrutiny as original reporting. The heavy reliance on a press release raises questions about the depth of independent verification.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative align with previous reports on the Post Office Horizon scandal and compensation schemes. The language and tone are consistent with typical corporate or official language. The structure of the report is focused and relevant, without excessive or off-topic detail. No inconsistencies in language or tone were noted. The report lacks specific factual anchors, such as names, institutions, or dates, which could reduce the score and flag it as potentially synthetic.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative is recent and based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, the heavy reliance on a press release raises questions about the depth of independent verification. The quotes used are consistent with previous reports, indicating potential reuse of content. The claims made are plausible and align with prior reports on the Post Office Horizon scandal. The lack of specific factual anchors reduces the score and flags the report as potentially synthetic. Given these factors, the overall assessment is OPEN with a MEDIUM confidence level.
