A new idea for a documentary, the Sub-postmaster scandal.
Background
For almost 20 years a large number of sub-postmasters have been accused by, The Post Office Limited (POL) and it’s antecedents, have been accused of False Accounting and even Theft. In turn the sub-postmasters (SPMs) have accused POL of making false accusations. Mainly due to the efforts of Journalist Nick Wallis I have been able to track what has been happening in these cases. A group of SPMs formed the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance and sued POL at the High Court. POL eventually agreed to settle this case.
Armed with the result of this Civil case the SPMs brought their cases to the CCRC and some managed to get their cases referred to the Court of Appeal (CofA).
On April 23rd 2021, the CofA gave their opinion and Quashed the convictions of 39 SPMs.
The Justice system in the UK is often heralded as the best in the world, the truth is that only if you are willing to fight with everything you have can you get Justice.
The Project
I found the SPMs struggle to be inspirational, my next project would be to make some documentaries that describe that struggle. The underlying cases, the Civil Case and the Appeals are on a truly epic scale. My entry to this project was to be present at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) in London and hopefully make some contacts and begin telling their stories.
The strategy was to get a camera down at the RCJ and record some scenes as opportunities arose. Camera choice was quite difficult. I had done a scouting trip and so knew some of the problems but as the Appeal was held during London’s Lockdown it was not really clear what would happen on the day. I chose to bring a Sony A7S2 and a Gimbal rather than a tripod. This was a good choice and a bad choice for reasons I will explain later. The A7S2 is primarily a low light video camera however I find that it works just as well as a normal camera.
All I knew was the Appeal result would be announced at about 10 am. That would be the publishing of the Appeal on the Judiciary Web Site. I had brought a mobile phone and a laptop in the hopes of reading this as it was announced. The Strand was supposed to have a public WiFi capability, I never managed to obtain a connection. At least one where you never had to give your life history that they may market stuff to you.
Lesson Learned: always bring your laptop with mobile internet connection and test it early.
I had read Nick Wallis Live Tweet of the Directions Hearing (December 2020) and the Appeal (March 2021) so I was mostly aware of what might happen on the day (at least legally). The CCRC had referred about 50 or so cases. Some of these were heard in Southwark Crown Court (those who had their case heard at the Magistrates) but those at the CofA were referred with two “grounds”. The first Ground was that the SPMs could not have obtained a fair trial because POL withheld evidence. It was said POL did not “resist” these cases. The CCRC also referred the SPMs on a second ground, roughly known as an “affront to justice”. By not resisting on Ground 1 POL hoped to argue that the SPMs did not get a fair trial and then just walk away. At the Directions hearing, POL argued that as they had conceded Ground 1 then Ground 2 would not, and could not, be heard. Barristers Paul Marshall and Flora Page prepared a skeleton argument that Ground 2 should be heard. In the end the POL team tried to claim that some of the information managed to leak beyond the scope of Legal Privilege and the Brief for Seema Misra, Janet Skinner and Tracy Felstead had to be handed over to other Barristers (who also did a tremendous job). The new team did manage to overcome the POL objection that once you had won your appeal that was the end. What nobody knew, including me, was whether they would win their Appeals on both grounds. Slowly but surely a murmur went around “they got ground 2”. Most people there were simply waiting to hear whether the Convictions had be quashed, by winning on Ground 2 the SPMs had demolished the POL case.
Each of the SPMs received a document that declared their convictions had been quashed, not only did they not get a fair trial they could now hold their heads up as innocent people once more. This meant they all walked out of the RCJ as individuals or small families, clutching a document. What the media really wanted was for them all to come out at once with hands raised in victory. In fact that did happen but it was a bit of later re-enactment. As they all came out each family group they were interviewed by the press (as a well-natured mob) and then moved on for individual press interviews. At this point I expected all the exonerees to be in full celebratory mode and while the press were focused on them that was the case but once they were away from the press the full horror of what had happened was expressed in their tears.
I went there hoping to simply to film what happened but events like this are the domain of the press. What you need to do is become a journalist for the day! Not that you could ever match those professionals but you can and should consider that approach. Things had changed technically, there is a central traffic isle where all the camera crews assemble.
There are usually a few media vans there that set up interview stations and there is also a cabinet that offers power and connectivity to those without Satellite trucks. A few people were interviewed there but now there are a lot of shoulder mounted ENG cameras and they take over most of the space just by the Court steps. This means there is no longer a lot of competition on the traffic island, however there is a lot more competition on the Court steps. The cinema trope of mobs of cameras trying get a picture or interview is spot on, that is how they do work. Lots of elbowing people out of the way (but very politely as it is in England). Calling to the exonerees to get a picture from this or that angle is all part of the game. It is easy to believe you are losing out if you don’t fare well in this struggle but fear not as personal interviews will be available to you before very long.
The real goal is to get interviews with people, to do that you must research the people you expect to be there. Also prepare to interview people you did not expect to be there but are. Always have some questions prepared for whoever you may meet there. A real Journalist told me that and they were right!
There seems to be no plan for the day but the press have firm ideas about what should happen and they usually get their way. People there want to talk to and be filmed, after all that is mainly why they are there. Be prepared with Releases but remember that for most exonerees this is all new and they may require you to explain that to them. Be as nice as you can be!
I had some plan to talk to exonerees but there were quite a few lawyers as well. For my film/documentary I really want to talk to them. However this time I didn’t have a plan and mostly missed out on that opportunity. Sometimes you hear comments that are really intended for another interview but can upstage your plans. I heard that a transcript of one of the original Trials was used to help put together the Appeals. From that I now know that there is a story to how the main Civil Appeal was launched. Also that this was used as part of the CCRC case. Without expecting it I have a line to follow on how that case developed and a plan to interview somebody (they don’t know this yet so don’t tell them).
One thing that shortly becomes obvious is that most of the press want fairly short articles, nearly every news outlet wants to tell the essentials of the story. As a documentary maker you have relative clear ground to tell a more complete story.
I’ve not tried to list everyone who helped the SPMs to win their cases because that list would be lengthy. There are some 555 SPMs that were falsely prosecuted. Who knows how many are yet to tell their story. In studying these cases I have learned a new phrase; In terrorem. The use of legal process to prevent a lawsuit against you. That probably applies to hundreds more cases.
I had sort of expected the Appeal to be the end of a story! Really it is but the beginning of a new phase.