Fujitsu could face ‘financial sanctions’ over Post Office scandal

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Fujitsu could face “financial sanctions” to help fund compensation for victims of the Post Office scandal if the Japanese software company was found to be at fault, said the UK postal affairs minister.

Kevin Hollinrake told the BBC on Wednesday that it was a “realistic” scenario that Fujitsu would have to pay some of the bill for compensation if it was identified as “culpable for this scandal”.

Hollinrake said the government was eager to find a “mechanism to rapidly overturn” Post Office convictions secured with faulty data from Fujitsu’s Horizon IT system.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak later announced extraordinary legislation to end the legal agony facing those caught up in the scandal.

More than 700 people were criminally prosecuted by the Post Office between 2000 and 2014 using faulty data from the Horizon IT system.

Compensation of £600,000 had been offered to every sub-postmaster whose conviction for theft or false accounting was overturned. To date, 93 convictions have been overturned.

Asked about the plausibility of the government potentially clawing back money from Fujitsu, Hollinrake said the public inquiry into the matter would conclude by the end of this year and was expected to report soon after.

“Then we’ll be able to ascertain which individuals and which organisations are responsible. At that point in time, legal action or potential financial sanctions may be placed on them, which may well contribute to the bill currently with the taxpayer,” Hollinrake told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Government procurement records showed that even after Fujitsu’s software was found to be at fault in a December 2019 Court of Appeal ruling, the company was involved in £4.9bn of solo and joint public sector contracts.

Fujitsu said this week it “apologised for its role in [the postmasters’] suffering” and was committed to supporting the inquiry, but declined to comment further “out of respect for the inquiry process”.