Why we must learn the lessons of the UK Post Office scandal when it comes to Cultural Property

Why we must learn the lessons of the UK Post Office scandal when it comes to Cultural Property

Impending enforcement of a new EU law that is not fit for purpose risks creating serious human rights breaches

The UK Post Office scandal has been a landmark of injustice that has outraged the public and politicians alike. Sub-postmasters were convicted of theft and even jailed – and one even committed suicide – when the real problem was the faulty Horizon computer system. For years the Post Office pursued the innocent while burying evidence of the true cause.

As victims have fought back, one of the aspects that has arisen time and again was the fact that the Post Office and its lawyers demanded that sub postmasters prove their innocence by demonstrating that the Horizon system had a problem. As The Law Society Gazette summed it up in the case of Lee Castleton from 2006, “the Post Office’s strategy was to put the burden on Castleton to prove that the Horizon IT system was not working properly – effectively reversing the burden of proof”.

Richard Moorhead, Professor of Law and Professional Ethics at the University of Exeter and Honorary Professor of Law at UCL, is a consulting expert on the scandal and has written extensively about it.

He concluded: “Our analysis of Lee Castleton’s case shows how misaligned the desire to win and justice can become. The problems are particularly acute when one side is unrepresented. There is a question here whether the lawyers were overly influenced by a legitimate, if opportunistic, strategy. The courts need to think long and hard about allowing artful legal argument to shift evidential burdens onto those least able to prove their case.”

As Doughty Street Chambers reported: “In Hamilton & Others, Tim Moloney KC and Kate O’Raghallaigh were appointed lead advocates by the Court of Appeal and represented 29 of the 39 appellants for whom the Court found that the investigative and disclosure failings of Post Office Limited were “so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the ‘Horizon cases’ an affront to the conscience of the court” and that, in their conduct of the prosecutions, the Post Office “reversed the burden of proof”.”

Reversal of the burden of proof an aggravating factor

Clearly, the Post Office’s tendency to reverse the burden of proof to cover its tracks and shift the blame to sub-postmasters was a very serious aggravating factor in the scandal.

When ITV screened Mr Bates vs the Post Office, a drama series based on the scandal, it became the most celebrated show of the year and transformed the debate at the highest level, most specifically because of the reversal of the burden of proof aspect that led to such injustice. After more than a decade of fighting to clear their names and get recompense, it was this that finally galvanised the authorities and led to a public inquiry.

So, when is it reasonable to reverse the burden of proof under the law?

Being found in possession of a deadly weapon such as a knife now comes with a presumption of intent to use it under English law – an understandable development.

In 2021, the Council of Europe’s Warsaw anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing convention committee called on its States Parties to effectively apply the reversal of the burden of proof regarding the lawful origin of alleged proceeds or other property liable to confiscation in serious offences.

The 2021 report of the Conference of the Parties looked at the 2005 Council of Europe’s Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism. It evaluated the extent to which 34 States Parties have legislative or other measures in place for the burden of proof to be reversed, a possibility provided for in Article 3 (4) of the Convention.

That stipulates that “Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to require that, in respect of a serious offence as defined by national law, an offender demonstrates the origin of alleged proceeds or other property liable to confiscation to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of its domestic law”.

The key words here are “in respect of a serious offence as defined by national law” – in other words, where a serious offence has been identified as having taken place.

Mission creep: from serious offence to casual risk prevention

The problem the art market faces in dealing with regulation and the authorities now is mission creep. Application of the reversal of the burden of proof has moved far beyond the test of whether a serious offence has occurred and into the realm of what is effectively casual risk prevention.

It is now becoming the norm to apply the reversal of the burden of proof for provenance within the international art market and for those importing their possessions, even where no evidence at all exists of a risk of money laundering or terrorism financing.

As with the sub-postmasters, it is not possible to provide evidence that either does not exist, or that you cannot gain access to, to prove your innocence – in which case you are assumed to be guilty. Just as the courts were scandalised by this attitude and approach in the Post Office scandal, so should they be in the treatment of the art market and private citizens with regards to their property.

The imposition of the ‘reversal’ standard across the board on a huge range of imports under EU Reg 2019/880 relating to cultural goods is utterly disproportionate, proportionality being the international legal test for whether such measures are reasonable, as well as a prerequisite of the European Commission President’s official policy on lawmaking.

A key pledge on page 7 of the EC President’s new political guidelines reinforces this concept: “Future legislation must also be simplified and designed with small businesses in mind and in a spirit of subsidiarity.”

Wise words that fly in the face of what is actually happening.

Violation of the presumption of innocence

Let’s not forget that the European Commission’s own research, in the form of two studies commissioned to show, among other things, the level of terrorism financing across all its member states, found no evidence at all. So no evidence, and yet the enforcement of the ‘reversal’ policy as though evidence had been found.

As the UK Appeal Court noted in the Supreme Court of Canada, Dickson CJC said that “[i]f an accused is required to prove some fact on the balance of probabilities to avoid conviction, the provision violates the presumption of innocence because it permits a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the guilt of the accused.[60]

That level of proof will soon be applied to importers of cultural property to the EU. Without any evidence showing that terrorism financing, which initially prompted this law, is a problem, the application of such a standard when no offence – serious or otherwise – has been identified appears disproportionate. As such, it is in breach of Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which stipulates that individuals should be able to enjoy possession of their private property without arbitrary interference.

If evidence of terrorism financing had been clear, then raising the breach of 2019/880 rules to the level of serious crime might be justified on the understanding that serious crime is largely defined by the severity of harm caused by the offence. Without that evidence, however, reversing the burden of proof risks becoming a violation of human rights, just as it was in the cases related to the Post Office scandal.

Photo caption, above: ITV’s Mr Bates vs the Post Office, the drama series that transformed the debate on the Post Office scandal. The scandal’s reversal of the burden of proof aspect outraged the public and politicians.