Widower of jailed Post Office worker loses appeal fight
Ian O’Donnell wanted to clear his wife Joanne’s name posthumously but three appeal judges dismissed the case.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The widower of a Post Office worker jailed after being convicted of theft has lost a Court of Appeal fight.
Ian O’Donnell wanted to posthumously clear the name of his wife Joanne, who died seven years ago aged 64.
Three appeal judges recently considered the case of Mrs O’Donnell, who worked at North Levenshulme Post Office in Manchester, and on Tuesday dismissed the appeal.
Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Picken and Sir Nigel Davis, who heard arguments at a Court of Appeal hearing in London in June, were told that Mrs O’Donnell had been convicted of theft and given a seven-month jail sentence after a trial at Manchester Crown Court in 2007.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) had referred the case to the Court of Appeal after being contacted by Mr O’Donnell.
A spokesman said the case had been referred in the wake of the Horizon IT scandal.
Lawyers representing the Post Office opposed the appeal.
This is not one of the exceptional and rare cases in which it would be appropriate to conclude that Mrs O’Donnell’s conviction is unsafe on either of the abuse of process grounds which have been advanced on her behalf
Errors made by Horizon software, which was made by tech firm Fujitsu and used by the Post Office, led to the wrongful convictions of dozens of people for false accounting and theft between 1999 and 2015.
Of some 700 convictions between 1999 and 2015, 132 cases have been through the appeals process resulting in 83 overturned convictions and 49 unsuccessful appeals, according to the Post Office.
Lord Justice Holroyde said appeal judges had previously considered appeals against conviction by many former Post Office staff prosecuted many years ago after being convicted of dishonesty offences.
He said those cases raised issues about abuse of process and the safety of convictions, “having regard to concerns about the reliability” of Horizon.
The judge said Mrs O’Donnell had denied wrongdoing but been convicted by a jury after a five-day trial.
He added: “For the reasons we have given, this is not one of the exceptional and rare cases in which it would be appropriate to conclude that Mrs O’Donnell’s conviction is unsafe on either of the abuse of process grounds which have been advanced on her behalf.”
In a written ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde said: “We have read a moving letter by Mr O’Donnell, which makes clear the distress which Mrs O’Donnell and her family suffered as a result of her conviction.
“We can well understand why he remains convinced of her innocence and wishes to clear her name.
“We must, however, decide this appeal in accordance with the law rather than on a basis of sympathy.”
The judge added: “We are satisfied that the conviction is safe. This appeal therefore fails and must accordingly be dismissed.”
Lawyers had raised a number of concerns about the safety of Mrs O’Donnell’s conviction.
They included a “material failure of disclosure”, “the unreliability of Horizon data that was essential to the prosecution”, and the “poor level of investigation”.