A woman who spent more than three decades working for the Post Office is planning to stand against Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey – a former postal affairs minister – at the next general election.
Yvonne Tracey, who said ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Officehad made her “very sad” and “very angry”, lives in Sir Ed’s constituency of Kingston and Surbiton in southwest London.
The 68-year-old grandmother said she cannot allow him to “stand again unchallenged”.
Hundreds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were wrongly held responsible for accounting errors created by faulty software.
Those affected by the Horizon IT scandal are “still not hearing the truth”, Ms Tracey told Sky News.
They “still haven’t got justice” and “haven’t got answers”, she said. “Some of them haven’t had their names cleared. I just felt I had to do something to help them.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:57
‘I got sectioned because of scandal’
Sir Ed, who was postal minister between 2010 and 2012 during the coalition government, refused to meet sub-postmaster Alan Bates, whom the ITV drama is named after, saying in a short letter that it “wouldn’t serve any purpose”.
More on Liberal Democrats
Related Topics:
According to Ms Tracey, a sub-postmaster who ran a post office in Sir Ed’s constituency lost his home, his business and attempted to take his own life on more than one occasion after being caught up in the scandal.
She said: “He tried three times to get in touch with Sir Ed and every time he was turned away, refused or ignored.”
The Liberal Democrats said the sub-postmaster lived outside Sir Ed’s constituency and parliamentary convention meant he was therefore unable to get involved in the case.
Asked if the Post Office scandal would still be on people’s minds during the general election campaign, Ms Tracey said she thought it would.
Advertisement
“I think people are so angry over this. I’d love to think by the time the election came it was all done – they’d all have their compensation and be living happily after.
“But we all know it’s not going to happen that quick. It’s been two decades so far.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:30
‘I knew I hadn’t stolen any money’
Ms Tracey was elected to Kingston Council in 2022 and represents the local residents group.
The main political parties in Kingston previously accused the group of Islamophobia and “divisive campaigning”.
But Ms Tracey said the allegations “really annoyed” her and had led to legal action.
Davey did later meet Mr Bates
Sir Ed did later meet Mr Bates and was the first minister on public record to do so.
It is understood he then asked his officials to follow up on the concerns raised by the sub-postmaster at their meeting.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:40
Post Office tax claim is ‘unlawful’
Speaking previously to Sky News, Sir Ed said: “I wish I’d known then what we all know now. The Post Office was lying on an industrial scale to me and other ministers.
“When I met Alan Bates and listened to his concerns, I put those concerns to officials in my department, to the Post Office and to the National Federation of Postmasters and it’s clear they all were lying to me.”
Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA union for civil servants, branded Sir Ed’s comments “outrageous” and said they were an “act of desperation from a former minister trying to save his own skin”.
“Ed Davey goes beyond what is reasonable to expect from a former minister,” he told Sky News. “If he’s going to repeat this he needs to back up his accusations.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:51
They made ‘me look like a criminal’
‘I was taken out in handcuffs’
Arfan Aslam can remember the pride he felt when he became a sub-postmaster, writes Sky News correspondent Shingi Mararike.
In his early 20s, he was continuing a family tradition by running a local business. “At the time I was over the moon, because it was like a professional job – it was like a life-changing opportunity,” he said.
Within weeks, that dream had turned into a nightmare. He was arrested and escorted out of the post office in front of his younger brother, who was working with him at the time.
“They’ve taken me out in handcuffs, marched me out of my own post office, in front of these people,” he said.
“Made me look like a criminal. I let my mum and dad down and everything. It broke my heart.”
Arfan said life did not get any easier for him when he left prison. The father-of-three was forced to repay more than £53,000 while he struggled to find work and claimed benefits.
His close-knit family helped him pay off the debts, and now with the Horizon scandal making headlines, he will soon be pursuing compensation, while hoping to have his conviction overturned.
“Any bit of money would help, but we cannot take away the pain and the 22 years of suffering,” he said.
Prosecutors appealed the sentences given to HashFlare founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, after arguing the pair should get 10 years in prison.
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.
Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.