By The BRD Investigations Team | Special Investigative Report | December 2025
The history of the Post Office Scandal The UK's most widespread miscarriage of justice, where over 900 subpostmasters were wrongly prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 due to faulty Horizon software. is a tale of two distinct operational tempos. Between 1999 and 2015, the Post Office operated a ruthless, high-velocity prosecutorial machine that functioned with the efficiency of a corporate abattoir. It convicted 736 subpostmasters—averaging one conviction every single week—often moving from "audit" to "ruin" in a matter of weeks.
The second tempo is the one employed today by the Metropolitan Police Service. Codenamed Operation Olympos The active Metropolitan Police investigation into perjury and perverting the course of justice committed during the Post Office prosecutions. , the investigation into the architects of this scandal has been defined by procedural inertia and bureaucratic caution.
New data analyzed by BRD Investigations reveals a staggering crisis of accountability. By late 2025, the police operation has burned through approximately £7.2 million of public money. Despite a task force size that rivals counter-terrorism units, it has resulted in zero arrests, zero charges, and a statistically damning "cost per interview" of £1.8 million.
Part 1: The Timeline of Failure (2020–2025)
To understand the gravity of the current police failure, one must first forensically map the chronology. The police investigation formally began in January 2020, following a referral from the Director of Public Prosecutions after the landmark Bates v Post Office The 2019 High Court judgment by Mr Justice Fraser that exposed the Horizon system's flaws and the Post Office's deceit. judgment. That judgment effectively outlined the potential crimes: perjury and perverting the course of justice.
The path to prosecution seemed clear. Yet, instead of immediate action, Operation Olympos vanished into a "scoping phase" that has lasted nearly six years:
- 2020–2021 (The Invisible Years): The investigation remained largely dormant. Police cited the "volume of data" as a primary hurdle—a refrain that would become their standard excuse. During this period, they spent hundreds of thousands of pounds without making a single public arrest.
- Late 2021 (The First Movement): The first signs of life emerged when two individuals, identified as former Fujitsu engineers (confirmed to be Gareth Jenkins and Anne Chambers), were interviewed under caution. No charges followed.
- 2022–2024 (The Drift): The investigation trod water, burning through £699,000 in the 2022/23 financial year alone. It was not police diligence but the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office in January 2024 that finally shamed authorities into expanding the probe to a "national effort".
As of December 2025, police have signaled that charging decisions for "Phase 1" are not expected until late 2027. This timeline means the investigation will have taken longer than the entirety of World War II, simply to decide whether to charge individuals whose alleged lies are already documented in High Court judgments.
Part 2: The "Ghost" Balance Sheet
If the timeline suggests a lack of urgency, the balance sheet suggests a surplus of waste. The investigation has become a significant sinkhole for public funds.
The £1.8 Million Chat
The raw figures reveal a disturbing inefficiency. By late 2025, the Metropolitan Police had employed 102 officers and staff on the case.
Despite this army of investigators, only four individuals have been interviewed under caution in six years.
The Metric of Failure: Dividing the £7.2 million spent by the 4 suspects interviewed yields a Cost Per Interview of £1.8 million.
This isn’t an investigation; it is a spectator sport. For every suspect brought into an interview room, the police have spent nearly two million pounds on administration, document review, and "coordination". By comparison, the Post Office’s own investigators—while morally corrupt—operated on a fraction of this cost basis to prosecute hundreds of innocent people.
Worse still, the costs are projected to spiral. Police leadership has requested additional funding that could see the total cost exceed £17 million by 2026. This creates a perverse incentive structure: the more data the police claim they need to "review," the more money they receive, and the longer the charging decisions are delayed.
Part 3: The Untouchables
Who are the targets of this multi-million pound operation? The list of potential suspects is long, yet the list of those formally questioned remains incredibly short.
The Engineers (The Low-Hanging Fruit)
The police began with the technical staff. Gareth Jenkins, the Fujitsu Distinguished Engineer, was the "architect" of the Horizon system’s legacy code. He was the Post Office's go-to expert witness, testifying in trials like that of Seema Misra that the system was robust.
It is now a matter of public record that Jenkins knew of critical system bugs (such as the "receipts and payments mismatch bug") at the time he was testifying. He failed to disclose the "Known Error Log" to the courts. Despite being interviewed in 2021, he remains a free man, his defense strategy now attempting to shift blame to the Post Office legal team.
The Executives (The Protected Class)
Crucially, there is no public confirmation that the executive tier has been interviewed under caution. The "Untouchables" include:
- Paula VennellsFormer Post Office CEO (2012-2019) who oversaw the aggressive defense of the Horizon system.: The CEO who presided over the most aggressive phase of the cover-up. Despite receiving internal reports (like the 2013 "Detica" report) warning of faults, she consistently denied systemic issues. Her defense relies on the "advice of counsel" argument—claiming she was misled by her lawyers.
- Angela van den BogerdFormer Post Office Director implicated in the cover-up and criticized by the High Court judge.: The "enforcer" who sat on the covert "Project Sparrow" working group. Branded a liar by Mr Justice Fraser, who stated she "did not give me the whole truth", she continues to testify at the Inquiry while avoiding the inside of a police interview room.
Part 4: The "Fake Lawyer" Bombshell
While the police stall, a new legal revelation in November 2025 has the potential to shatter the Post Office’s defense entirely.
Following the landmark High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell SpeechlysA 2025 ruling establishing that litigation by unauthorized staff is a criminal offense., it has emerged that the Post Office may have used "fake lawyers" to prosecute subpostmasters.
The Mazur ruling confirmed that individuals conducting litigation (filing claims, drafting charges) without a valid practicing certificate are committing a criminal offense. Reports suggest that many internal Post Office "legal executives" were not fully authorized to do this work.
The "Nullity" Argument: This is a smoking gun. If the prosecutor was not legally authorized to bring the case, the prosecution itself is a nullity—void from the start. This implies the Post Office executives were running a kangaroo court staffed by unqualified bureaucrats. Yet, as of late 2025, no action has been taken against any Post Office barrister or legal executive involved.
Verdict: A Show Trial?
The contrast is inescapable. The Post Office operated a "shoot first, ask questions never" policy that destroyed thousands of lives. The Metropolitan Police have adopted a policy of "infinite review," effectively outsourcing their job to the Public Inquiry.
By waiting for the "perfect" case, the police are granting de facto immunity to the architects of this scandal. They are allowed to live their lives in freedom while their victims fight for compensation.
Operation Olympos is living up to its name—a myth. It is a "Ghost Investigation" designed not to prosecute the powerful, but to run down the clock until the public forgets. We won't let them.
Data Sources: National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) expenditure reports 2019-2025; Freedom of Information requests; High Court Judgments (Bates v Post Office, Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys); CCRC Case Files.
Comments
Post a Comment