The Observer.

Hello, it's Alexi, and you're listening to the slow newscast from The Observer.

Do you remember the post office scandal?

In January 2024, ITV broadcast a drama about it called Mr Bates versus the Post Office.

Essentially, the case was about a huge miscarriage of justice. The post office brought hundreds

of criminal prosecutions against sub-postmasters for stealing money, when actually it was all

the fault of a dodgy computer system.

When the cases eventually made their way to the Court of Appeal, the judge was scathing.

He found that the post office was way too quick to assume dishonesty,

and that its whole approach was an affront to the conscience of the court.

Then he said something interesting, that the post office had, I quote, demonstrated a simple

institutional obstinacy or refusal to consider any possible alternatives.

He was right.

But what happens when it's the court itself that is guilty of institutional obstinacy,

when it, rather than a third party, refuses to consider possible alternatives?

This week we have a story of a man who spent 38 years in prison, for a crime he didn't commit. It's a story about

failure of the institutions that are supposed to protect us, one where the second highest court

in the land seems to have shrugged its shoulders and moved on. Reported by my colleague

Kerry Thomas and produced by Katie Gunning,

this is unjust how the Court of Appeal failed an innocent man. I hope you enjoy the show.

On a bright spring day nearly a year ago, a delighted family spilled onto the street outside

the Court of Appeal in London.

...