Clearly the "Act of Parliament" mass abandonment of all the convictions is an interference in the independence of the judiciary and cannot possibly be allowed to proceed, it would lead to a constitutional crisis. Each of the convictions has to be reversed by an appeal court, which means that grounds have to apply to each convict individually.In 2019, the High Court ruled that the Horizon system was faulty and in 2020 the government established a public inquiry. In April 2021 the Court of Appeal quashed 39 convictions. As of January 2024, some victims are still fighting to have their convictions overturned and receive compensation, the public inquiry is ongoing, and the Metropolitan Police is investigating for potential fraud offences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_P ... ce_scandal
I can think of only one way in which this could be achieved. Every Post Office employee and expert witness who gave evidence in any of those trials must be investigated for perjury, the individual statements in evidence which they gave in court examined, and they must be individually prosecuted for giving false evidence under oath. Only then will there be evidence for each case before the appeal court to overturn the original convictions and clear the names of the branch managers involved.
Secondary evidence is also relevant, to establish which of the Post Office investigators lied to any branch manager during their initial investigation which led to a prosecution, financial loss and dismissal, and they in turn should be brought before a court for their conduct. Had they raised alarm bells within the Post Office in a timely manner the whole mess would have been averted. The scandal is primarily of their making and they have emerged, so far, unscathed by their professional inadequacies.
I can't see how any appeals process can analyse the branch managers as a group, when the trials and convictions were of individuals. Perhaps as a group the convictions can simply be dismissed as unsafe, but the branch managers deserve nothing less than individual exoneration and a recognition that there remains no stain on their character, though I presume many of them would prefer never to hear the words "Post Office" again. An immense compensation in recognition of their appalling treatment by failed corporate direction might go some way toward closure.