The article in The Times convering the Horison appeals states that last week’s Court of Appeal ruling “contained implied criticism of the Post Office legal team” and refers to calls for investigation of their conduct by legal regulators. Critically, it does not make clear that

these criticisms were levelled at Post Office’s historic legal team appointed during the period 2000 to 2013 and in no way relate to Peters & Peters or the counsel team who acted for Post Office in the appeal proceedings.

In fact, the judge praised Peters & Peters and counsel for their extensive disclosure exercise and fair approach (as evidenced in the below extract from the judgment). Lord Callanan (Conservative BEIS spokesperson) also made comment in the House of Lords on Wednesday to the

same effect. The vast majority of readers will not have read the entire judgment and, therefore, are unlikely to understand the Court’s very important distinction between the current and previous legal teams.