00245-25 Keegan v The Sunday Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Michael Keegan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in two articles headlined:

· “Japanese giant still stamping on Post Office victims”, published on 16 May 2021.

· “Will justice finally be DELIVERED?”, published on 27 February 2022.

2. The first article reported that the former Chief Executive (CEO) of the Post Office told a Parliamentary Select Committee that she had “repeatedly” asked whether the Post Office or Fujitsu – the company that built and maintained the Horizon IT system which was responsible for the wrongful prosecution of numerous sub-postmasters – had the ability to access and alter information remotely: “I remember being told by Fujitsu’s then [UK] CEO when I raised it with him that the system was ‘like Fort Knox”. The article then explained that the CEO referred to was the complainant.  

3. The headline of the second article was followed by the sub-heading: “Those responsible for the Post Office scandal went on to lucrative jobs. Some even got bonuses. But they may yet be held to account”. This appeared beneath photographs of 12 individuals, each accompanied by a summary of their respective connections to the ‘Post Office scandal’. One of the photographs was of the complainant and the accompanying summary stated, “Keegan was UK [CEO] and chairman at Fujitsu between 2015 and 2018, playing a central role in its dealings with the Post Office as it fought the sub-postmasters”. It then stated that he was “now a crown representative at the Cabinet Office dealing with defence suppliers on behalf of taxpayers.” The text of the article stated that the complainant had been “a board member” of Fujitsu before serving as CEO and Chairman, and was “central to the firm’s dealings with the Post Office during a critical period, as the experiences of sub-postmasters came to light and the organisation decided to fight them in court”.

4. The second article also appeared online under the headline “Post Office scandal: will justice ever be delivered?”. The text of this article was substantially the same as the print version.

5. The complainant said both articles were inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy). In relation to the first article, he denied that he was the individual who had told the former CEO of the Post Office that the Horizon system was like “Fort Knox” and could not be accessed remotely by Fujitsu, nor was he identified as such during her evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee. The complainant initially said he had met the former CEO only once in 2014; that he had no ongoing relationship with her; and that he did not discuss or give her any assurances regarding Horizon’s capabilities. The complainant said this false attribution had resulted in him being named as the person who had given misleading statements about Horizon within the Houses of Parliament and on social media.

6. The complainant, through a representative, had contacted the newspaper the day after the first article’s publication to express his concern that it was inaccurate in this regard. He added that, since the article’s publication, the newspaper had been made aware that it was a different individual who had made this particular remark, yet the record had not been corrected at that time.

7. The complainant said the second article also breached Clause 1. He denied that he was the “UK [CEO] and chairman at Fujitsu between 2015 and 2018”, or that he had played “a central role in its dealings with the Post Office as it fought the sub-postmasters” and had been central to the firm’s dealings with the Post Office during a critical period, as the experiences of sub-postmasters came to light and the organisation decided to fight them in court”. The complainant served as Fujitsu’s UK CEO from May 2014 to June 2015, and his responsibilities for the Post Office account had ended when he became the Head of Fujitsu EMEIA’s Technology Product Business in June 2015; a position he held until he left the organisation in 2018. He noted that the sub-postmasters did not commence their litigation against the Post Office until 2016. While he accepted that he had been given the title of UK “Chairman” for Fujitsu, he said that he did not have “line management responsibility” for the Post Office account during this period, which he said was held by his successor as CEO for Fujitsu UK. The complainant described his being Chairman as a “business card only” position, in order to advise the CEO who had succeeded him and that he was outside of the UK for a large portion of the time he held the roles. The complainant also said that, in that role, he had “no meetings with the Post Office or Fujitsu on the subject of their business with the company at any stage”. He added that he had only learnt of the sub-postmaster’s litigation against the Post Office from press coverage in 2019.

8. The complainant also expressed concern that he had not been contacted for comment prior to the publication of either article.

9. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. The former CEO of the Post Office had told the Parliamentary Select Committee in 2021 that her previous submissions had been based upon what she had been assured “by Fujitsu’s then CEO” who “had been a trusted outsource partner and had the reputation of a highly competent technology sector CEO”. While the newspaper accepted that this individual had not specifically named the complainant during her evidence, it maintained that she could only have been referring to him: the complainant served as Fujitsu’s UK CEO from May 2014 to June 2015, which was the timeframe in which she had previously given evidence to the committee; he had held senior positions at the organisation since 2006; and was well-known for his long experience in the technology sector. It added this was protected by Parliamentary reporting privilege; the newspaper was under no obligation to seek responses from those quoted from or referred to.

10. Notwithstanding this, upon receipt of the complaint from IPSO in May 2022 the newspaper contacted the former CEO of the Post Office, who confirmed that the complainant was not the individual who had described the Horizon system as “Fort Knox” to her. While the newspaper did not accept that this rendered the article inaccurate or misleading, it amended the online article to reflect this, noting that “the identity of [the] executive remains unclear” and added an update at the foot of the article, in a gesture of goodwill:

“Following publication of this article [the former CEO of the Post Office] has confirmed that the Fujitsu CEO to whom she referred in her evidence to the Commons committee in 2020 was not Michael Keegan. We are happy to make this clear.”

11. In addition, the newspaper maintained that the second article’s characterisation of the complainant as "playing a central role in [Fujitsu's] dealings with the Post Office as it fought the sub-postmasters" was fair and accurate. The newspaper said that the complainant had served as CEO and Chairman of Fujitsu UK and had ultimately held responsibility for the Post Office contract and for the operation of the Horizon software during this period; concerns about defects in the software were well-documented before the complainant’s tenure as CEO and the organisation’s own knowledge of the defects significantly preceded public awareness of them – a point noted during a High Court ruling on the subject. Furthermore, it argued that the complainant had taken no steps during his time as CEO to correct the inaccurate position of the Post Office that Fujitsu was unable to access and alter Horizon software remotely. It also noted that the Post Office had launched a mediation scheme for sub-postmasters to raise grievances in 2014, with this scheme ongoing during the complainant’s tenure as CEO; the Post Office had commissioned a review to investigate allegations of defects in the Horizon software which reported that it was “not fit for purpose” in 2015 – four months after the complainant’s appointment as CEO; and the Criminal Cases Review Commission began reviewing the prosecution of sub-postmasters in 2015. It also noted that the Post Office had submitted evidence to Parliament regarding the Horizon system in 2015, eight months after the complainant’s appointment as CEO, which made suggestions that he must have known were false: namely, that there was no technical facility within Horizon for Fujitsu to alter branch data remotely. In this context, the publication said it was reasonable to conclude that the complainant, as the individual ultimately responsible for Fujitsu’s UK operations at this time, was aware of these issues.

Further correspondence following decision issued on 17 October 2022

12. IPSO received this complaint on 7 March 2022 and, after investigating, issued its decision to the parties on 17 October 2022. The decision can be found here.

13. On 7 October 2024, the publication requested that IPSO review its decision on the grounds that new information had come to light which, in its view, contradicted the information provided by the complainant during the initial investigation into the complaint.

14. The publication said that the new information indicated that the complainant had four meetings with the then Post Office CEO, not one, and that the Horizon system had been discussed at these meetings. It said that on this basis, and where the complainant had been overall Head of Fujitsu at the time, the second article was not inaccurate in describing the complainant as having played a “central role”.

15. IPSO contacted the complainant to seek his comments on the new information and the further submission of the publication.

16. The complainant said that at the time of the initial investigation he believed he had met the then CEO of the Post Office only once. He accepted that the new information demonstrated that he had had two face-to-face meetings with her, as well as two conversations with her via the telephone. He said the first meeting did not include discussion of Horizon and involved several people; the subsequent telephone call was to inform the Post Office that Fujitsu was not intending to bid in the procurement process to replace Horizon; the second in-person meeting was to discuss arrangements for Fujitsu to exit as a supplier of Horizon; and the second telephone call was regarding a television programme about the Post Office which was to be broadcast. The complainant said that none of these interactions amounted to discussing “the detail” of Horizon with the then CEO of the Post Office, nor did he provide any assurances regarding Horizon’s capabilities. He said, therefore, that the number of times he had met or spoken with the then CEO of the Post Office was immaterial to the complaint – he had not played “a central role” as reported.

17. The complainant also provided copies of correspondence which he had exchanged with the then CEO of the Post Office in which Fujitsu and the Post Office were discussed. The complainant said that the documents confirmed that he met with the then CEO of the Post Office face-to-face on two occasions and that he had spoken to her on two other occasions on the telephone. The complainant emphasised that in none of these four occasions did he discuss the detail of Horizon with her, nor did he at any time provide any ‘reassurance’ to her about the system. The complainant also noted that he had not been called to give or submit evidence at the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, which he said supported his position that he had not played a “central role”.

18. The publication argued that "fight" referred to in the article continued for 15 years, and was ongoing during the complainant's tenure at Fujitsu. The publication provided a number of articles published between May 2014 and June 2015 in which the Horizon system was mentioned. The publication said they detailed an MP's call for a judicial inquiry into the scandal; the appalling hardship suffered by individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses as a result of the IT failures, with a call to action for other victims to contact the newspaper; the publication of a report on the Post Office's failure to investigate the matter properly; a trade union submission to MPs that a mediation scheme was "agonisingly slow"; and an editorial highlighting the Horizon system's role in the injustices, noting an MP's suggestion that "something has gone terribly wrong". The publication also provided links to a number of articles published by a magazine which it said had helped expose the scandal. Taken together, the publication said that they paint a picture of continuous and strenuous campaigning in Parliament and beyond. It said that the idea that the "fight" paused before the complainant's appointment, and restarted after his departure, was fanciful. It said that the articles demonstrated that the campaign was running at full force during the relevant period and that the Post Office was seeking to defend the position it had then adopted. The publication highlighted that one of the reports, published in April 2015, quoted an official spokesperson: "Investigations over three years have found that Horizon works as it should and, despite the complaints in the scheme, investigations have found that the majority of losses were caused by human errors at the counter. No evidence has been found which shows that Horizon did not accurately record the transactions entered in a branch”.

19. In light of the new information, the Committee decided to set aside its previous decision and reach a new decision taking into account all of the information which was now available.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Revised findings of the Committee

20. The first article stated, as fact, that the complainant had been the CEO of Fujitsu UK who had likened the Horizon System to ‘Fort Knox’ in a conversation with the former CEO of the Post Office. While the newspaper was entitled to report on the comments made in evidence by the former CEO of the Post Office to a Parliamentary Select Committee, she had at no point identified the complainant by name as the source of the comment. The conclusion that he was the source rested, in some part, on assumptions made by the publication. Taken in this context, and where the publication had not sought to verify the identity of this individual prior to publication – either by contacting the complainant or the former CEO of the Post Office – this represented a failure to take care under Clause 1 (i).

21. The complainant denied being responsible for the remark attributed to him and, in response to an enquiry from the newspaper following publication, the former CEO of the Post Office – in whose evidence the comment featured – had confirmed to the publication that the complainant was not the person to whom she had referred. In the context of an article about the significant ramifications of Fujitsu’s “flawed IT system”, incorrectly claiming that the CEO of the Post Office had identified the complainant as being the source of the claim about the security of that system while in post as CEO was significant and as such required correction under Clause 1 (ii).

22. The complainant’s representative had contacted the newspaper the day after the article’s publication, in May 2021, to notify it that this claim was inaccurate. However, it was only upon receipt of the complaint from IPSO in March 2022 and receiving clarification from the former CEO of the Post Office that the publication amended the online article and published a footnote clarification. While the Committee welcomed the steps taken by the publication, it noted that the information provided by the complainant did not materially add to the information already provided by the complainant’s representative nine months prior. In such circumstances, and given the significance of the claim, the Committee concluded that the steps taken by the publication were not prompt, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

23. The Committee next considered the complaint that the second article was misleading to describe the complainant as “playing a central role in [Fujitsu’s] dealings with the Post Office as it fought the sub-postmasters” and having been “central to the firm’s dealings with the Post Office during a critical period, as the experiences of sub-postmasters came to light and the organisation decided to fight them in court”. The complainant accepted that he held the position of Chief Executive of Fujitsu between April 2014 to June 2015 over which period he had line responsibility for the Fujitsu business with the Post Office. The complainant also accepted that he had held the role of Chairman from 2015 to 2018, but said that this was an advisory role. The Committee noted that both of these roles were significant senior positions within the organisation.

24. In light of the new information which had become available, the complainant accepted that over the period he held senior positions within Fujitsu, he had a number of professional dealings with the then CEO of the Post Office. Those dealings had included two in-person meetings and two telephone calls in which they had some discussions about Horizon, Fujitsu’s position on the upcoming bid to replace Horizon, and a forthcoming television programme about the prosecution of sub-postmasters. In these circumstances, the publication’s characterisation that the complainant had played a “central role” or had been “central to” Fujitsu’s dealings with the Post Office was not inaccurate or misleading in relation to the periods he held senior positions in Fujitsu and had dealings with the then CEO of the Post Office.

25. The Committee next considered whether it was significantly inaccurate to report that the complainant had played such a role when the Post Office had “fought the sub postmasters” and “as the experiences of sub-postmasters came to light and the organisation decided to fight them in court”. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position that the criminal trials of the sub-postmasters and the trials in the civil proceedings brought by the sub-postmasters against the Post Office had taken place outside the periods he had held senior positions at Fujitsu. However, the Committee noted that the references in the article were broader, referencing the “fight” between the Post Office and the sub-postmasters and the time when the experiences of the sub-postmasters became known. The publication argued that the “fight” had continued over 15 years, and included the periods over which the complainant held senior positions in Fujitsu. In support of its position, the publication had provided copies of a number of articles which had been published over this period which had reported on the plight of the sub-postmasters. The publication said that these articles demonstrated that there was an ongoing campaign and that investigations into Horizon had been undertaken by the Post Office for a number of years, and that the Post Office had nevertheless maintained that it had operated as it should. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard for the fact that the articles did not make any claims about the complainant’s knowledge of the issues with the Horizon system. The Committee also noted that the reference in the article to the time “when the Post Office had decided to fight the sub-postmasters in court”, was not referring to the time of the trials themselves. Given the supporting material submitted by the publication, the Committee found that it was not misleading to report that the complainant had played a central role in Fujitsu’s dealings with the Post Office over the periods reported.

26. On this basis, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point, and this element of the complaint was not upheld.

Conclusion(s)

27. The complaint was partly upheld.

Remedial action required

28. Having upheld the complaint against the first article, the Committee considered what remedial action was appropriate. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication. The nature, extent, and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

29. The clarification published by the publication was insufficient to address the requirements of Clause 1(ii), particularly in relation to promptness. As such, the Committee decided that the appropriate remedy was the publication of a standalone correction. This correction should appear in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column, and should acknowledge that the previous version of the article was inaccurate: the complainant had not been the individual who had described the Horizon System as ‘Fort Knox’ to the former CEO of the Post Office. The wording of this correction should state that it was published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

30. The publication published a correction which fulfilled these terms in November 2022.

Date complaint reopened: 07/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/03/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.