The Post Office paid Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) £86m for work related to the Horizon scandal public inquiry between 2020 and 2025, according to Computer Weekly’s 2025 reporting. That is roughly double the around £48m the inquiry itself was reported to have cost through 2024. The gap is real, but the two numbers measure different things over different periods, so “double” is a fair shorthand for a striking difference, not a like-for-like comparison. This article sets out what each figure covers, where it comes from, and how to use it.
The figures and what each one covers
The table below lists every figure in the current reporting. Each row has its own period and scope, so check those before comparing rows.
| Figure | Amount | Period | What it measures | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payments to HSF for inquiry-related work | £86m | 2020 to 2025 | Total paid to HSF for work connected to the public inquiry | Computer Weekly, 2025 |
| of which: representing the Post Office | £83m | 2020 to 2025 | HSF’s role as the Post Office’s legal representative at the inquiry | Computer Weekly, 2025, reporting a Freedom of Information response |
| of which: witness statement support | £3m | 2020 to 2025 | Support for Post Office witnesses preparing their statements | Computer Weekly, 2025 |
| Inquiry cumulative cost | Around £48m | Through 2024 | The inquiry’s total cost as reported before its 2024–25 accounts were published | Computer Weekly, 2025 |
| Inquiry expenditure for the year | £26,017,031.80 | 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 | The inquiry’s own spending in that financial year, excluding VAT and not independently audited | Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry financial report, October 2025 |
| Wider payments to HSF | £188m | September 2014 to March 2025 | All HSF work for the Post Office over that span, including £72m linked to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme | Computer Weekly, 2025 |
The £188m row is not an inquiry figure. It covers a much wider body of work, and it should not be presented as the cost of the inquiry.
Why “double” needs a caveat
The headline comparison sets a 2020–2025 payment total against a cost figure that stops at 2024. Three problems follow from that mismatch.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →- The periods do not match. The £86m covers roughly five years, while the £48m is a cumulative figure ending in 2024. The £48m comparison also appeared before the inquiry’s 2024–25 financial report was published.
- The inquiry’s total has moved on. The 2024–25 report records another £26.0m of expenditure beyond the earlier comparison point. Public reporting does not give a single updated cumulative total, and adding £26m to £48m would risk double-counting if the two periods overlap. Do not treat £74m as an established total.
- The two sets of costs are not cleanly separable. The inquiry’s own breakdown includes a line for core participant legal fees. The reporting does not say how much of that line, if any, relates to HSF’s work for the Post Office, so the £86m cannot simply be added to or subtracted from the inquiry’s total.
In short, the £86m tells you what one party paid one firm. The £48m and £26m tell you what the inquiry itself spent. Both are useful, but they answer different questions.
What the inquiry’s own report says
The inquiry’s October 2025 financial report is the only primary source in the current reporting for the inquiry’s spending. It is useful, but it has clear limits. It describes its figures as an overview. The figures have not been independently audited by accountants, and they exclude VAT. They are intended to reflect when charged work was carried out, which may differ from when invoices were raised or paid.
The report breaks expenditure into these categories:
- Core staff and professional fees
- Hearings
- Core participant legal fees
- Document review lawyers
- Expert witnesses
- Other expenses
The report supports the 2024–25 expenditure figure of £26,017,031.80. It does not, by itself, verify the HSF payment figures reported by Computer Weekly.
Recommended Free Tools
Where the HSF figures come from
The £83m and £3m split comes from Computer Weekly’s reporting of a Freedom of Information response. That makes it a secondary account of an official disclosure, not a published Post Office accounting statement. The reporting does not state the basis on which the HSF payments were counted, such as whether they reflect invoice dates, payment dates or dates work was carried out. It also does not say whether the £86m includes VAT. Until those points are clarified, treat the figure as the reported total of payments, not a verified cost of the inquiry.
Reactions, and what they do and do not establish
Sir Alan Bates
Sir Alan Bates, a former subpostmaster and campaigner, told Computer Weekly: “It is utter madness that a publicly owned corporation is allowed to waste so much public money on trying to justify its years of incompetence and mismanagement and cover the backs of its executives who all seemed to be suffering from corporate amnesia.”
He also called for the Public Accounts Committee to investigate “all, and especially the legal, costs associated with the Horizon Scandal from when Post Office first started to cover up the truth, i.e. the day they signed the first contract with Fujitsu.”
That is Bates’s opinion. A call for a committee investigation is not evidence that one has been opened, and it is not a finding that the spending was wasteful or unjustified.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchBest Value
The Post Office
The Post Office told Computer Weekly: “We are committed to working with the Public Inquiry and supporting those impacted by the Horizon Scandal, through the payment of financial redress and a meaningful restorative justice programme. Our spend with external law firms for this work is kept under constant review.”
The Department for Business and Trade
According to Computer Weekly, the Department for Business and Trade declined to comment on whether HSF’s inquiry spending was justified, saying the matter was one for the Post Office.
No source reviewed here establishes whether the spending was justified or proportionate. That question remains open.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to compare these figures fairly
- Match the period. Compare the £86m with a cost figure covering 2020 to 2025, not the £48m that ends in 2024.
- Separate representation from witness support. The £83m is for representing the Post Office. The £3m is for helping witnesses prepare statements. They are different services.
- Keep the inquiry’s costs apart from a party’s legal bill. The inquiry’s expenditure and the Post Office’s payments to its own lawyers answer different questions.
- Check the basis of each number. The inquiry reports charged work by the date it was done and excludes VAT. The HSF figures are reported as payments, and the reporting does not state their VAT treatment.
- Do not use the £188m as an inquiry figure. It includes work unrelated to the inquiry, including £72m linked to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme.
What remains unresolved
The figures in this article date from 2025. Later inquiry financial reports may have been published since, and they may change the cumulative total. Before quoting any total, check the inquiry’s published financial reports for the most recent year. Whether the Post Office’s legal spending was justified, and whether the Public Accounts Committee takes up Bates’s call, are questions the current reporting does not answer.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
