Under Yorkshire Skies: Murder at the Post Office - a review

'Computer Says No, Computer Says No, Computer Says No’ said Dr Michael Naughton of Empowering The Innocent (ETI) in part three of Murder at the Post Office, a SKY TV three-partner broadcast over Christmas 2025. He was talking about the appeal rejection process of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which he has been scrutinising for nearly a quarter of a century.

The murder of the title was that of Diana Garbutt in Melsonby, Yorkshire in 2010, for which her husband Robin, maintaining innocence since the moment of arrest, is serving a life sentence. Garbutt, like so many others covered by ETI, is still trying to have his case referred by the CCRC - after a number of knockbacks - while having increasingly compelling new evidence.

Daily Mirror journalist Jeremy Armstrong was another talking head in the series, his initial stance on agreeing with Robin’s guilt being seriously challenged by the sheer weight of evidence in favour of his innocence. Armstrong says ‘It’s only really Robin Garbutt that knows what happened that night’ - well except for, according to the thrust of the series, the actual murderer(s).

Robin himself claimed that a robber - or potentially robbers - broke into the Post Office on the night of March 23rd 2010, one of whom threatened him in the shop, and after they left Robin went upstairs to find Diana bludgeoned to death. She had received three blows to the head, while on her front, possibly while sleeping. Or had she witnessed their attempted robbery, and they made sure she wouldn’t be able to identify them?

Two days later, after Dr Naughton noted that there was no sign of it in photographs from the time, an iron bar was found on top of a very high wall near to the post office. This bar, however, contained none of Robin Garbutt’s DNA, while having Diana’s at one end and that of a policeman at the other. When questioned in court, the policeman said he (non verbatim) ‘didn’t know’ and ‘couldn’t remember’ where he was on the day of the murder and didn't how his DNA might have ended up on the bar.

But, where did this bar come from? Did the robbers have such an item with them? It had definitely been placed on the wall some time (maybe days) after the act, and not by Robin. If the absence of DNA, known by the Greater Manchester Police for some twelve years, eventually exonerated Andy Malkinson, wrongfully convicted for seventeen years, why does Robin’s claim not receive similar scrutiny from the CCRC? Is it simply because he doesn’t have a charity like APPEAL behind his case?

Much was made by the prosecution of Robin’s non-attendance at Diana’s funeral, but while Robin says he didn’t want to distract from the fact the day was about her, not him, he was also on remand after being arrested for her murder, meaning he would only have been able to attended with a police escort and in handcuffs. It was established in the series that Robin was devoted to Diana, and, he says, she to him.

While Diana did, indeed, have a social media dating account, it was also shown how she never responded to the ‘you look nice’ messages she received. It might not be as uncommon as we think that she had these accounts as a private nook for when she felt her ego needed a mini-lift, as noted by her friend. Also, there must be hundred of thousands of such private peccadilloes around the country - to use them as leverage as prosecution in a murder case just looks like the pushing of ‘bad character’ evidence, on both the suspect and the victim, in a bizarre, and somewhat desperate, direction. But, was it this sort of thing that swayed the jury against Robin? We’re not allowed to know. Most situations like this presumably resolve without a brutal murder.

Members of both Robin’s and Diana’s family were extremely compelling, with a North Walian cousin of Diana and his daughter moving the beating heart of the story along. Diana’s best friend, who heard nothing of the ‘affairs’ alleged by the prosecution, also testified, as did they all about the Horizon Factor.

Robin and Diana were Postmasters, and a motive for the murder according to the prosecution was Robin allegedly defrauding the Post Office (PO) in order to keep Diana in holidays, to keep their marriage together. But, like all the other Horizon data, the numbers were questionable at best. When this plank falls apart - making Robin, as Dr Naughton says, ‘probably the most egregious victim of the Post Office Scandal’ - the prosecution weighs in on ‘marital difficulties’. The extent to which there might have been difficulties would surely have been compounded by the stress Postmasters across the country were facing due to the blithe ‘Computer Says No’ culture of Paula Vennells’ reign.

Details such as a BB gun and balaclava being found that day, dumped behind a club, supporting Robin’s version of events, weren’t mentioned; there was also the mixed DNA of three or more males, the fact that there were three known criminals in Melsonby earlier on the morning in question; soiled underpants found in a bin, and the blood of a local man found in the downstairs toilet. Maybe held back for a follow up?

Justice Secretary David Lammy’s recent jury trial controversies were brought into relief by the fact that none of the families could understand how the jury came to the guilty verdict to which they did, presented in suitably dramatic fashion in the programme. However, nor was it mentioned that it was a majority rather than unanimous verdict: at least two people in the jury didn’t think Robin was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

But, what does ‘reasonable’ mean? Very reasonable, Diana’s North Walian cousin was the kind of person the State should want on a jury: despite the fact he naturally wants closure for a much-loved cousin, he knew that justice would not be served by the police simply being satisfied that they’d ‘got their man’. Someone who understands this ‘he’ll do’ process from the inside - former policeman and now private investigator Mike Naughton, who has long been bringing attention to Robin’s case - scrutinised the bar evidence and found the entire framing to be wanting. (And a framing did it increasingly seem, with two men called Thomson working on the case.)

While anyone on a jury, particularly at a murder trial, understands the onerousness of their role, the British justice system is neurotically defensive on this point. Rather than talking about getting rid of juries, perhaps we should be talking about jury transparency: members giving their explanations and thinking. Otherwise ‘alpha members’ are more than likely to intimidate quieter members into decisions - not everyone is as tough or stubborn as you think you might be in that situation. One can only wonder how those two unsure jury members might feel after watching the series.

In a more psycho-spiritual reading, there is something connecting the cases of Robin Garbutt and Jeremy Bamber (the only whole-life sentence convict to be maintaining innocence in the UK). This is that they are both doing a great deal of time for the murders of family members or loved ones. This means that at least they know intimately why they are there, the people on whose part they are there for - society says for now, someone has to pay, and it’s them. This is, of course, nowhere near justice, but knowing that you’re taking the hit for people close to you who have suffered has a unique kind of pathos to it (rather than those with no or very tenuous connection at all). It must be one way of staying sane when you’re inside for the crimes of another, at least.

While emotioneering incidental music is often used in these sorts of documentaries to strike fear or overly dramatic dread into the viewer, in this series it’s relatively sparingly used - and very beautifully at times, along with the sweeping North Wales countryside. The case of Robin and Diana Garbutt connects traditional, establishment-sanctioned ideas of crime (post office robbery, murder) with more modern, New Culture Convictions (dating sites, marital difficulties, arrogant police).

In an age of specific concern over male violence against women, whether Murder at the Post Office manages to outrage the public in the manner of Mr Bates vs the Post Office remains to be seen. SKY TV, and the series’ production company Lightbox, definitely deserve full credit if it does.

By Sean Bw Parker