I think it should have been - four of the six charges had the dates changed at the trial, after we proved them wrong. But I was given no time - not a single second - to find new evidence for the later time frames.
I think that was a disgrace. But I was told by my (expensive) lawyers it was "standard judicial behaviour".
But one of the "new dates" for one of the charges in London (for which I was found guilty) was on "a day between the 6th day of September 1985 and the 9th day of September 1985".
After my release from prison I investigated my movements. There was - is - proof that on the 6th, after attending a Bruce Springsteen concert in New York, I had lunch with my American accountant (signed letter). On the 7th I went to a new film, Back To The Future, with BBC employee Ursula Kenny. On the 8th I was at the US Open Mens Tennis Final (more proof). And on the 9th I flew back to London (ticket stub; passport stamp) on PanAm Clipper Class. To renew my US visa, which I did on the 10th.
So I could not have committed the crime in London on those new dates. I was in America - or crossing the Atlantic.
Yet the CCRC rejected my request for this to be considered by the Court of Appeal.
Beyond belief. But at least I wasn't a sub post master.

Does this mean that you are legally cleared of ALL alleged offences?

I want to know why the courts are scared of journos, they are just pen pushers with narcissistic personalities.

Read the post Mart - SHOULD be acquitted of all - the first 5 currently still stand though the dozens of others failed.

The CCRC justification for refusing to allow my appeal to be heard 20 years ago was "WHEN it happened doesn't matter - it's WHETHER it happened that counts". In a case involving the age of consent? Bonkers!

So unless you owned a TARDIS you couldn't possibly have committed the 'offences' in London on given dates. Unjust is an under statement. I really do pray that you find justice before long.