POL00044041
POL00044041
da-O9-"12 10:38 FRON- POBAZ/OR13 ESL
IN THE CROWN COURT AT LIVERPOOL
REGINA
Ve
ANNE NIELD
APPLICATION FOR DISCLOSURE
The Charge
1, The defendant faces an Indictment containing one Count, namely False
Accounting, contrary to $.17 of the Theft act 1968.
2, The defendant denies that she (a) acted dishonestly and (b) had an
Intention to gain or cause loss to any person as set out in her Defence
Statement (Appendix 1).
The Application
3. This application is made under s.8 of the Criminal Procedure and
Investigations Act 1996.
4, The defendant has sought, and been refused by letter dated 28"
August 2012 (Appendix 2), disclosure of the following:
a. Details of complaints and investigations into the Horizon
computer system;
b. Access to the Horizon computer system used by the defendant
between the installation of the system in 2005 ~ 6" January
2012 for the purposes of expert examination by a Forensic
Accountant.
5. The defendant now seeks an Order of the Court for disclosure of or
access to the items listed at paragraph 4.a. and 4.b. above.
14-O5-'12 10.38 FROM- T-225 Fowa ‘AMIE
Background
6. At the relevant time the Post Office held Sub-postmasters/mistresses
personally liable for any monetary losses incurred by the Post Office
they managed.
7. Horizon is a computer accounting system used by the Post Office. It
was introduced to the defendant's Post Office around 2005. Prior to
that the accounting system had been paper-based.
8. The defence are aware from articles in the Press and communications
from the House of Commons (Appendix 3) that the Horizon system has
been the subject of much controversy over the past few years and that
a significant number of Sub-postmasters allege that the Horizon sys
published incorrect losses on the system. Further, that they have in
many cases been wrongly convicted of False Accounting. The issue is
serious enough to have warranted the involvement of Members of
Parliament, the establishment of an action group ‘Justice for Sub-
postmasters’, the launch of a class action against the Post Office and an
agreement by the Post Office in June 2012 to appoint an independent
review of some cases.
em
The defence are therefore confident that the Prosecution have in their
possession, or easily accessible to them, records of complaints and
investigations into the Horizon system,
s
Reasons for Application
Dishonesty
10. The first relevant issue is the question of dishonesty; in particular the
subjective test expounded in the case of R. v. Ghosh [1982] 75
pp.R. 154.
11. The Prosecution case is that the defendant dishonestly attempted to
disguise lasses raised by the Horizon system by attributing monies from
other charity accounts to the deficit, rather than re-paying it herself. In
fact, we understand that the Prosecution case is that the defendant
took the money which created the apparent loss on the Horizon
system.
12. When the Jury consider whether the attribution of monies in this way
by the defendant was dishonest it is a relevant consideration whether
or nat the losses were ‘real’ and whether they were attributable to her.
If the losses were the result of a computer error the Jury may well take
2
F
POL00044041
POL00044041
POL00044041
POL00044041
FROM-
a very different view of the defendant's mental state than they would if
she had taken the money.
Intent to gain or cause loss
13. The second relevant issue is the question of the defendant's intention;
whether she intended to make a gain for herself or cause loss to
another,
14. If the apparent losses were caused by the defendant taking money
from the Post Office, a Jury will have little difficulty in concluding that
she covered the losses in order to make a gain for herself. Similarly, if
the apparent losses were actually incurred, for example as a result of
the defendant’s human error, the Jury may come to the conclusion that
she covered the losses in order that she did not have to re-pay the Post
Office for losses caused as a result of her errors. However, the Jury may
take a different view of the defendant's intention if the apparent losses
were the result of a computer error such that the defendant neither
gained in fact (by taking the money) nor had any reason to believe that
she owed the money as a result of her own error.
Submissions
15. It is submitted that material which suggests that the Horizon system
has accounting faults is therefore relevant to, and of potential
assistance to, the defence for the reasons outlined at paragraphs 12-14
above.
16. It is submitted that access to the Horizon system by a defence Forensic
Accountant is necessary in an effort to detect faults in the Horizon
system used by this defendant. Further, to identify where the apparent
disguised losses occurred and whether they can be attributed to this
defendant. The case against the defendant both at Trial and in any
subsequent sentence would be very different if it can be established
that the defendant did not take the money herself.
17. Furthermore, if a forensic examination of the Horizon system used by
this defendant reveals that the losses were incurred as a result of
computer error it may be that the Prosecution review the decision that
pursuance of this case is in the pubic interest
Charlotte Atherton 12" September 2012
Exchange Chambers