Memo
26" June 2006
Investigation Team Post Office Limited
c.c. Graham Brander
ROYAL MAIL GROUP plc v JOSEPHINE HAMILTON
CASE NO: POLTD/0506/0685
Noted.
In my opinion the evidence gave rise to offences of theft / false accounting
against the offender.
The alleged offence came to light when the high levels of cash holdings at the
Office was noted. When on the 6" March she was required to return sums of at
least £25,000 on the 8" the offender went off sick.
When interviewed the offender in the presence of her Solicitors presents a
prepared statement and refuses to answer questions. She denies stealing from
the Post Office and purports to suggest that the training was somewhat lacking
and systems rigid or shambolic. In essence she is implying that if there was a
shortfall this must be due to mistakes.
Before advising could the Officer deal with the following:-
1 With regards to the Horizon Final Cash Accounts these appear to have
been signed by the offender. The cash account schedule produced
shows an increase in cash in the 4 or 5 months prior to the interview. It is
not clear what the standard cash holding should be but presumably this
would have been somewhere between £15,000 and £20,000 could this
be clarified. Is there any evidence other than the offenders signature to
suggest that she was responsible for completing the accounts (rather
than just signing). Can a statement be obtained from other members of
staff stating who was responsible for completing the accounts.
I note that the Office appeared to convert to Branch Trading some time
after October 2005, could the Officer confirm when this was. If it is
suggested that the money may have been stolen prior to that date what
would have been the position when converting to Branch Trading.
Would a visit have been made to the Office to explain the procedure or is
the position as the offender says ie a DVD was delivered
© Royal Mail 2002 - Page 1 of 2
Royal Mail is a trading name of Royal Mail Group plo. Registered number 4138203
Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
POL00048035
POL00048035
Royal Mail
The Real Network
Corporate Security
3° Floor
6a Eccleston Street
Victoria
LONDON SW1W 9LT
www.royalmail.com
POL00048035
POL00048035
Memo
Cont...
I take it the offender would not have been responsible for completing the
accounts for Week 11 bearing in mind her sick leave. If she did not
complete the accounts for the week-ending the 9" March 2006 when the
loss was discovered, in the absence of other evidence it may be difficult
to establish that the accounts were wrong at the date they were last
completed ie the period ending in February.
2 Could statements be obtained from other members of staff as is
suggested by the Officer confirming that they were not responsible for
the fraud and that the offender was responsible for completing the
account.
3 Could the Officer also obtain a statement explaining what training was
given to the Defendant. Could someone with due knowledge assess the
Horizon call fees and give a view as to whether or not matters reported
particularly in the last year could have led to the discrepancy in the
accounts.
The file should be returned in due course.
J A McFarlane
Principal Lawyer
Criminal Law Division
Ref: CRM/253367/JMcF
© Royal Mail 2002 - Page 2 of 2
Royal Mail is a trading name of Royal Mail Group plo. Registered number 4138203
Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
m:\criminal work folders\mcfarlane juliet - crm\253367 - hamilton\253367m1.doc