POL00057341 - Post Office Ltd - v - Lynette Jane Hutchings advice
POL00057341
POL00057341
POST OFFICE LTD
-V-
LYNETTE JANE HUTCHINGS
ADVICE
1. Prosecution Case.
On 30% March 2011 an audit was carried out at the Rowlands Castle sub Post
Office branch which revealed a deficit in the accounts of £9,743.76. The audit
had been arranged after the branch failed to return £30,000 as requested,
returning only £14,000. When errors in favour and against the branch were
subsequently processed, the outstanding debt at the branch was found to be
£10,814.83.
There is very strong evidence to support the allegation that Mrs. Hutchings
had inflated the amount of cash held within the branch{ usually by inflating)
the figure for cash held in £50 notes) on the days upon which Branch Trading
Statements were completed. It would appear that deficits in the accounts were
covered up in this manner for some considerable period of time. The ONCH
data goes back as far as 27k December 2009 and suggests that the fraud has
been going on at least as far back as 13 January 2010.
In interview on 20'" April 2011 a prepared statement was read out by Mrs.
Hutchings’ solicitor following which Mrs Hutchings exercised her right to
silence. In her prepared statement she admitted to altering the cash
declarations and suggested that she had done so only since the’ migration to)
(Horizon Online) which she thought was around the months got May or June
2010. (The migration date was in fact 5 July 2010) Furthermore she said that
POL00057341
POL00057341
foe
at the time of migration, all accounts balanced which was clearly untrue. She
also gave examples of problems which she alleged she had experienced with
the Horizon system, which do not appear to be of any relevance. Whilst Mrs.
Hutchings has denied stealing any money, she has not put forwards any
explanation as to how the deficit has arisen.
2. Defence Case.
It is not known whether Mrs. Hutchings will admit or deny any wrongdoing
in due course. However given the evidence and the admissions made by Mrs
Hutchings in her prepared statement, it is difficult to see how she could
successfully argue that her actions had not been dishonest and that she had
not had the relevant intention to make a gain, cause a loss or expose the Post
Office to a risk of loss.
3. Statements.
T have seen the memo of 17 June 2011 from Jarnail Singh to Graham Brander
and note that numerous statements have since been taken. No further
statements need be taken at the present time.
4. Charges.
Mrs. Hutchins should be charged with a single offence of fraud between 13th
day of January 2010 and 30% March 2011. Rule 14.2(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Rules 2005 provides that “more than one incident of the
commission of the offence may be included in a count if those incidents taken
together amount to a course of conduct having regard to the time, place or
purpose of commission.”
Martin J Smith,
Solicitor,
Cartwright King,
Majority House,
Lodge Lane,
Derby.
4% January 2012
POL00057341
POL00057341