POL00081490_035
POL00081490_035
Analysis of Marine Drive Transactions
Ref: d:\gij\pathway\messagestores\6818.marine drive\6825.anal.doc
Author: Gareth I Jenkins
Date: 25/08/2006 17:17:00
1. Introduction
As part of a prosecution associated with Marine Drive Post Office, Anne Chambers
and Gareth Jenkins have undertaken an analysis of all transactions that took place
during Cash Account week 42 in that Office.
Week 42 transactions were those between 8" Jan 2004 08:59:11 and 15" Jan
07:36:14.
Note that there were £408 of National Lottery transactions recorded at about 07:00 on 8" Jan
which were accounted for in week 41; and £326 of similar transaction at about 07:28 on 15"
Jan together with the correction of £1,103 which I understand is in dispute.
The purpose of this note is to outline what was done and also to comment on the letter
sent on from the Post Office Ltd solicitors where Mr Castleton is claiming to have
shown that the Horizon figures are incorrect.
2. Analysis undertaken
The initial set of data obtained was the extract from the Transaction Log that was
submitted to Post Office Ltd as supporting evidence. (ARQ xxx)
Subsequently a complete extract of audit data for the period concerned was obtained.
This included non transactional data (including opening figures) and the electronic
Cash Account information which was subsequently submitted to Post Office Ltd’s
back end systems and represent the same information as was printed on the paper
Cash Account which Mr Castleton should have signed at the time.
We are awaiting copies of the actual paper cash accounts for weeks 41 and 42 to
confirm that the printed figures match those extracted from the audit data for this
analysis.
The initial check was that each Session’s data was completely recorded in the
Transaction Log. This check identified a transaction missing from the ARQ data for a
value of 92p on 12" January. This transaction did not include its Start Time and so
the ARQ extraction process ignored it. However it would not have been ignored by
the accounting functions at the counter and a report would have been generated that
night as part of the overnight checks.
We are still investigating to see if we have an audit copy of that report.
Action is with Penny.
Having done that, a copy of the Reference Data in use at all branches at that time was
obtained that defines how each transaction at the Branch maps onto the various lines
of the Cash Account. This Reference data was then used to summarise all the
c:\documents and settings\njm1\local settings\temporary internet files\olk6{\6825 anal.docPrinted at 09:59:05 on
7/9/2006 Page 1 of 2
POL00081490_035
POL00081490_035
transactions according to where on the Cash Account Report they would appear, thus
enabling the Cash Account Table totals to be re-constructed.
This then shows the following figures:
‘Opening Figures (from Wk 41) I 54,170.49
Sales Receipts £70,593.16
Stock Remittances into Branch I _£51,527.50
Total Receipts £176,291.15 I
This matches the figures in the Cash Account. However Mr Castleton believes that he
has a value of £2,893.24 more that this (see para 3 of the letter). It is not at all clear
where this comes from.
Cheques sent to EDS (total value of £3,083.42) and Debit Card payments (£116.60) are not
included in Receipts. Similarly Parcel Traffic Values in Table 12 (£84.23) are in Table 12
and not Receipts. Misallocation of these to Receipts brings the mismatch down to about £10.
For payments the figures are as follows:
Payments £80,185.38
Cash, Cheque, Voucher and Stock Remittances Out of Branch £3,613.83
Debit Card Payments £116.60
Closing Figures (to Wk 43) £92,374.74
Discrepanc) a
Total Receipts £176,291.15
Again, this matches the figures in the Cash Account.
Para 4 of the letter states that there was £92,374.74 Stock carried forward from week
41. This is incorrect. The figure for Stock (including cash) carried forward from
week 41 is £54,170.49 (including a carried forward discrepancy of 47p). However
£92,374.74 is the figure for stock carried forward from week 42 to week 43. This
paragraph also states that Mr Castleton believes there to be a discrepancy of £209.34
(ie £83,916.41 less £83,707.07) in these figures. Again it isn’t at all clear where that
comes from.
I’m afraid we can’t make any sense of paragraph 5 of the letter. In particular what
does “£1,706.64 in unallocated cash” mean? Given that Mr Castleton’s analysis of
how the Transactions in logs are accounted for is different from the way in which
Horizon has accounted for them, there seems little point in further analysis without
having a common mechanism for comparing what is agreed and what is in dispute.
Para 6 refers to “giro bank transactions” as being suspected of being the cause of the
discrepancy. On what grounds is this considered to be the problem? It is accepted
that there were indeed 6 giro bank cash deposits of over £1,000 (including two for
about £18,000 and £24,000).
Para 8 refers to “missing halves of transactions”. The only missing half transaction is
that for 92p on 12" January at 16:40. However the order in which the transactions
were submitted in ARQ ??? is time of transaction. Where both counters were in use
at the same time, this can result in the transactions from the 2 counters being
“interleaved”. Sorting the transactions based on the Session Id, will ensure that this is
compensated for. We have checked that all transactions for each Session Id do
indeed net to zero (apart from the missing transaction on 12" January).
c:\documents and settings\njm1\local settings\temporary internet files\olk6f6825 anal.docPrinted at 09:59:05 on
7/9/2006 Page 2 of 2
POL00081490_035
POL00081490_035
c:\documents and settings\njm1\local settings\temporary internet files\olk6f\6825 anal.docPrinted at 09:59:05 on
7/9/2006 Page 3 of 2