POL00121975
POL00121975
From: Graham C Wardf”
Sent: Thur 01/11/2012
To: Dave Posnett[” }
Subject: FW: JFSA AND POL Criminal Enforcement Policy
Elv
I am lost for words ,,,,,,,,, whilst in the pub earlier, Jamail rang me about this very subject and I we spoke for about 15
mins (presumably he either didn’t understand what I was on about or didn’t get the answer he wanted to hear !!)
. personally I think these issues are for the SLT, what are your views ?
But my answer would be as follows;
“As things stand we are a public body with responsibility for public money. We currently have a prosecution
policy & are recognised by the Home Office as a non-police prosecuting authority with PACE trained
investigators and our own Legal Team (although we currently outsource to Cartwright King). Following a
successful conviction we robustly seek to recover monies stolen via Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002
confiscation proceedings.
1 can only reiterate what I have said below and as far as I’m aware, it is POL’s policy to recover money in all
cases where we have suffered a loss, which will include seeking compensation orders where there are no
POCA proceedings and seeking confiscation orders where POCA has been instigated.
! do not believe we will easily be able to provide stats to support which cases we have been awarded
compensation orders for (i.e. non POCA), as the Casework spreadsheet does not have a column to record
such information. A trawl of recently closed case files where we have prosecuted may provide some details.
However Dave and I have been recording details of cases where we have been awarded confiscation orders.
As you will be aware the Late Account team will also be involved in recovery using civil action to pursue
repayment of losses”.
I could waffle on but I think we are flogging a dead horse, I get the impression there is a strong desire from the powers
that be, to water down our approach to prosecution & recovery, a sad, short-sighted and disastrous move if I’m right
Good Night
From: Jarnail A Singh
Sent: 01 November 2012 17:00
To: Graham C Ward; Dave Posnett
Cc: Dave Pardoe; Andy Hayward
Subject: FW: JFSA AND POL Criminal Enforcement Policy
Graham /Dave can I have your views please to Marys email below.
Thanks
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
© Jarnail.a.singh¢
@ Post Office stories
© @postofficenews
From: Lawrence, Mary I
Sent: 01 November 2012 16:57
To: Jarnail A Singh; Roff, Sally
Subject: RE: JFSA AND POL Criminal Enforcement Policy
POL00121975
POL00121975
Thanks Jarnail. I think you were going to provide details of whether you actually did seek compensation
orders and the success rate? This is helpful background but I am not clear whether this is then an
instruction provided to Counsel in each and every case / whether this is a strict policy at POL or if this is just
Graham's view?
The further drafts will be provided by close of play tomorrow as requested
Mary
Mary Lawrence
Associate (Solicitor Advocate All Courts) - Claims Solutions
DAC Beachcroft LLP
From: Jarnail A Singh I
Sent: 01 November 2012 16:49
To: Roff, Sally; Lawrence, Mary
Subject: FW:JFSA AND POL Criminal Enforcement Policy
Dear Sally and Mary
Thank you for your kind help and assisting with the JFSA AND pol criminal Enforcement policy documents as
requested I enclose POL approach to compensation from Graham Ward our financial investigator.
Sally/Mary how are getting on with the drafts are we on course for tomorrow.
Thank you.
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
1)
© Jarnail.a singhg
(oy Post Office stories
®© @postofficenews
From: Andy Hayward
Sent: 01 November 2012 16:01
To: Jarnail A Singh
Subject: FW: COMPENSATION
Andy Hayward I Senior Security Programme Manager
i) Midway House 1 Elliott Way
Birmingham B6 7AP.
iS)
®)
®
post.office.security¢
POL00121975
POL00121975
From: Graham C Ward
Sent: 01 November 2012 14:29
To: Andy Hayward
Cc: Rob King; Dave Pardoe
Subject: COMPENSATION
POL00121975
POL00121975
Andy
As discussed
Compensation should be sought post-conviction for all non POCA 2002 cases, where POL has incurred a loss. (At the
moment the FI trigger for involvement is >£15K). Once a compensation order has been made by the court, then the
defendant owes POL that amount of money and has to pay up within the timescales. However unlike POCA 2002,
compensation orders have “no teeth” and enforcing these orders is time consuming and in some cases ineffective,
ending up with defendants paying minimal monthly instalments over a pro-longed period of time.
In POCA 2002 cases, Section 13(5)&(6) of POCA covers the issue of compensation but in summary, the court can
confiscate the defendants assets to the value of the benefit figure and also compensate the victim, so for example, if
a Subpostmaster is convicted of the Theft of £50K and has sufficient assets, the court could make a confiscation order
for £50K and make a further compensation order for £50K which is awarded to the victim, in effect a ‘double
whammy’. In reality and in all the cases I have dealt with, the Post Office will only seek compensation ‘out of’ the
confiscation order, but this matter is decided by the Judge. It is crucial at these confiscation hearing to ensure that the
Post Office are awarded compensation from the Confiscation Order.
Within the Prosecution Section 16 confiscation statement, Paragraph 13.1 (copied below) details the effect of
Compensation on Confiscation
13.1 The effect of section 13(5) of the Act permits the court to make a compensation order under section 130
of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 as if a confiscation order had not been made. If the
defendant cannot pay both, compensation can be recovered from sums paid in satisfaction of the
confiscation order.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Graham Ward - Accredited Financial Investigator, Post Office Security
Address: 2™ Floor Banner Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
Email: graham.c.ward: _
Team Email: post.office. security@ _
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
POL00121975
POL00121975
received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system.
ROYAL MAIL GROUP LIMITED registered in England and Wales at 100 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y
OHQ with the registered company number 04138203
POST OFFICE LIMITED registered in England and Wales at 148 OLD STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ with the
registered company number 02154540
JE III III SI III II III OI III I ISO AI IOI I DIO ASO ASSIS SSIS SOS SIS OTS SOI IA
DAC Beachcroft: 250 years of history in the making
We are a legal business with a long and proud history. In 2012, DAC Beachcroft celebrates its 250th
anniversary. We can trace our roots through a series of mergers back to 1762. The Beachcroft name first
appeared when Richard Beachcroft set up his practice in London in 1828. Davies Arnold Cooper (DAC) was
formed in London in 1927.
www.dacbeachcroft.com/250
This email is sent for and on behalf of DAC Beachcroft LLP which is a limited liability partnership, registered
in England and Wales (registered number OC317852), regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. Our professional rules may be accessed at www.sra.org.uk. We use the word "partner" to refer to a
member of the LLP or an employee or consultant who is a lawyer with equivalent standing and qualifications.
A list of the members (all of whom are solicitors in England and Wales, exempt European lawyers or
registered foreign lawyers), together with a list of those persons who are designated as partners, is available
for inspection at our registered office, 100 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1BN. For full details of the terms
under which this email is distributed please go to http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/pages/legal-notice