POL00126356
POL00126356
IN THE WINCHESTER CROWN COURT
CASE NO:'F2007 0043
BETWEEN:-
REGINA
“ve
JOSEPHINE HAMILTON
CASE OPENING
@ “This note provided as an ontive tote Crown's ease forthe asstane ofthe Court andthe Defence. It isnot ad dots not
porport tobe a cupreensive amos of be eden. The Crow ray rely on ater nt anemone in thi seem.
Patties
Indictment
Summary
"4, This case involves the theft of over £36,000 from the Post Office by ‘the defendant,
Josephine Hamilton, At the time of the offending she was the sub post tmisttess and had
responsibility for the effective running of the post office at South Watnbotough. Like many
@ . such premises, the post office is situated within a shop.
Background .
2. Mts Hamilton, now [a jyeats old, had been the sub-post mistress thete since 21* October
2003, This is paid position, She is permitted to exiploy her own staff to assist in the
——~Tantiig of the Post Office, and in this case she employed someone called Mrs June
Patttidge.
3. The defendant had been trained in the use of the Post Office computer system, known as
‘Horizon’, and in the running of the Post Office genetally, The Horizon system records the
details of all transactions made at the premises. Every Wednesday the office must prepate
1
anton case-speing
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
weekly accounts, known as the cash account, The accounting week tuns from Thursday
morning to Wednesday evening, On 5* Octobet 2005 the system of accounting changed to
one involving Branch Trading Petiods, and theteaftet monthly Trading Statements were
ptoduced.
4, This sub-post office, as with all such post offices, catties out a number of functions. As well
as selling items like stamps, and distributing forms for eg passport applications, post offices
act as agents for the Depattment of Work and Pensions in providing benefits to members of
the public. These tale many forms: retirement benefit, incapacity benefit, disability benefit
etc, These transactions ate tecotded on ‘Horizon’, ‘This system is connected nationwide.
@ Facts of this case
5, On Monday 6 Match 2006 Rebecca Pottch, who works within the Retail Cash Management
Team fot the Post Office, contacted the pretnises and spoke to someone, believed to be the
defendant, Mts Portch explained that the teason for het call was the very high level of cash
reported as being lepton the premises Although cash on hand is needed at any Post Office,
high levels of cash tepresent a secutity tisk. Mts Pottch requested that the defendant return
at least £25,000 to the Post Office by 8* March. The defendant soon after contacted het
union representative and indicated that there were problems at the post office.
6. The next day, on 7" Match, the defendant ‘went no. and was Hor
Moar
four weeks, Because of the concerns about the information provided, and the falluse to
€ teturn the cash as tequested, Graham Brander [post office investigator], Elaine Ridge [Atea
Intervention Managet] and Alan Stuart [auditor] attended at the South Warnbotough Post
Office on 9" March 2006. After a check of all the documents and accounts, it was found that
the post office was shott by £36, 644.89, Later that morning investigators attended the
ee
defendant’s home address and invited hee to attend an interview.
‘7. Subsequent analysis of the documentation revealed that the cash on hand figute recorded on.
the weekly cash accounting documents had steadily increased from about £15,000 at the end
of 2004 through to ovet £35,000 by February 2006. The ptosecution indicates that this
;esents the defendant's efforts to hide the fact that she was in fact taking money from the
> \ post office duting this time, and by recording the high cash figure was trying to cover up the
2
anton caseopening
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
@
fact that she had taken it. This would never have come to light until or unless a physical
check or audit had been cattied out ot the money had been replaced. Had the defendant had
genuine concerns ot problems regarding the post office or any aspect of it thete is in place a
Helpline and other internal avenues that can be putsued to assist with such difficulties.
8. Aftet liaising with the defendant's solicitor in ordet to secute 2 convenient time to conduct
an interview, the defendant was interviewed by Post Office investigators about these matters
on 5" May 2006. The defendant was provided with documentation outlining the allegations
being made against het. She in turn ptovi x tement indicating, in shott, that
she did not consider that she had teceived adequate training and that the post office systems
wete inadequate, pted in it that tolen any money ot acted dishonestly.
Having tead out the prepated statement the defendant was asked a nutmbet of particular
questions, to which she tesponded by saying ‘no comment’.
9. After intetview the defendant was asked about her financial situation. She indicated that she
owns a ptopetty worth about £420,000 on which they have a mortgage of £230,000. Both
het sons have left home. She said that she and her husband pay £600/month towards the
cost of het mortgage and post office temunetation is in the region of £500/month.
10. Mrs Partridge, who was employed by the defendant and worked within the shop and post
office from January 2005, says that the defendant always did the cash accounting. During her
time there, Mts Partridge says that only she and the defendant worked there. Mrs Patridge
denies that she had taken any of the missing money. She also says that she did not hav:
access to the safe whete the cash would be held.
Conclusion
11. The truth is that the defendant had been inflating the cash on hand figute at the post office-
over a period of sevéral months prior to the audit on 9" Match 2006, She had done this in
otdet to disguise her thefts of cash. She was the only one with sesponsibility for cash
accounting at the premises, She prepared all of the formal documentation. She was the only
one with access to the safe whete cash was kept, Thete is no doubt the money has been
taken and that the Post Office have therefore lost over £36,000. Thete is no explanation as
to why she falsified the accounts to represent that the cash was in fact held at the post office.
3
aritoncase pening
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
There is no teport by her of any problems with procedure. Records held by Network
Business Support Centre [NBSC], the helpline (cuttently in Unused, Item 6) show a number
of calls between 1* Decetnber 2003 ~ 3“ February 2004 refetring to losses, including specific
amounts of £2,082, £2,000, £4,183.53 and £3,191. There is no other person who could have
taken the cash without het knowing it had gone missing.
Burden/standatd of proof
Richard Jor
. 9-12 Bell Yarx
eo. London WC2A 2jF
25" June 2007 ©
i
anton case opening
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
<>
STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
juliet McFarlane .
Principal Lawyer POLTD/0506/0685
m Graham Brander
Investigation Manager Date 11/08/2006
1
. Further to your memo dated 26 June 2006, I have now completed the enquiries covered in
your points 1-3.
South Warnborough Post Office, like the vast majority of other offices, does not
have an Over Night Cash Holding (ONCH) target. The cash requirements for this
office are determined by an automated system (Flexible Planning/Planned
Orders). The system plans their cash needs on the latest cash usage and
payments at the office. If the office were holding too much cash, then a message
would be sent to the office on Horizon, advising them of how much cash to
return. The message does not just flash up but would have to be accessed via the I
appropriate menus on Horizon. Additionally, Horizon would also advise the office
of how much cash was due to be sent to the office. There is an override facility,
so that the Postmaster can alter the amount of cash he/she is due to receive on
the Planned Order. Unfortunately, it would appear that records of amounts
requested to be returned are only held for thirteen weeks.
Concerns regarding the ammount of cash held by this office were initially raised by
Ms Rebecca Portch, Retail Cash Management Support on Monday 06 March
2006, Ms Porch had identified that this office paid out, on average, £2,500 a"
week, yet had been holding in excess of £20,000 since the start of the year. On 06
March 2006, Ms Portch contacted South Warnborough Post Office and asked the
Postmistress to retum at least £25,000 on Wednesday 08 March 2006. As you are
aware from my original report, this money was not returned and the
Postmistress, Mrs Jo Hamilton wa: on Tuesday 07 March
2006. A deficit of £35,644.89 was then identified following an audit on Thursday
09 March 2006,
Mr Paul Duckworth, Retail Cash Manager North has supplied me a schedule
detailing daily cash on hand figures that were input into Horizon at South
Warnborough Post Office between the period 01 January 2006 and 09 March
2006. A copy of this schedule can be found at Appendix B (contents no. 16). It
can be seen that three entries are highlighted, all of which are for low value cash
holdings. it would appear that the office didn’t declare it’s cash on those days and
the Flexible Planning System has put in predicted cash on hand figures based on
the transactions that would have been conducted. -
Copies of e-mails from Ms Portch and Mr Duckworth detailing the above can be
found at Appendix C (see contents no. 12).
Ihave established that apart from Mrs Hamilton, the only other person who
appears to have worked in the Post Office between January 2005 and March
2006 is Mrs June Partridge. I have obtained a statement from Mrs Partridge, a
copy of which is associated at Appendix A.
STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
Mrs Partridge states that she was employed to work in the village shop but
assisted in the Post Office as and when required. The Post Office is contained
within the Village shop. She states that she never assisted with the balancing at
the Post Office and that she never completed any cash declarations. She also
states that she was only aware of the cash in the counter drawer and never
accessed the safe. She stated that if the cash in the counter drawer was getting
tow, Mrs Hamilton would replenish it from the Post Office safe.
South Warnborough Post Office migrated to Branch Trading on 05 October 2005.
No visit would have been made to the Post Office but they were sent an
Interactive Training CD ROM, a copy of the Transition Guide a copy of the Quick
Reference Guide, a Branch Trading Calendar and one each of the Branch Trading
Balancing and Reporting manuals. Each Postrnaster would also have been invited
to attend the numerous Face 2 face Events explaining the migration to Branch
Trading. A number of offices requested replacement items or videos in exchange
for the CD ROM. There is no record of South Warnborough Post Office requesting
avideo.
Copies of e-mails from Mr Martin Drake, Business Change Manager detailing the
above can be found at Appendix C (see contents no. 13).
An e-mail from Ms Claire Smith, Capability Development Manager details the
fact that Mrs Hamilton did not take the Branch Trading ‘Grass Roots test. This
was a voluntary test only. A copy of that e-mail can be found at Appendix C
(Contents no. 414).
The auditor completed the Branch Trading Statement for period 11 on 09 March
2006. It would appear that Mrs Hamilton must have been the person who
completed Branch Trading Statement for period 10 (1 3/01/06 — 08/02/06). This
statement showed a shortage of £6.74 and the cash on hand as being
£35,515.83. As the cash on hand for Trading Period 11 (08/02/06 — 09/03/06) was
£1,933.48 then either the whole audit deficit of £36,644.89 went missing
between those two periods (no evidence to suggest it has) or the cash figure on
Trading Staternent period 10 must have been false. It appears that Mrs Hamilton
was not completing weekly balances, as she should have been. Each Trading
Period is split into four or five Balance Periods and a Final Balance shoutd be *
produced at the end of each week and then rolled to the next Balance Period e.g.
Trading Period (TP) 10, would start in Balance Period (BP) 01 and after the first
week should be rolled to TP 10, BP 02 and so on until the end of the Trading
Period.
As previous mentioned a statement has been obtained from Mrs Partridge. tt
states that she was not responsible for the fraud and did not assist with the
balancing.
3, Ihave not obtained any statements regarding the training given to Mrs Hamilton. In
Mrs Hamilton's prepared staternent she states that when she first started working in
the Post office she received two weeks of half-day training sessions.
STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356
STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
he implies that initially there was nothing very technical about working in the Post
Office. She states that she ‘mastered’ balancing with the help of one of her staff.
When Mrs Hamilton became Postmaster in October 2003 she would have been
asked if she required any training. Records kept in the Area Office, Bournemouth
indicate that no training was required. A copy of that record can be found at
Appendix B (contents no.17). Details of the Branch Trading package supplied to
Postmasters are covered in point 1.
In Mrs Hamilton's prepared statement she mentions card accounts and suggests that
the Post Office has turned into a bank for which she received no training. In Mrs
Partridge’s statement she states that the only training she received was that which
was given to her by Mrs Hamilton, including how to serve customers in respect of the
Post Office Card Account.
thave spoken to Mr Graham Ward, Investigation Team Casework Manager who
advises that a standard statement could be obtained from Fujitsu covering the fact
that the discrepancies would not be due to system error.
In respect of NBSC calls, Mr lan Speck, Service Review Manager has advised me that it
is impossible to highlight what call may have caused-a discrepancy. He basically
states that discrepancies are due to mistakes made at the Post Office branch, either
directly with the customer, which wouldn't be recoverable or by incorrectly using
Horizon, which would usually be recoverable by means of an error notice (now called
Transaction Correction) being generated when a mismatch in the accounting
becomes apparent. A copy of the e-mail from Mr Speck is associated at Appendix C
(contents no. 15).
Having looked at the call logs myself I cannot see anything that relates to a single or
multiple discrepancies that would account for the audit deficit of £36,644.89.
In addition to the response to points 1 —3 above, I have to advise you that I have not
received any disclosure in respect of Mrs Hamilton's bank accounts. I posted disclosures
signed by Mrs Hamilton to the two banks in question but the banks have advised me that
they never received them. I sent out further disclosure forrns to Mrs Hamilton, explaining
the situation but so far these have not been returned to me.
I have received from the Area Office, Bournemouth details of £412,000 that was being
repaid to creditors by Mrs Hamilton. Mrs Hamilton disclosed this information to the Post
Office in lieu of her appointment to become Postmaster at South Warnborough Post Office.
{tstates that she entered a voluntary arrangement with creditors in January 1999 to repay
£112,000 at the rate of £200 a week. The repayments stopped.in March 2003 due to lack of
income. A copy of this information is included at Appendix C (see contents no. 16).
These papers are now re-submitted for you to advise on the sufficiency of the evidence.
Graharn Brander
Investigation Manager
STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
POL00126356
POL00126356
POL00126356