POL00141439
POL00141439
Message
From: Jarnail A Singh [/o=MMS/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=jarnail.a.singh6ceadabd-67e9-4eca-94f2-005716658847]
on behalf of — Jarnail A Singh
Sent: 04 Oct 2012 10:34:04
To: John M Scott [/o=MMS/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=john.m.scott976db244-9f5b-4d59-a593-f563c9b5535d]
ce: Hugh Flemington [/o=MMS/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=hugh.flemington14106a9a-9886-403d-bf5b-e08821f432b3]
Subject: RE: Post Office Itd v
John
Thank you for your email. I take on board what you say and rest assured will adopt the approach you have suggested. I
have not been in a position where I have had to manage agents before but please however note that I look and consider
each and every single agents advice and try to take a objective view in line with our prosecution policy. In the past
advices in the criminal Team in relation to cautions were invariably brief on the basis that we were working with
experienced members of your team who understood the issues. I will however in future provide you with more detailed
advice addressing all relevant matters.
Jarnail
From: John M Scott
Sent: 03 October 2012 16:30
To: Jarnail A Singh
Cc: Hugh Flemington; John M Scott...
Subject: RE: Post Office Itd vi
Jarnail.
The case papers for this investigation has now reached me.
Points to note:
® £8179.70 shortage was found by the auditors.
L ttempted when the auditors arrived to enter into Horizon a personal cheque against her Post
Office business account to a rough value to the shortfall. The auditors declined this as the transaction had not
been completed.
dmitted that she has used £560 of Post Office money to pay for car repairs.
dmitted buying premium bonds the previous night after closure for her daughter without a
transaction payment — hence the cheque against her Post Office business account being there and her
attempting to enter onto Horizon as the auditors entered — the transaction of the cheque had not been
completed the night before (please see next comment).
dmitted that she would have had to transfer funds to the Post Office business account for it to
mely it would have bounced as is).
admitted to selling postage on credit.
G RO ladmitted sharing her Horizon log on details with her husband.
dmitted inflating her cash, but not to theft.
tated in mitigation (not defence) that she was,
~GRO
Your comment below and also in your report is that you have taken account of the circumstances, relates to one
account and the loss repaid, therefore recommend a caution.
raised a number of matters below and that there needs to be a higher standard of assessment which is also consistent
with Cartwright Kings. When we met yesterday you stated they were over playing the write up, however I challenged
POL-0142824
POL00141439
POL00141439
that they clearly summarise and outline the potential success and also challenges in defence and a more detailed
rationale in why to prosecute or not for each particular charge, basically a higher bench mark than yourself. You also
stated that you have not been reviewing CK’s advise which I am extrernely surprised as you are the Criminal Lawyer who
manages them both as a supplier and also as the lead criminal expert for the business (feels like you’ve abdicated
accountability). I also showed you the report from CK of exactly the same offence and circumstances including value and
yet through their debate and rationale have recommended prosecution (2 pages only). Your advice is somewhat stark
and lacks substance bearing in mind the circumstances detailed above and some of th nable actions by
: For example you have not raised, debated or positioned the issue of I ising Post Office
money to pay for personal bills (car repairs) — is that potential theft bearing in mind the audit shortage and the business
cheque lacking funds (immaterial for this debate whether it is or isn’t — the point being you did not discuss it}?
When we discussed this yesterday (before I saw the papers), you were critical of CK of over playing their write up (I
acknowledge they are commercial and would wish to increase their opportunity). You was defensive of your position,
failed to listen and struggled to take on board learning improvements. I keep with my statement below that CK are the
benchmark and you've failed to meet it (whether or not this suitable for caution/prosecution or vice versa and with CK)
{now have concerns in the overall management of this part of the process.
Hugh — it would be good to discuss at an early stage.
Cheers.
John.
From: Jarnail A Singh
Sent: 01 October 2012 12:58
To: John M Scott
Cc: Hugh Flemington
Subject: RE: Post Office ltd v:
John
The case fie has gone to Maureen moors as per process. The point is this. she admitted the offence ,in line with
prosecution guideline I have taken into account the circumstances, nature of the offence in proven period of the false
accounting relates to one account only and loss has been repaid.in all the circumstances if she is prosecuted she will
receive a nominal penalty of fine or conditional discharge. Although there is sufficient evidence to afford a realistic
prospect of conviction is it in the public or business interest to prosecute? In my opinion this case is suitable for a
caution.
Jarnail
From: John M Scott
Sent: 01 October 2012 12:32
Jarnail A Singh
Jarnail.
Thanks. Can you send your report with the whole file please as I like to see the full officers report, the taped interview
notes and other supporting evidence if I’m to make a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
Your report is also very brief advising a caution and has not sufficiently outlined the case, supporting evidence,
discussion around defence options and the rationale of why to prosecute or not or a caution in this particular instance.
POL-0142824
POL00141439
POL00141439
From the little that has been written, I appreciate all monies have been paid back, however this was a significant amount
of money invoived. A caution does not seem consistent with previous cases that have passed my desk over the past few
months, therefore please give rationale why this would be treated differently in regards to a caution and not
prosecution.
Cartwright Kings Solicitors have set a benchmark in terms of reporting and substance of advice and for consistency
purposes to ensure decision making is robust, fair and consistent, this level needs to be maintained.
Can you please re draft your advice and then forward with the case papers.
Many thanks.
John.
From: Jarnail A Singh
Sent: 01 October 2012 11:30
To: John M Scott
John I understand you are the DMA.
Regards
Jarnail
From: Jarnail A Singh
Sent: 28 September 2012.
To: 'post.office.security¢
Cc: Glyn Burrows
Subject: Post Office Itd
Maureen
Please find my advice in the above case.lam return the green file by post today
Regards
Jarnail
POL-0142824