UKGI00014869
UKGI00014869
I ium I“ Musa Patels..
Solicitors
Commissioners for Oaths
Our ner: ANICPO648\Ishaq}_ RECEIVED.
Ye 73 Bradford Road
ons Mr Arfaq Nabi Dewsbury
WHEN CALLING ASK FOR West Yorkshire
are 14” January 2013 WF13 2EG
i
Martin Smith
Cartwright King Solicitors
DX 700895
Derby 4
Dear Mr Smith
Re: Khayyam Ishaq, Trial at Bradford Crown Court 25th February 2013
I write further to my letter dated the 4'" of December 2013, in the absence of a response
and with the trial date imminent I think it prudent to deal with the following matters and
would be obliged for a response as soon as is practicably possible.
© Particularized case summary due to be served 2" of January 2013.
e As per our defence case statement could we have details of “reprehensible
behavior of all prosecution witness required to attend trial, including, previous
convictions, previous acquittals, discontinued prosecutions, allegations leading to
arrest and charge/no charge and allegations not leading to arrest, and any
disciplinary proceedings recorded or pending. If none then could you please
formally confirm there is no such bad character recorded against them.
¢ Updated Schedule of Unused Material in response to our defence case statement.
© Tapes of interviews so that we can suggest amendments and confirm accuracy.
e Confirmation of any others arrested and or interviewed in respect of this offences,
if there are others then record of interview and outcome of investigation, insofar
as they are relevant to issues in the case of Khayyam Ishaq.
e Any reference to any assertions of investigators or the prosecution in any
investigatory interview and or case opening in relation to material that has not
been served should be excluded at trial as inadmissible on the basis that such
assertions are not proved in evidence. I say this because as is contained within our
defence statement at points 5 and 11.i it is the defence contention there is more
material that has been relied on in bringing this action which we have not been
served with.
Z ecttSee PARTNERS: ASSOCIATES: Ashrat Beato ons) ALSO AT:
Lexcel & Musa Ahmed Patel 11.8 (Hons) Arfaq Nabi 24 ctions) Comrerencing Executive: 123-125 Barkerend Road
Pace Henagement Sandi Soliciior- Advocate Sollettor Peter Furness Bradford
Law Society Sccresited Se Zafar Iqbal LU.8 (Hons) TesteemrHajtesetion) Accredited Police station Consultant West Yorkshire
PR ome, Solicitor-Advocate* Sotto Mohammed Loonat ane SAU
it * Higher Couris Criminal Mohammed Arif 11.8 (Hons) Conveyancing Executive rel
ininat 4 AOY/Conveyancin
Vises, SS Quality Yohya Seedat 11.6 (Hons) Solicitor rar GRO
VHC Accredited Solicitor ‘Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation,
UKGI00014869
UKGI00014869
¢ The defence requires sight of sensitive material in this case, if there is to be public
interest immunity hearing, please provide the appropriate notification to us.
e Finally at this stage I raise once again the disclosure requests made at Paragraph
11 of the defence case statement, as you will recall I asked for your final position
in my letter dated the 4" of December 2012, I made it clear that if such material is
not served then a Section 8 application would be sought. However perhaps before
reverting back to me it may be prudent for Counsel to liaise with each other as
soon is practicably possible, for the sake of convenience Counsel for the defence
is Counsel Mr Abdul Iqbal Of No 6 Park Square chambers Leeds, Park Square.
Suffice to say in light of our defence the material requested at Para 11 is clearly
disclosable under your statutory duty.
Aside from the above our expert requires the following as a matter of extreme urgency:
From the Crown
*® The disc provided and covering letter from Cartwright King states
that it contains Horizon data for the duration of the indictment
period. A password was provided. We have downloaded the files
from the disc - to discover that the period concerned is only 11
January 2011 to 9 February 2011. ‘This appears to be due to the
Horizon data being filtered to restrict the data to those dates
before the files were copied (see attached document "horizon
data.pdf " showing the date restrictions applied by CK before
copying the material). We therefore urgently require the Horizon
data for the missing period - ie 02.11.10 to 10.01.11.
* Exhibit SB/23 contains copies of the Final Branch Trading
Statements from 15.09.10 to 12.01.11. Copies for the remaining
period of the indictment - i.e. 13.01.11 to 09.02.11 are therefore
also required. It would also be helpful to have copies of the
records from 1 July 2008 to 14 September 2010 (as it would appear
that there were no discrepancies during this period and as such
the data may prove useful for comparison purposes).
° From the computer records for the sub post office: How many
terminal were there and are there any records held to show which
terminals were used by which sign on details for each day during
the indictment period. If there are three terminals and three
users (KIS001 / KIS002 & ULIO01), we would be interested to
determine whether any of the 3 logs in changed between terminals
(given the shared stock systems).
* Stock records in the same format as SB/5 and SB/6 during the
indictment period (to try and establish, if possible, when the
alleged stock discrepancies arose prior to the audit date).
© Stock received records, in the same format as SB/23, for the
missing periods during the indictment - i.e. 02.11.10 to 17.11.10
and 17.12.10 to 08.02.11.
UKGI00014869
UKGI00014869
I should also put you on notice that if the aforementioned matters are not resolved then
we will not be ready for trial come the 25" of February 2013 and we will seek an
adjournment.