COPF0000098
COPF0000098
Jack Caster
Legal Assistant
DCA Office
19 December 2023
MEETING REPORT: Malcolm MacLeod
DCA Office meeting with Malcolm MacLeod
Questions relating to the prosecution of Alied Kloosterhuis
Malcolm MacLeod attended Crown Office, Chambers Street, Edinburgh at 2pm on
Wednesday 13 December 2023. On meeting Mr MacLeod, I introduced myself and took
him to a private meeting room.
In arranging for Mr MacLeod to attend Crown Office to meet with me, I had spoken to him
briefly via telephone to introduce myself and to advise that the Deputy Crown Agent’s
Office had been dealing with an appeal against conviction relating to a case that he had
some involvement with in 2013. I told him that were seeking his assistance to better
understand how the case was dealt and, in particular, the circumstance surrounding the
plea that was tendered by the accused.
On taking Mr MacLeod to a private room in Crown Office, I provided some further general
information in relation to the ongoing appeals. I explained that these were appeals
following referrals by the SCCRC and I explained that one of the appeals was a case that
he had dealt with. I did not discuss the grounds of appeal nor the ‘Horizon issues’, just
that these were cases in which the accused had been reported to the Crown by Post Office
Limited.
I explained to Mr MacLeod that I had some questions for him about that particular case
but that rather than go straight into discussing it, I thought it would be best to let him
read some of the material from the original case papers and then ask him some questions
about what he could recall.
I made Mr MacLeod aware that his responses to my questions would be shared with
Counsel for the appellants and that there was a possibility that he could be cited to a future
hearing as a witness. He confirmed that he was content to proceed.
Page 1 of 8
COPF0000098
COPF0000098
Prior asking him questions, I gave Mr MacLeod access to, and an opportunity to read, the
following documents:
« SPR dated 16 November 2012
e Post Office investigators interview with Alied Kloosterhuis dated 20 September
2011
« Letter from agent offering plea to £20,000 dated 28 June 2012
e Response from MM to agent dated 4 July 2012
* s 76 letter dated 1 October 2012
es 76 report to Crown Counsel dated 2 October 2012
* s 76 indictment dated 24 October 2012
Mr MacLeod spent approximately 20 to 25 minutes reviewing the material and then told
me that he had read enough of it. He advised that did not really remember anything about
the case but that was content nevertheless to move on to the questions.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
The following is a transcript of the question and answer session that I conducted with Mr
Macleod.
Rather than distil the following information into a precognition report, I considered that it
would likely be more helpful to the reader for the exact words that were said to be noted
in this report.
This is particularly so on the basis that the primary reason for this meeting was to better
understand what Mr Macleod had written previously in his section 76 report, and what he
meant by the words he had used. It may also assist if any further questions are to be
asked of Mr MacLeod.
Employment with COPFS
Question: When did you work for COPFS
Answer: I started in 1979 and finished 2015
Question: What departments/where did you work during your career
Page 2 of 8
Answer:
COPF0000098
COPF0000098
I started in Ayr then Glasgow, followed by Crown Office Secretariat, then
Falkirk, then Glasgow again briefly, then Dumbarton then Greenock then
Paisley and then Dumbarton. Mostly I was working in solemn work and some
death work. The last 20 years of my work were more or less Solemn work.
Involvement with the Alied Kloosterhuis (“AK”) case
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
How well can you recall the AK case.
My workload at the time was a rolling case load of between 400 to 450 cases
a year. My recollection of this case is virtually nil.
Has the material that you have looked at refreshed your memory
My memory not really refreshed after looking at material. Don’t remember
it all. Like reading it for the first time.
Where were you working when you dealt with the AK case in 2012
Dumbarton but I dealt with all solemn work for Argyll.
What was your role at the time and how long had you been in that role
I was a Principal Procurator Fiscal Depute in charge of solemn work. I’d been
a PPFD for 20 years.
What was your involvement with the AK case
It would have been referred to me by the fiscal at Campbelltown. I would
have marked it at CFE and FC stages. I requested all statements to consider
the case. I considered all the evidence in the case. I met with the
investigators (Post Office) on at least one occasion. I remember doing it
with this one because the names (in the s 76 report) ring a bell. I don’t
remember anything about the meeting, but I didn’t really understand the
Horizon system and wanted it explained in relation to this case. I contacted
the defence and had discussion with them at some point. I don’t remember
the discussion. I remember Mr Kane (Defence agent) coming into the office
Page 3 of 8
COPF0000098
COPF0000098
about the case. I don’t think was in Court. Can’t remember what happened
to her.
Question: How many Post Office cases had you dealt with prior to AK in 2012
Answer: I dealt with 2 or 3 summary cases. All within 2 years prior to this case (AK
case). This was all whilst in Dumbarton in PPFD role.
Section 76 report to Crown Counsel
Question: With reference to your letter to AK’s solicitor of 4 July 2012, in response to
AK’s plea offer, what did you mean when you said, “I have had dealings with
the Post Office accounting procedures in relation to other cases and do
accept that some exceptional circumstances can arise in relation to the way
the amounts are calculated. I would have no difficulty in recommending to
Crown Counsel acceptance of a plea to £20,000 or thereby of money.”
Answer: (long pause) I think it was something that Post Office explained to me at
the time but I cant remember what it was.
Question: Can you explain what you meant by “exceptional circumstances can arise in
relation to the way the amounts are calculated”?
Answer: I can't recall what “exceptional circumstances” meant. I don't know whether
it related to the accounting period or whether the money that was recorded
as lodged fell out of the period examined or something like that.
Question: Can you recall any examples of “exceptional circumstances” in relation to
the way amounts are calculated
Answer: I cannot recall any particular example.
Question: In your s 76 report to CC, what did you mean when you said, “Having dealt
with similar cases in the past I have found the Horizon system wanting. For
example mistakes could have been made by the employee, Jennifer Brown
or the accused as only one code for entering details has been used.”
Page 4 of 8
COPF0000098
COPF0000098
Answer: Well, each employee had their own specific number to be entered into the
Horizon system. So, there would be the possibility of one employee using
the number of another employee or SPM. Also, I suppose, errors can arise
where the computer entry is made in relation to different eh services or
goods, if it says stamps on one thing or grirocheck, if someone presses the
wrong button there will be inaccuracies on the Horizon system, I suppose,
which will be just genuine mistakes.
Question: What “mistakes” did you envisage could have been made
Answer: As explained just there.
Question: Can you recall what CCI was in the AK case.
Answer: I presume it was just proceed with recommendation (in the s 76 report)
Question: Can you recall who gave CCI?
Answer: Cant remember. It might have been an indicter.
Question: If you can, can you recall whether CCI touched on the points you had raised
about the Horizon system.
Answer: I don't remember it but it’s not the kind of thing they would do.
Question: Were you present in Court when the plea was tendered
Answer: No. Sometimes moved cases around to suit solicitor. Don’t know which
sheriff dealt with it.
Question: If you were, what can you recall was said in mitigation
Answer: n/a
Other Post Office cases
Question: With reference to your s 76 report to CC, what were the “similar cases” that
you had dealt with in the past.
Answer: I can’t remember any
Page 5 of 8
COPF0000098
COPF0000098
Question: Where were you working when you dealt with “similar cases”
Answer: Probably in Dumbarton - could have been an Argyll case or a Paisley case
- I dealt with all North Strathclyde cases.
Question: What details of the “similar cases” can you recall
Answer: n/a
Question: Can you recall if they were on summary complaint or indictment.
Answer: I think they were summary cases, but I am not sure if this is the only solemn
case I dealt with for Post Office.
Interaction with Horizon system
Question: What was your knowledge of the Horizon system at the time you dealt with
this case.
Answer: General knowledge. I knew Post Office had a computer system. I did not
understand the documentation in relation to it that was being filled in by the
postmaster lodging the return or receipt of money. I didn’t know operation
and I had to have it explained to me.
Question: What was your understanding of how the system operated
Answer: I couldn't really say how it worked.
Question: What concerns, if any, did you have during your involvement with Horizon
evidence
Answer: My concern was corroboration of the system. What evidence was there to
support the accuracy of it. I accepted the system for what it was and when
looking at the documentation I was satisfied that along with the admissions
there was a sufficiency.
Page 6 of 8
COPF0000098
COPF0000098
Question: If you did have concerns with the accuracy, what was the nature of these
concerns and why were you concerned
Answer: Well just employee errors. Or operator errors.
Question: Was there anything else.
Answer: No. I accepted that it largely worked correctly.
Question: How much contact can you recall having with Post Office Investigators in
your involvement with Post Office reported cases
Answer: Generally, in relation to every case I dealt with I will have had at least one
meeting with the investigators. I found the cases all slightly different in the
admissions or type of admissions. The meeting were just to satisfy myself
that I understood it. Not that there was anything wrong with it but to
understand what it was about.
Question: What was the nature of that contact - how frequent was it when you were
dealing with a case.
Answer: I would have a meeting possibly with the productions or some of the
productions in a private office. More or less like a precognition like this.
Similar to a meeting with a senior police officer or such like. Chatting about
it to get a hang of what is going on.
Question: What advice or guidance, if any, did you give to Post Office investigators
Answer: None
Institutional knowledge
Question: What contact, if any, can you recall having with other COPFS departments
in relation to Horizon
Answer: None
Page 7 of 8
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
END
COPF0000098
COPF0000098
Can you recall receiving any instruction in relation to Post Office reported
cases from within your federation or from Crown Office
Don’t remember any - might have been some
Did you discuss the Horizon issues you were aware of from your dealings
with past Post Office cases with Senior or other COPFS colleagues
I might have mentioned it in general conversation. Not anything formal.
There weren't that many cases. Just chatting about it.
Since then and now, are you aware of what had happened generally with
Post Office prosecutions
Just in passing from what I have seen on the news.
What is that
Just the number of appeals and that they are about the unreliability of the
Horizon system.
What is your reaction to that.
News to me.
During the questioning Mr MacLeod appeared calm and professional. It was clear that he
struggled with his memory of the Kloosterhuis case as was obvious in his responses to the
questions I asked.
Following the questioning, I read the questions and answers back to Mr MacLeod and he
confirmed that the transcript that I had noted was correct.
Mr MacLeod confirmed that he would be happy to consider and answer any further
questions that the Crown or Appellants might have. Now that he has had an opportunity
to review the case material, he advised that he would be content to receive questions via
email.
Page 8 of 8