Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
Date of Report
2 August 2016
Name of PO/Depute
Angus Crawford
Name of Counter signatory
Anne E Sweeney
Legacy / KPI Report n/a
PF Office GLASGOW SOUTH (G) DIVISION
PF Ref GG14024535
Name(s) RAUF AKHTAR-BASHIR.
Charge(s)
(001) On various occassions between 8th August 2012 and 26th March
2014 both dates inclusive at Toryglen Post Office, 27 Glenmore Avenue,
Glasgow, G42 OEH and elsewhere you RAUF AKHTAR-BASHIR did while
acting in your capacity as Subpostmaster of Toryglen Post Office, 27
Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow, G42 0EH embezzle One Hundred and Seventy
Nine Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Six pounds Nine pence
(£179,126.09) of money.
(002) On various occassions between 9th October 2013 and 26th March
2014 at Toryglen Post Office, 27 Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow, you RAUF
AKHTAR-BASHIR did conceal, disguise , convert and transfer criminal
property within the meaning of the aftermentioned Act namely Five
Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred pounds (£554,600) in that
you did use your position of trust as Subpostmaster at Toryglen Post
Office, 27 Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow, to transfer Five Hundred and Fifty
Four Thousand Six Hundred pounds (£554,600)of money into your
Santander Bank Account numbe ;CONTRARY to the Proceeds of
Crime Act 2002, Section 327(1) (
Enclosures
Details of enclosed documents should be recorded here, and should ALWAYS
include items 1, 2 and 3. Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 should be included where
appropriate.
Select which documents have been included.
1. Any/all previous CCI Yes[] No x
2. SPR Yesx No []
3. Initial Report to NSCU Yes(] No x
4. Statement and/or precognition Yesx No ([]
5. Forensic/medical/computer report YesC[] No x
6. Draft charges Yesx No ([]
7. Any other documents considered relevant in light of I Yes x No oO
?
TrYES provide details of documents below
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
History of case
1. Date of the offence 8 August 2012
2. Date matter was reported by the
police
3. Date case was reported to NSCU IN/A
4. Date CCI was issued N/A
5. Date was reported to NSCU (if N/A
reported on more than one occasion
6. Date extensions to reporting N/A
timescale was sought (if relevant)
7. Agreed revised report date (if N/A
relevant)
Factual/Evidential Consideration
Provide a brief summary of CCI, the action taken and the resulting evidence.
N/A
Analysis
The analysis should address the issues highlighted in Crown Counsel’s
Instructions and also Chapter 1 and Chapter 3.120 to 3.126 of the Sexual
Offences Handbook
Date of Report 2 August 2016
Name of PO/Depute Angus Crawford
Name of Counter signatory Anne E Sweeney
Legacy / KPI Report n/a
PF Office GLASGOW SOUTH (G) DIVISION
PF Ref GG14024535
Name(s) RAUF AKHTAR-BASHIR
Charge(s)
(001) On various occassions between 8th August 2012 and 26th March
2014 both dates inclusive at Toryglen Post Office, 27 Glenmore Avenue,
Glasgow, G42 OEH and elsewhere you RAUF AKHTAR-BASHIR did while
acting in your capacity as Subpostmaster of Toryglen Post Office, 27
Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow, G42 0EH embezzle One Hundred and
Seventy Nine Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Six pounds Nine
pence (£179,126.09) of money.
(002) On various occassions between 9th October 2013 and 26th March
2014 at Toryglen Post Office, 27 Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow, you RAUF
AKHTAR-BASHIR did conceal, disguise , convert and transfer criminal
property within the meaning of the aftermentioned Act namely Three
Hundred and Seventy Three Thousand Four Hundred and Sevnty Three
pounds and ninety one pence(£373.473.91 )of money in that you did
use your position of trust as Subpostmaster at Toryglen Post Office, 27
Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow, to transfer Three Hundred and Seventy
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
Three Thousand Four Hundred and Sevnty Three pounds and ninety
73.91 )of money into your Santander Bank Account
_;CONTRARY to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002,
Enclosures
Details of enclosed documents should be recorded here, and should ALWAYS
include items 1, 2 and 3. Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 should be included where
appropriate.
Select which documents have been included.
1. Any/all previous CCI YesL] No x
2. SPR Yesx No CL]
3. Initial Report to NSCU YesL] No x
4. Statement and/or precognition Yesx No CL]
5. Forensic/medical/computer report YesL] No x
6. Draft charges Yesx No CL]
7. Any other documents considered relevant in light Yes No x
of CCI?
If YES provide details of documents below
History of case
1. Date of the offence 8 August 2012
2. Date matter was reported by 24.12.14
the police
3. Date case was reported to NSCU I N/A
4. Date CCI was issued N/A
5. Date was reported to NSCU (if N/A
reported on more than one
occasion
6. Date extensions to reporting N/A
timescale was sought (if relevant)
7. Agreed revised report date (if N/A
relevant)
Factual/Evidential Consideration
Provide a brief summary of CCI, the action taken and the resulting evidence.
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
n/a
Analysis
The analysis should address the issues highlighted in Crown Counsel’s
Instructions and also Chapter 1 and Chapter 3.120 to 3.126 of the Sexual
Offences Handbook
Charge1: Embezzlement.
Rauf Akhtar Bashir was contracted as a Sub Postmaster to provide Post
Office services at Toryglen Post Office, 27 Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow,
from 26th July 2007 to 26th March 2014. This was a sub post office
within the witness Tariq’s general convenience store which also housed
an ATM for which the accused was responsible.
As sub postmaster the accused was in a position of trust and had signed
a contract which detailed his duty of care with regards to Post Office
stock and money. By signing the contract, he agreed to be bound by the
contract, rules and instructions contained in the Book of Rules .In
addition S12 of the contract forbade him from using Post office money
for his own private use. As part of his duties the accused was
responsible for signing off the daily and monthly balance sheets in
relation to the ATM, cash in tills and stock. He had a responsibility to
ensure that the cash and stock was accounted for and was held
securely at all times.
One of the Post Office functions is that it accepts deposits for most of
the UK Clearing Banks. The method by which this is effected is that the
local Post office branch accepts cash only deposits from business
customers using the customer’s bank card. The customer hands over
the cash and card to the clerk and the clerk checks the amount, swipes
the card and enters the amount onto the Horizon system. The customer
is asked to confirm the amount on a PIN pad on their side of the counter
and if they agree the press enter and the money is transferred to the
respective bank and the system automatically prints a receipt. The
money received from the customer by the clerk is then bagged ,
collected and delivered to the Central Post Office reserve. The accused
was a business customer of Santander and held an account number
6640001in the name of R Bashir t/a Toryglen Post Office and as a result
he used this facility in his own post office.
The Horizon system
The Post Office accounting system is known as Horizon. This is the
computerised system used to input all transactions generated through
the local Post Offices. The Horizon system consists of two separate
parts.
Part: 1 is known as the BOI system. This system monitors the amount
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
of cash held within the ATM machine.
Part: 2 is known as the AA system. This system monitors the stock and
the cash held in the cash registers and the safe.
Each member of staff has a unique personal ID number and a personal
password to allow them access to the system. In respect of this case the
witnesses Malcolm and Tariq had ID numbers and passwords as did the
accused :
1. ADNO01/ADNO03-TARIQ
2. JMA003/JMA004- MALCOLM
3. RBAOO3- BASHIR
The witnesses Tariq and Malcolm confirmed that they did not provide
their passwords to any other person although Malcolm did state that she
thought Tariq used the accused’s password and code as he had
forgotten his own, the witness Tariq refutes this.
The witness Malcom was the Post Office Clerk and worked within the
Post Office on a daily basis, the witness Tariq owned the store and
mainly worked within the main shop and only occasionally worked in the
Post Office to assist during busy periods. He was responsible for the
filling the ATM which he stated that he did in the witness Malcolm's
presence with the witness Malcolm being responsible for declaring the
figures for the ATM on the Horizon system which is taken from a print
out from the ATM. Both witnesses stated that the accused was
responsible for completing the monthly trading period balances for both
the Post office and the ATM. The witness Malcolm stated that the last
occasion that the accused worked at the counter was January 2014.
The last audit prior to the audit on 26 March 2014 was on 7 August
2012 when a £27.86 surplus was recorded. This audit report is a
production in the case and is the last known date that the accounts for
the Toryglen Post Office were correct.
Discovery of embezzled funds
A routine audit took place on Wednesday 26 March 2014 by witnesses
Guthrie, Burke and McConnell, auditors and employees of Post Office
Ltd. Prior to the audit taking place the witness Malcom advised the
witnesses that she believed there to be a shortfall of approximately
£70,000 and at the auditors request tried to contact the accused to ask
him to attend the audit.
The auditors discovered that there was a cash shortfall of One Hundred
and Seventy Nine Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Six Pounds and
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
Nine Pence (£179,126.09).This shortfall was made up from the
following.
1. ATM -£108870.
At the audit on 26 March 2016 the Horizon BOI system recorded that
the ATM machine should contain £115750.00in cash. When the cash in
the ATM machine was counted it was found to contain £6880. The
witness Malcolm took a daily print out of the ATM funds and entered this
information into the system
2. Cash -£70,137.08.
At the audit on the 26 March 2016 the Horizon AA system recorded that
the cash in hand within the post office was £101,329.48. When the cash
held in the cash registers and the office safe was counted, they were
found to contain £31,192.40. The branch is required to declare the cash
on hand at the end of each day and log this on the Horizon system
having physically counted the cash. The witness Malcolm carried out this
task.
3. Stock £40.71
At the audit on the 26 March 2016, the auditors identified a difference in
stock of £40.71
The auditors then contacted the witness Dailly the Post office Security
Manager who attended the premises and seized cash declarations dated
26.02.14 made by the witnesses Malcolm and the accused through the
Horizon system as shown by their ID numbers JMA003 and RBAOO3
respectively and the Horizon receipts for Santander Bank deposits for
the period 29.10.13-04.02.14 and thereafter reported the matter to the
police.
On 26" March 2014 the accused contacted the witness Dailly and stated
that he would return on 28*" March to Glasgow as he was in Manchester.
At this time the accused stated to the witness Dailly that “he’d lost
control”. The witness Dailly invited the accused for interview and
informed him of his rights. The witness Dailly contacted police witness
Sneddon and it was agreed that the Post Office staff would conduct the
interview.
Bashir was subsequently suspended on 26 March 2014 and his contract
was terminated on 24 June 2014.
Police/Post Office Investigation
The witness Dailly created a Schedule of Santander deposits made at
the Toryglen Post Office between 07.01.14-20.03.14 using the Credence
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
Information Management system which holds the previous 90 days of
Horizon data. This schedule showed the “deposits” were made to the
accused’s Santander account and identified who had made those
deposits. It was identified at that stage that the accused had made
£294,500 worth of deposits, the witness Malcolm had made £55,200 of
deposits and the witness Tariq had made £13000 worth of deposits.
The witness Dailly attended at the witness Malcolm’s home to take a
statement. She advised the witness Dailly of the processes and her
remit and in relation to the cash deposits into the accused’s account,
she stated that the accused had phoned her at the Post Office several
times and asked her to take his bank card from the back office and
swipe it through Horizon to make a deposit. She stated that the accused
told her he would settle the amounts at the end of February 2014 but
did not. The witness Tariq also provided a statement stating that he had
made the deposits at the request of the accused who again told him
that he would put the money in the till later. Both of these witnesses
can state that Bashir did not provide the corresponding amounts
at the time they were asked to process the transactions and have
no knowledge of the money being physically deposited at a later
date.
The witness Dailly also reviewed the cash declarations for the 26.02.14
made by the accused and the witness Malcolm. It was shown that the
witness Malcolm entered a cash declaration of £6784.82 at 17.35 hours
and the accused made an inflated declaration at 19.05 hours which
showed a declaration of £51784.82. The identification of who made the
entries came from the unique ID and password. The witness Malcolm
stated that she counted the cash and made the declaration at the end of
the day, she also stated that the accused had not worked in the Post
Office since January 2014.
The witness Dailly also received the Cash Management Call logs which
showed that the accused had made repeated requests for extra money
to be sent to the Post Office. On numerous occasions between
28.3.2013 and 27.3.2014 call logs and notes prepared by the Post
Office call centre show that staff members from the post office at
Toryglen called the post office central office to request increased cash
deliveries. The witnesses Malcolm and Tariq don’t speak to making
these calls therefore the inference is that it was the accused requesting
the cash deliveries . The call handler on numerous occasions refused to
increase the cash deliveries on the basis that the Horizon system
showed that the branch had a cash surplus.
Trading Accounts/Daily/Weekly Balances
The accused was responsible for submitting the Trading accounts for the
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
period 25.09.13-26.02.14; they showed that the accounts balanced
which was at odd with the auditors’ findings.
The accused was also responsible for signing off on the office balances
at the end of each month. The accused signed off on the balances
through the Horizon system by entering his Unique Identification
number. The witness Malcolm stated that she would complete the
nightly cash in hand balances but that it was the accused’s responsibility
to sign off and ensure the cash and the balance shown on the system
tallied.
Bank Statements of the Accused
The witness Dailly received the statements from three of the accused
banks including Santander. The witness Dailly analysed these
statements in conjunction with the information provided from the
Credence system which holds Horizon data. From this analysis, the
witness Dailly established that between O9th October 2013 and 20th
March 2014 fifty six deposits all of over one thousand pounds were
made at Toryglen Post Office, 27 Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow, in
total Five Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred pounds
(£554,600) was deposited into the accused’s Santander Bank Account
: via the Post Office Horizon System. It was noted that
withdrawals, bill payments and transfers to his other accounts were
made either the same day or the following day that the deposit from the
Post Office into his account was made.
Interview of the Accused
The accused initially attended for interview without legal representation
on 01% April 2014 and as a result of being informed of his legal rights
decided to seek legal representation and presented for interview on 23
April 2014 with his solicitor Aamer Anwar. He was interviewed by
witnesses Dailly and Bradshaw. The accused confirmed that he had been
Sub postmaster at the Post office since July 2007 and provided some
information in relation to his training before taking advice from his
solicitor after which he stated “no comment” to questions posed in
relation to the bank cash deposits, requests for additional funds,
discrepancies in the cash declarations and all other questions asked in
relation to his duties and responsibilities. At the end of the interview the
accused provided mandates relating to four of his accounts including the
Santander account.
In analysing the information and data to ascertain a reason for the
shortfall the witness Dailly identified that there were two ways in which
the accused could have embezzled the money those being -
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
i) That the accused was stealing money from the cash registers/safe
and ATM or:
ii) that the accused had inflated the amount of money, via inputting
false information into the Horizon system, to cover up shortages
elsewhere arising from the accused failing to make the corresponding
cash deposits in respect of the deposits from the Post Office to
Santander business account.
In analysing the evidence in relation to the accused stealing money
from the ATM, the Crown have no evidence to show the accused was
doing this other than proof of exclusion evidence . Both witnesses Tariq
and Malcolm deny any responsibility for the shortages. They have
provided evidence which points to the accused as the person
responsible for the shortages.
It is possible that Bashir removed cash from the ATM machines and
from the cash in hand held in the cash registers and the safe. However
this is unlikely given the evidence for scenario: 2.
In relation to the second scenario there is compelling evidence that the
accused used the mechanism of inflating the figures and depositing
funds into his Santander account. The evidence in relation to the
inflation of figures is
1. On 26 February 2014 at 17.35 pm Joyce Malcolm using her unique
ID number inputted into the AA Horizon system that the amount of cash
in hand was £6784.82.
2. At 19.05 hours on the 26 February 2014 the above balance
was changed in the system to show that the balance in the AA Horizon
system was £51784.82. The accused Bashir’s unique ID number was
used to intromit with the system at this time. This is a compelling piece
of evidence pointing to the fact that Bashir was manipulating the system
to cover up the shortage.
3. Cash declarations made on the day of the audit by the witness
Malcolm were check and found to be correct by the auditors witnesses
Guthrie, McConnell and Burke and therefore supportive of fact she was
recording accurately.
4. On numerous occasions between 28.3.2013 and 27.3.2014 call logs
and notes prepared by the Post Office call centre show that staff
members from the post office at Toryglen called the post office
central office to request increased cash deliveries. The call handler on
numerous occasions refused to increase the cash deliveries on the basis
that the Horizon system showed that the branch had a cash surplus.
Again this is a clear indication that the cash in hand figure was being
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
inflated within the system to cover up shortages. Clearly there
would be no need to have an operating cash increase if as the system
indicated that the branch had enough cash in hand to cover business
needs.
The evidence in relation to the accused receiving Post Office funds into
his Santander Account comes from the following:
The witness Tariq speaks to the accused asking him on two
occasions, via telephone, to make two deposits amounting to
£13000.00 into his (the accused) Santander account and said he
would put the money in later.
The witness Malcolm can speak to the accused telephoning her on
eleven occasions and asking her to deposit money amounting to
£54000.00 into his Santander bank account via the Post Office
system stating that he would put the money in later.
Both these witnesses can state that the accused did not provide
the corresponding amounts at the time they were asked to
process the transactions and have no knowledge of the money
being physically deposited at a later date.
In addition on analysing the accused Santander accounts the witness
Dailly found between 29th October 2013 and 20th March 2014 fifty six
(56) deposits all of over One thousand pounds (£1,000) were made at
Toryglen Post Office, 27 Glenmore Avenue, Glasgow. In total Five
Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred pounds (£554,600)
was deposited into the accused’s Santander Bank Account No:
f via the Post Office Horizon System. The witness Dailly did not
have the corresponding Horizon daily balance sheet to check that the
full cash amount of these electronic deposits less the shortfall of
£179,126.09 was physically deposited into the Post Office and based
this opinion on the evidence of the witnesses Malcolm and Tariq advising
that the accused requested the deposits and did not provide the
corresponding credit monies into the post office account. It is suspected
that the accused did not deposit the cash amounting to £179,126.09
into the Post office reserves but simply created an electronic credit
entry.
Evidential Difficulties
1. The Horizon Accountancy System.
This case was reported by the Post Office in on 24 December 2014.
After initial investigations and discussions with the reporting officer it
was discovered that there was significant criticism in respect of similar
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
English prosecutions of the Post Office accounting system known as
Horizon.
The criticism surrounded issues with respect to the system’s integrity
and accuracy in respect of the recording of information .It was found
that the system was not recording accurately monies deposited etc. The
reporting officer stated that he would be unable to confirm the accuracy
of the information held within the system should he be called as a crown
witness. He also confirmed that the Post Office would not be able to
provide an expert witness who could speak to the systems accuracy.
At that time it was decided not to proceed with this case given the
above information. The solicitor for the Post Office in Scotland Laura
Irvine had a meeting with Dawn Lewington and Mhairi Boyle in late
2015 regarding the issues involving the prosecution of Post Office cases
in Scotland. As a result of that meeting CC instructions were given in
early 2016 to prepare a Pre-Petition precognition.
Since these instructions I have been in correspondence with the Solicitor
for the Post Office in Scotland requesting further information with
respect to the Horizon system. I enclose the following e-mail received
from Laura Irvine , Solicitor acting for the Post office Ltd received on 30
August 2016
“I refer to your email to Robert Daily dated 3 August 2016 and our
conversation about the case against Mr Bashir concerning Toryglen Post
Office. Post Office Limited is currently defending a claim brought in the
English High Court by (at least) 198 claimants, and is also assisting the
Criminal Cases Review Commission with its review of 26 prosecutions
of former Post Office agents. Both of these matters concern allegations
that the ‘Horizon’ computer system supplied by Fujitsu and the
processes associated with its use are not reliable. Post Office is
committing significant resource to dealing with these matters, and
needs to do so in a consolidated and coordinated manner which
focusses on the High Court action and CCRC reviews. Accordingly, while
these matters remain live, Post Office will not be able to support
external matters where Horizon is challenged, e.g. by providing a
subject matter expert on Horizon to support a prosecution brought by a
public prosecution service. Post Office accepts, regrettably, that this
may mean that for a period of time, certain criminal prosecutions which
could otherwise proceed may not now do so. We appreciate the
frustration that this may cause, and are grateful for your cooperation
while we look to address finally the complaints made about Horizon."
2. Method of Embezzlement
Whilst not fatal to the charge there is no clear indication of the method
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
by which the accused embezzled the money whilst the most obvious
method was by way of obtaining the money through deposits to his
Santander given that the accused could have facilitated the
embezzlement by use of the electronic system there are still question
marks in respect of the other methods as detailed above.
The ambiguity in relation to the mechanism may become clearer as the
reporting officer has still to obtain and submit the trading account and
corresponding balance sheets in relation to the ATM and bank deposits
which may contain the information to crystallise the method. However
as will be discussed in the analysis of evidence due to the flaws in the
Horizon system this has not been obtained at this time.
Analysis of Evidence
Charge One - Embezzlement
Mens rea
The Crown can prove that the accused intended to appropriate the
property of the Post office without its consent from the fact that the
accused signed the Post Office contract confirming that he would be
bound by the rules, in addition, s12 of that contract specifically stated
that the accused could not use the post Office funds for personal use.
Therefore the fact that the accused used the depositing system for his
own business use was a Clear infringement of that clause and as such
the accused knew that the Post Office would not allow him to use this
facility.
Actus Reus
The accused admitted in the course of the interview that he was
employed as the Sub postmaster and as such had a duty to account for
the stock provided to him by the Post Office as shown in the contract
between himself and the Post Office .His duty was to use this cash,
stock and debit facility to provide services to the public and business
customers and to account for keeping said funds and services secure at
all times.
The witnesses Malcolm and Tariq can speak to working within the post
office and the accused acting as Sub postmaster; as such the accused
had overall responsibility for the stock as evidence by him being
responsible for signing off on the trading accounts etc. The witness
Malcolm and Tariq speak to the accused working in the Post Office
although the witness Malcolm stated that he hadn’t worked since
January 2014.
The difficulty in proving the appropriation lies with the fact that the
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
Horizon system through which all the financial information comes is
neither reliable nor credible. There is evidence from the audit that there
is a shortfall however, the information from which the auditors are
basing their findings and the evidence from which the witness Dailly
uncovers during his investigation comes from this system. Given the
deficiencies in the system as previously described it is submitted that
the evidence which flows from this system cannot be relied upon as the
Crown cannot provide a witness to confirm the accuracy and integrity of
the system.
The Crown is also relying on the modus of the offence being proved
from the information provided by this system.
In relation to the most likely of scenarios put forward by the witness
Dailly that the accused deposited sums into his Santander account and
did not make the corresponding credits to the Post office account, the
proof of that fact comes from the Horizon system. The trading accounts
and daily entry sheets which would show the deposits of lack thereof are
produced from this system and would be used to cross refer with the
information contained in the statements of the accused’s Santander
account thus the Crown would still be relying on the information coming
from the Horizon system.
In relation to the other scenario put forward by the witness Dailly that
the accused stole the money from the cash registers and ATM again all
of the information in relation to the funds comes from the Horizon
system.
Therefore, given the fact that the Post Office will not provide a witness
to speak to the accuracy of the information contained/produced by the
system the Crown cannot prove that the appropriation took place during
the course of a transaction which the accused was authorised to
conduct.
Given the evidence of the witnesses Tariq and the auditors, it is clear
that there was a shortfall of funds and by use of proof of exclusion
evidence the inference is that the accused committed the theft and that
the method by which he appropriated these funds was through utilising
the Post Office funds to deposit monies into his Santander business
account. However it is submitted that the Crown would still falls short in
relation to the proof of the case as would still need the information
provided from the Horizon system.
It is respectfully submitted that even if the Crown were to await the
outcome of the English cases it appears likely that the Post Office will
never commit to providing a witness to speak to the accuracy and
integrity of the Horizon system which is at the nucleus of the proof of
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
the Crown case. It is submitted that the insufficiency of evidence will
not be overcome and therefore in all of the circumstances the
recommendation is to take no proceedings in respect of the accused.
Charge:2
$327(1)(a) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
At present, apart from the money that the accused is alleged to have
embezzled from the Post Office, there is no indication that the other
money deposited into the Post Office £375,473, 91 (the difference
between the shortage and the total amount shown to have been
deposited in the Horizon System being £554,600- £179,126.09 was
criminal property and that it was his benefit from criminal conduct or
that he knew or suspected it came from criminal conduct. We do not
know what the source of the £373.473.91 is and although it looks highly
suspicious we have no idea if it came from criminal conduct.
In relation to a POCA charge in relation to the £179,126.09 again there
is a insufficiency of evidence due to the evidential difficulties with the
Horizon system as the Crown would be looking to lead evidence of the
information from the Horizon system in order to prove that the money
was criminal property.
Recommendations
It is submitted that there is an insufficiency of evidence to proceed
against the accused for the crime of Embezzlement given the issue
surrounding the accuracy of the Horizon system and the present
position of the Post Office concerning the prosecution of Post Office
cases.
Given the fact that the Post Office are unable to provide an expert
witness who can speak authoritatively on the accuracy of their
accountancy system a prosecution cannot be achieved and it is unlikely
that even after the English review the Post Office will be able to counter
the attack to the integrity of their system given they are in the process
of replacing said system with another product.
I would therefore respectfully recommend that no proceedings in
respect of the accused proceedings are taken.
Recommendations
Precognoscer’s recommendations
Pre Petition Report
COPF0000177
COPF0000177
No Pro- Insufficient evidence
Counter signatory Comments
Edit statement below as required
The content, in particular the analysis and recommendation, has been
discussed and agreed with the depute
Anne E Sweeney 04.11.16