ROYAL MAIL GROUP (POST OFFICE LTD) ~- CASE REVIEW
R. v Jacqueline McDonald
Preston Magistrates Court and Preston Crown Court
This advice is based on the contents of the green investigation file. I have not had
sight of the buff prosecution file. The correspondence and papers contained in
the green file, whilst incomplete, are, in my view, sufficient for the purposes of
this review.
Offence and Case history
1. On 12" April 2010 at Preston Crown Court, this defendant pleaded guilty to
six counts of False Accounting, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Act
1968. She pleaded guilty to a count of Theft of £94,380.69, contrary to section
1 of the Theft Act 1968, on 8" November 2010, the day that the matter was
listed for trial. On 21 January 2010 she was sentenced to 18 months
imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. .
2. Ms McDonald first appeared at Preston Magistrates Court on the 4" April
2009. The case was adjourned to 24" February 2009 and on that date the
defendant gave no indication of plea. The case was adjourned to the 15" April
2009 on which date it was committed to Preston Crown Court.
3. The PCMH was listed on the 2 June 2009 on which date the defendant
pleaded not guilty to all counts and the case was fixed for trial on 9”
December 2009. On 27" November 2009 the matter was listed by the defence
for a “Goodyear” indication. The defence decided not to apply for the
“Goodyear” indication but applied for the fixture to be broken which
application succeeded and the matter was refixed for 12" April 2010. The
defence indicated that they were interested in pleading to false accounting but
POL00006579
POL00006579
POL00006579
POL00006579
not to the count of theft. This was offered in writing by letter dated 30”
November 2009. The Crown still wished to pursue the theft allegation. On the
12" November 2010 the defendant pleaded guilty to false accounting and the
case was refixed for for the defence expert to report. On that date the
defendant pleaded to thefi, on 21“ January 2011 the defendant was sentenced
as above.
Prosecution case
4. The defendant, Jacqueline McDonald, was during the relevant period,
4/11/2007 — 01/10/2008, a sub postmaster at Broughton Sub Post Office.
5. On 1* October 2008 a business development manager attended the sub post
office to check the overnight cash holdings. The Horizon system indicated that
about £100,000 was due to be returned to the cash centre and a collection
could be made that day. Ms McDonald was asked to produce the cash, She
produced £17,000. She was asked for the rest of it and replied, “What do you
mean.”
6. An audit took place at Broughton Sub Post Office the same day...
7. On the date of the audit the auditor found a total shortage of £93,947.93 made
up as follows:
© —£85,505.38 (-) identified as a difference in cash figures
© = £1,673.49 (-) identified as a difference in cheque on hand figures
© ©£6,524.24 (-) identified as a difference in stock figures
© £244.82 (-) identified as a difference in foreign currency figures
£93,947.93 (-) Total shortage on the day
© £432.76 (-) Outstanding debt
8. Ms McDonald, in her interviews, conducted under the provisions of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice on 23
October 2009, said that:
She had taken over the sub post office in December 2006. It had closed
in July 2007 for refurbishment. The office reopened in November
2007. She had had no problems with balancing until that stage.
She had an issue ordering Euros where the system said that the office
already had a supply.
She did the balancing along with an assistant, Katie Noblett.
She physically counted the cash at least three times a week.
She was happy that she knew how to run the post office correctly. If
she didn’t she would call the helpline.
If she was over her balance it would go in the suspense account. She
would not take the cash.
She had a problem with €2000 showing in the suspense file and
eventually had to repay the money.
Her balancing had been disastrous since November the previous year.
She reported it to the helpline.
She had not taken any of the money.
By the time of the audit the cash declarations had been off for a long
time.
She did not think that the money was missing but “T think that what it
is it has been sent back and it has been done wrong in the Horizon
system,
She was first aware that the cash was short about 2 months prior to the
audit.
The discrepancy was about £10,000.
She then said that her problems started in March,
The stock difference was due to a problem with the lottery scratch
cards.
She may have entered them in twice.
She does not know where the stamps or the Euros were.
The last correct cash declaration was in March 2008.
POL00006579
POL00006579
POL00006579
POL00006579
~- She had had no support from Horizon about the lottery problems and
had had to pay the money back.
~ She had no idea of the amount that she would be short when the
auditors came.
~ She had not stolen the money,
= She knew that it was wrong to falsify accounts.
Defence case
9. In interview the defendant denies taking POL money but admits that she
entered false amounts into the Horizon system to cover losses that she could
not explain.
10. The defendant raised the reliability of the Horizon system in interview and the
defence commissioned an expert to investigate this case
11. The guilty plea to theft was only entered on the day of trial.
Discussion
12. This case was dealt with by way of a guilty plea at the eleventh hour on the
day of trial. Until that time the matter looked like an effective trial — at least
two trial dates were vacated for an expert to report.
13. In this case there was a direct attack on the figures produced from the audit, a
direct challenge to Horizon and criticism made in interview of the help
available. These are all issues dealt with in the Second Sight Interim Report
and it is my view that had we been possessed of that report during the course
of this case we would have made the defence aware of its contents.
14. This defendant may well be hard put to found an appeal against either
conviction or sentence in this case as she admitted submitting false figures in
interview and by ber guilly plea has admit(cd the theft of £94,380.69. A guilty
POL00006579
POL00006579
plea is deemed to be a complete admission to the facts alleged in the
indictment. The sentence is hardly manifestly excessive for this type of case.
15. Nonetheless where a defendant pleads guilty as late in the day as this one,
there is sometimes a concern that the plea was tendered in a spirit of
pragmatism rather than an acceptance of guilt and such a plea might not have
been tendered in this case had the defence had material upon which they could
have mounted an attack on the Prosecution’s figures. It is my view that we
should disclose the Second Sight Interim Report to those who were acting for
Ms McDonald in order that they can consider and advise upon her options.
Conclusion
16. This is a case in which, had we been possessed of the material at the relevant
time, we would have disclosed to the defence the matters identified in the
Second Sight Interim Report during the trial process. It is my view that we are
still under a duty to make those instructed by Ms McDonald aware of the
contents of that Report and they should be written to accordingly.
Harry Bowyer 29" April 2014
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors