POL00021207
POL00021207
ROYAL MAIL GROUP (POST OFFICE LTD) —- CASE REVIEW
R. v Gillian Howard
Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Bradford Crown Court
Offence and Case history
1. On 26" April 2011 at Bradford Crown Court, this defendant pleaded guilty, on
a basis, to one count of Fraud, contrary to section I of the Fraud Act 2006. On
26" May 2011 she was sentenced to a 6 month community order 6 month
supervision requirement...
2. Ms Howard first appeared at Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court on the 5"
October 2010. There were several adjournments before the was committed to
Bradford Crown Court on 9" March 2011. The PCMH before the Bradford
Crown Court was listed on the 26" April 2011.
3. The defendant’s solicitors contacted the RMG by letter of 7 April 2011 to
offer a guilty plea on a basis to false accounting. They enclosed a basis of
plea. The offer was later changed to a plea to Fraud on the same basis.
4. The basis of plea was that:
i.
On the 14" November 2002 the defendant’s husband,
1 GRO I took over the Post Offi
defendant worked f¢ GI
Up until the 28" June 2008} GRO i managed the Sub
Post Office. On that date he had
RO and was incapable of
work.
POL00021207
POL00021207
iii, I From the 28" June 2008 until an audit on the 27 May 2010 the
defendant attempted to manage the Sub Post Office.
iv. One of her duties was to prepare a branch trading account on a
4 week cycle.
v. The defendant was unable to manage the Post Office. The
defendant falsified the branch trading account and on several
occasions in order to balance the total assets of the Post Office
with the assets seemingly represented on the Horizon system
(sic).
vi. I The defendant made no financial or material gain from her false
presentation of the branch account during this period.
5. The PCMH was listed on the 26" April 2011 on which date the defendant
pleaded guilty on the basis offered in the letter of 7 April 2011 and the case
was adjourned for a Pre Sentence Report to the 26" May where it was
sentenced as above.
Prosecution case
6. The defendant, Gillian Howard, was during the relevant period, 1/6/2008 —
28/05/2010, married to the sub postmaster at New Mill Sub Post Office,
Holmfirth. She was effectively managing the branch as her husband, } GRO J
: the 28" June 2008.
7. On 27" May 2010 an audit took place at New Mill, Sub Post Office prompted
by concerns at the overnight cash holding figures.
8. Upon the arrival of the auditors Mrs. Howard left hurriedly stating that she had
which she had not mentioned to her family as she did
telephoned in due course to say that she had been}
In due course, after the auditing team had contacted the family she returned
and gave the keys to the auditors so that they might secure the Post Office for
an audit the following day. Mrs Howard told the auditor that, “I need to come
clean, the money isn’t there.” She was asked how much money and what had
happened to it and she replied that se did not know how much and it was due
to being unable to cope with Horizon on Line and also employing extra help in
the shop to keep the business going.
On the date of the audit, 28"" May 2010 the auditor found a total shortage of
£45,850.05 made up as follows:
e £45,846.29 (-) identified as a difference in cash figures
e £1.21 (-) identified as a difference in stock figures
e £2.55 (-) identified as a difference in foreign currency figures
. Mrs. Howard was approached at her home address and told that the
investigator would like to arrange a PACE interview. She was told of her
tights. She produced a typed statement and an article from “The Grocer”
magazine relating to “glitches” in the Horizon system. The note also
complained of lack of support from POL and says that a series of errors were
made. The inference is that she was not properly trained for the
responsibilities that she took on.
. Mrs Howard, in her interviews, conducted under the provisions of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice, on the 8"
June 2010 said that:
— She read out her prepared statement
— She had not taken any money
— She used to help her husband with the cashing up
~— She had experience problems from 2008 after her husband was
— She employed 2 staff, Julie Whitely and Gwyneth Francis. Ms Francis
only assisted with the retail
— When her husband wag
the outset. She was never sure that she was completing the monthly
he struggled to balance the accounts from
POL00021207
POL00021207
POL00021207
POL00021207
balance correctly and simply put in the figures that Horizon displayed
to balance.
— She was aware that the figures that she was entering were inflated and
that the losses were increasing.
— To hide the mounting shortages she began to suppress business
deposits from a local bus company. She believed that she was misusing
the bus company’s funds not POL’s.
— The owner of the bus company died and the new owner took the
business elsewhere and she could no longer use the funds to cover the
losses.
— User names and passwords were kept openly on a clip in the secure
area.
— She felt that Mrs Whitely had been taking advantage of her by
borrowing money to pay bills and taking stock from the shop without
paying for it.
— She felt it was a possibility that Mrs Whitley might be responsible for
the losses
~ She was concerned about Mrs. Whitely’s sons visiting the shop to
borrow money.
— She had a less than a week’s notice that the transfer to Horizon on Line
was to occur and was aware that they would be counting her cash. She
may have put in some personal money to make sure that it balanced.
— She thought that the loss would be around £40,000 but was surprised
that it was almost £46,000.
— She allowed postage on credit to some customers
— She was aware that what she was doing was dishonest and had not
financially benefitted from any of the missing money.
Defence case
12. In interview the defendant denies taking POL money but admits that she
inflated the cash figure to cover the discrepancies that had occurred over two
years.
Other Considerations
13. It became apparent (email from Helen Dickinson dated 10° February 2011)
after Mr and Mrs Howard were suspended that those who ran New Mill Post
Office continued to employ Mrs. Whitely and also took on one of her sons.
The Post Office continued to suffer small unexplained losses including cash
being taken from a charity box in the secure area. It transpired that Mrs
Whitely had a key to the secure area that the new management were unaware
of and Mrs. Whitely’s son has I
14. The email has endorsed in biro, “to keep under review J”
15. It does not immediately appear from the prosecution buff file that these
matters were disclosed to the defence.
16. There is a green post it note attached to an email of 5" April 2011 which
reads, “Juliet, I have scrapped the sensitive unused items. I could not
remember wether (sic) I had included HD15 — obviously I had. Helen”
17.1 have made enquiries with the Officer in the case, Helen Dickinson, and
received copies by email of the sensitive and non sensitive unused schedules.
The OIC states that the post it note does not refer to the destruction of any
material or information but the scrapping of old schedules and replacing with
new. Having had dealings with Ms Dickinson I have no doubt that she would
have approached this matter in a thoroughly professional and efficient manner
and do not doubt the integrity of the schedules and exhibits in this case.
18. At item 17 on the non sensitive unused schedule, dated 4" April 2011, served
on the defence by letter on the defence on 11" April 2011 there is an entry that
reads, “Email from Newrose Personnel regarding incident at New Mill.” This
POL00021207
POL00021207
POL00021207
POL00021207
Discussion
The Second Sight Interim Report
19. This case was dealt with by way of a guilty plea to Fraud at the PCMH
hearing. That guilty plea was indicated by letter before the hearing as was the
basis of plea.
20. The Defendant in interview admitted a course of fraudulent conduct over a
period of two years. She delayed deposits to make it seem that the Post Office
had cash that it didn’t and introduced her own money into the system so that
the cash would balance when the system transferred to Horizon on Line in
March 2010. She had been entering false figures into Horizon for the whole
period. She knew that what she was doing was dishonest.
2
. The Crown did not invite the court to make any finding adverse to her basis of
plea on sentence that she had “made no financial or material gain from her
false presentation of the branch account during this period,” which was a
generous approach bearing in mind that the defendant, at the very least,
managed to postpone the reckoning for a loss for which she/her husband were
contractually liable and drew remuneration from the business during that
period.
22. The defendant’s solicitors offered the plea before the PCMH and the basis
upon which it was tendered. It is doubtful that had we been in possession of
the Second Sight Interim Report at this stage we would have made disclosure.
It is my view that the defendant could not be assisted in any appeal against
either conviction or sentence should we make such disclosure at this stage.
Subsequent Losses at the Branch
23. More worrying in this case is the fact that we did not specifically disclose the
fact that losses continued after the Mrs. Howard and her husband had been
POL00021207
POL00021207
suspended. This was plainly disclosable both as initial and on going disclosure
as it could undermine any suggestion that Mrs. Howard had taken the cash
herself and might support any positive suggestion that it was another who was
responsible for the losses.
24. The fact that we have left a cryptic reference on a disclosure schedule that the
defence could have chased, were they sufficiently switched on, is not
sufficient. Our duties under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act
1996 oblige us to disclose such information - not leave clues as to where it
might be found.
25. If this had been a case where we had charged theft or opened the Fraud on the
basis that the defendant had had the money we would have been obliged to
have made disclosure of these matters now and would have been in for a very
unpleasant time in the Court of Appeal. As it is I have seen the transcript of
the sentencing hearing in this case and it is plain that the Crown did not invite
the Judge to stray from the basis of plea. The Judge indicated that he would
follow the recommendation of the Pre Sentence Report and defence counsel
did not even mitigate.
26. It is my view that there could not possibly be an appeal against conviction
based on the disclosure of the subsequent losses in the Post Office bearing in
mind the admissions in interview and the basis of plea. Neither would an
appeal against sentence have any mileage as the sentence of a 6 month
community order with a 6 month supervision requirement is absurdly lenient
for the level of fraud committed.
Conclusion
27. This is an extremely worrying case. It is only through good fortune, sensible
prosecution counsel and a sympathetic Judge that we are not going to have to
disclose material which would cause POL a great deal of embarrassment.
POL00021207
POL00021207
28. This case raises a training issue which POL needs to address namely:
Disclosure — There should be proper decision making and that should be
documented. It is not sufficient to biro in on the correspondence clip “to
keep under review.” The decision not to disclose this material was wrong
and we do not have any idea of the thought processes that led to the
decision.
29. The correct course would have been to have written to the defence with
the facts contained in the Helen Dickinson’s email of the 10‘ of February
2011.
30. Notwithstanding these worries I do not consider that there are any issues in
this case that warrant any further disclosure either of issues contained in the
Second Sight Interim Report or the matters dealt with in paragraphs 22-25
above.
Harry Bowyer 26'" June 2014
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors