POL00021272
POL00021272
ROYAL MAIL GROUP (POST OFFICE LTD) —- CASE REVIEW
R.
v
NICHOLAS JOHN MACKRILL & AMANDA JANE MACKRILL
York Crown Court
PRE HORIZON ON LINE CASE
Offence
1. On the 11" August 2011 both of these defendants were sentenced, at York
Crown Court, to a 12 month Community Order with 100 hours unpaid work.
Nicholas Mackrill had pleaded to a count of theft. The Count alleged theft of
£57,000 but Mr Mackrill’s basis of plea is on the basis that “I do not accept
that I took much more than £10,000 as much of what I took I paid back.”
Whether this means that he took £10,000 and paid much of it back or he took
more and the difference between what he took and what he paid back was
about £10,000 is, for these purposes probably academic.
2. Amanda Mackrill pleaded guilty to False accounting and stood her trial on the
theft count where she was acquitted by a Jury.
Case history
3. This case first appeared on the 26" March 2010 at the Harrogate Magistrates
Court and was committed on 14" May 2010.The case was next listed on 2°
August 2010 for PCMH at York Crown Court when Nicholas Mackrill
pleaded guilty and Amanda was adjourned for trial. After a number of
adjournments the trial took place on 11" July 2010 and the Jury returned a not
guilty verdict after a majority direction on 14" July 2010. The case was
adjourned to the 11" August 2010 where the defendants were dealt with as
above.
POL00021272
POL00021272
Prosecution case
4. The defendant, Amanda Mackrill was during the relevant period the sub
postmaster at the Bondgate Sub Post Office, Ripon. She ran the Post Office for
2% years prior to being suspended on the 7" November 2008. Her husband ran
the retail side of the business.
5. On7" November 2008 auditors attended the Bondgate Sub Post Office
6. On the date of the audit, 7" November 2008, the auditor found a total shortage
of £56,967.38 made up as follows:
© £54,680.49 (-) identified as a difference in cash figures
e £100.91 (+) identified as a difference in stock figures
e £3,920.94 (+) identified as a difference in Foreign currency figures.
e £6,308.74 (-) Outstanding transaction corrections not processed
© Total £56,967.38
7. During the audit it became apparent that the branch had two cash declarations
in the system. The first, £210,135.28 had been made the previous afternoon.
The second, £32,375.01 had been made on the 29" October 2008.
8. The defendant, when told of the deficit told the auditors that she was shocked
as she expected the shortage to be in the region of £10,000.
9. In Amanda Mackrill’s interviews, conducted under the provisions of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice, on
the 3 December 2008, the defendant said:
— She was subpostmistress at Bondgate subpostoffice and she had
assistants.
— She performed the accounting work at the branch.
— She ran the subpostoffice and her husband ran the private side shop.
— They bought the Post Office some 2% years before.
She thought that the audit would have found her about £10,000 short as
she had been suffering losses and covering them in the accounts.
She thought that the losses came from allowing customers postage
credit facilities and not accounting for this over a number of
accounting periods.
She was also concerned over staff mistakes.
She had mistakenly declared £32,000 of her cash under a different user
but this amount had disappeared from the system and she had not seen
it until the auditors bought it to her attention.
She counted the cash prior to the production of the last Branch trading
Statement and other than the £9,000 all of the cash was there. The
remaining £45,000 must have gone missing over the previous 9 days.
The private side of the business had been in trouble over the past two
years. She was unaware that her husband had presented cheques that
were in danger of bouncing.
She denied theft of money but admitted false accounting since the
previous March
10. In Nicholas Mackrill’s interviews, conducted under the provisions of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice, on
the 11" May 2010, the defendant said:
He worked occasionally in the Post Office
He had nothing to do with the accounting side
He admitted taking Post Office money if he was short. He would pay it
back the same day
He had done this on half a dozen occasions.
He did this as the shop was struggling.
They took Post Office money in the safe at the weekend to finance
their social lives.
11. The Nicholas Mackrill returned for interview on 17" May 2010. He said that:
He hadn’t told the whole truth and he had been taking money from the
Post Office but not to the tune of £56,000
POL00021272
POL00021272
POL00021272
POL00021272
— He first took money in March/April 2008 and took money every
Thursday.
— He spent about £8,000 at the cash and carry.
— £4000 is the largest amount that he took.
— Very little of it would have been paid back
— His wife knew nothing of his thefts.
Defence case
12. In interview the Nicholas Mackrill admits theft of Post Office money and
Amanda Mackrill admitted false accounting to cover up the losses.
Discussion
13. This is a pre Horizon on Line case. The Second Sight Interim Report deals
largely with Horizon on Line. We have nothing to disclose that directly relates
to the pre Horizon on line cases.
14. In this case Amanda Mackrill was acquitted after a trial on the theft count and
was sentenced on the false accounting based on her own admissions in
interview.
15. Had we been in possession of the Second Sight Interim Report during the trial
process of Mrs Mackrill I have little doubt that we would have served it as in
most cases where the matter in dispute involve “unexplained” discrepancies
on the Horizon system.
16. Before her trial she admitted false accounting and was sentenced on that
admission and her admissions in interview. The Horizon issues would not
have been disclosable in relation to the False Accounting Count and the issue
of retrospective disclosure does not, in my view, arise in her case in view of
her acquittal on the one count where it might have been relevant.
17. Nicholas Mackrill pleaded guilty to theft on a written basis of plea which
amounted to rather less than he appears to have admitted in interview. Again
there are no reasons to make disclosure in his case as be was sentenced on his
own version of events.
Conclusion
18. This is a case in which, had we been possessed of the Second Sight Interim
Report during the trial process my view is that we would have had to have
disclosed it to Mrs Mackrill during the disclosure process in her trial. As she
was acquitted of the Count upon which she was tried and sentenced upon her
own admissions it is my view that we need take no further action upon this
file.
Harry Bowyer 22"" November 2013
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors
POL00021272
POL00021272