POL00026567
POL00026567
IN THE NEWCASTLE MAGISTRATES COURT
REGINA
-v-
KIM ELIZABETH WYLIE
1. This defendant is accused of stealing some £38,000 from Winlaton Post Office
where she was sub postmistress. The facts are set out in my initial advice of 28th
October 2010. In interview she attempted to blame the shortfall on the Horizon
accounting system. In my early advice I advised that we would need to prove the
integrity of the Horizon system as there was apocryphal evidence on the internet
and elsewhere that the system was leading to injustice.
2. The position of Post Office Ltd has, up until now, always been robust. When the
system has been challenged in the criminal courts the system has always been
successfully defended. I understand that the Post Office has announced that it has
appointed independent forensic accountants, 2nd Sight Ltd, to conduct an
independent review of 10 cases based on the Horizon System. Whether this
announcement was well considered or not is not an area that I intend to address but
the bell cannot be unrung and there will be consequences that will have to be dealt
with.
3. The first consequence is that we have now given ammunition to those attempting to
discredit the Horizon system. The argument will be that there is no smoke without
fire and we would not have needed to audit a bomb proof system. We can expect
this to go viral in that any competent defence solicitor advising in a case such as
POL00026567
POL00026567
this will raise the integrity of the Horizon system and put us to proof as to its
integrity. As all of our cases depend on the system to compute the alleged losses
this is likely to affect a considerable percentage of our cases.
The extra evidence which we will be obliged to gather will be as nothing in
comparison to the potential disclosure problems that we may face. Until the 2nd
Sight investigation is concluded we will be in a limbo. It is essential that this
enquiry is completed as soon as possible and we can live by its findings. We will
have to find out when this enquiry will report in order that we can choose our
strategy. If it is a matter of weeks then cases can be put over until after it reports. If
we are talking months then the courts will not wear such delays.
Tassume that we still contend that the system is fool proof in which case we should
defend it aggressively. I understand that the manufacturers have not been helpful
up until now. My understanding is that they will not provide expert evidence
without large fees being sought. This will not do. If the integrity of the system is
compromised then the consequences will be catastrophic for all of us including
them. The financial consequences of convictions and confiscation orders being
overturned and confidence in the Post Office book keeping being restored for
future prosecutions will be astronomical. They should be made to understand that
this is a firefighting situation and its not just our house that would be burned down
if the system were compromised.
In my view we should attend to the following:
(0) We should identify the contested cases, civil and criminal, in which the
Horizon system has been challenged. We should identify the areas of
challenge and how we neutralised them. Any expert reports should be
POL00026567
POL00026567
retained for evaluation. An expert should be identified and instructed to
prepare a generic statement which confirms the integrity of the system and
why the attacks so far have been unfounded. This expert should be deployed
in all cases where the Horizon system is challenged and he should be
prepared to be called to reply to defence experts on a case by case basis.
(ii) I The material gathered should be monitored and added to ona case by case
basis for disclosure. It would be sensible to have a nominated individual in
charge to whom the case officers can come. There is little point in weaving a
web without having a spider in it.
(iii) I We should ascertain why we have decided to instruct 2nd sight Ltd. I
presume that it was not because of any doubt that we had in our system. If
so we should be robust in stating that that is so. I presume our thinking was
that as we have nothing to hide we have no objection to our practices being
scrutinised in which case we should say so.
7. Ican appreciate that the above might be expensive but it will be as nothing should
the integrity of the Horizon system be compromised.
8. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of further assistance.
11th July 2012
H. M.M. Bowyer
Cartwright King