POL00030659
POL00030659
POST OFFICE INTERNAL PROSECUTION POLICY (DISHONESTY)
1. Purpose
This paper proposes a rationale for a Post Office prosecution policy as it applies to
its own employees and agents. It has been endorsed by the Group Security
Committee which includes security representatives from all businesses and the
Legal Services Dept. Within Royal Mail, Directors Personnel Network has also
endorsed it and it is now submitted to become Post Office policy.
2. Current Policy
There is no single statement of current policy but it can be summed up as normally
to prosecute all breaches of the criminal law by employees which affect the Post
Office and which involve dishonesty. However, there are exceptions as follows.
i. Minor instances of wilful delay, ie a small number of items for less than 24
hours
ii. Relatively minor, out of character actions by long serving employees of good
reputation committed during periods of intense personal stress
iii. Relatively minor cases which would expose the Post Office to embarrassing
public criticism
iv. Cases where Legal Services Dept. advise that the prosecution is unlikely to
succeed
Legal Services Department provide advice in each case as to whether or not a
prosecution is merited, taking account of the factors set out above.
3. The Case for Prosecution
The Post Office’s prosecution policy appears to have evolved over a considerable
period of time with little formal evaluation or review. Given that there is no formal
rationale, the principles underlying prosecution have been identified as follows.
To act as a deterrent.
To serve the public interest.
Neither of these can be accurately evaluated, although they cannot be disregarded
in a review of this nature. There can be no doubt that prosecution can be a
deterrent, but only if potential offenders believe that they will be caught. Equally, in
some instances, loss of a job might be seen as a greater deterrent than prosecution,
particularly if prosecution is not thought likely to lead to particularly serious
consequences (eg bound over or community service). Ultimately, individual mind
sets and circumstances are the key to prosecution having a deterrent effect.
POL00030659
POL00030659
In the area of prosecutions, serving the public interest is an even more nebulous
notion, although not one which can be disregarded. It is still the case that courts
take certain crimes by Post Office employees particularly seriously (eg theft of mail)
and judges and magistrates frequently comment on the responsibility that our
employees bear and the breach of trust that is created by theft. Although there is no
formal definition of, “the public interest’, it seems reasonable to assume that it
requires the prosecution of dishonest individuals of a criminal disposition.
4. The Case Against Prosecution
The case against prosecution is easier to quantify than the case for, although this
does not necessarily make it more valid. The negative side of prosecution can be
summarised as follows.
Costs
Adverse Publicity
Adverse IR consequences
Costs are incurred through the need to gather evidence to the standard required for
criminal prosecution, which is far higher than that required to achieve dismissal, the
need to retain or hire lawyers to effect prosecutions and the need for investigators to
attend court to give evidence.
In general terms, the publicity around crime in the Post Office, even if the report
concerns the successful apprehension of the offenders, represents adverse
publicity. While it might be argued that it is better to be seen to be doing something
about internal crime, the evidence indicates that most customers do not perceive it
as an issue until it is reported.
The adverse effect on IR is caused by what is frequently perceived as an over
vigorous reaction to issues such as wilful delay. Although rarely a flashpoint in itself,
it contributes to a background feeling of resentment.
5. Proposed Rationale for Prosecution
Work which has already been carried out into the profiling of internal offenders within
Royal Mail enables a rationale for prosecution to be constructed which can inform
POL00030659
POL00030659
policy development. In broad terms, offenders can be placed into one of three
categories as follows.
Criminal
Irresponsible
Irrational
The criminal category is involved in theft of mail for personal gain. They frequently
target instruments of payment such as credit cards, cheques etc and often have
links with external criminals who pay for and subsequently use the items stolen. The
most important factor with these people is that they are knowingly stealing and are
fully aware of the criminality of their activities.
The irresponsible category is usually involved in wilful delay and/or destruction of
mail. There is no intent to steal mail or to achieve material gain. The motivation can
best be described as idleness, compounded by a failiure to understand the
seriousness of their actions. These offenders are frequently characterised by their
youth and relatively short service. In many cases their actions would seem to
represent a continuation of poor behaviours carrying over from their schooling.
The irrational category are a minority and are characterised by longer service and
crimes which are frequently easily detected (eg opening mail on the premises and
leaving obvious debris). It is often the case that their offending is triggered by
traumatic events in their personal lives.
In order to provide a deterrent and to serve the public interest it is clearly necessary
to prosecute offenders in the criminal category. Their offences are motivated by
dishonesty and their offending takes the form of a calculated risk. It is entirely
appropriate to attempt to maximise the adverse consequences of their behaviour
and to attach a criminal record to them as they are, by any definition, criminals.
There would seem to be little point in attempting to prosecute offenders in the
irresponsible category. They do not appreciate the seriousness of their actions and
they are not motivated by dishonesty. Consequently, they are best dealt with via the
discipline code alone, although this should not prevent us from attempting to instil
responsibility into these employees before they offend, or from attempting to avoid
their recruitment in the first place. These both represent more appropriate
responses to the problem than prosecution.
Finally, there is little point in attempting to prosecute offenders in the irrational
category, as they are, by definition, unlikely to take a rational view of the deterrent
effect of prosecution. Once again, the discipline code is the appropriate vehicle for
dealing with this category of offender.
From the above, it is possible to formulate a prosecution policy as follows.
The Post Office’s policy is normally to prosecute those of its employees or
agents who commit acts of dishonesty against the Post Office for the purpose
POL00030659
POL00030659
of illegally acquiring Post Office property or assets, or the property or assets
of Post Office customers and clients while in Post Office custody, where this
is deemed to serve the public interest. Other wrongdoings will normally be
dealt with via the discipline code.
It should be noted that the use of the word normally allows discretion in the
application of this policy, including the non-prosecution of those in the irrational
category. In particular, it is the motivation of the offender which is important.
Consequently, in cases where theft is suspected to be the prime motive, but the
evidence only allows lesser charges such as wilful delay, opening or secretion,
prosecution will still follow.
6. The Prosecution Process
In order to streamline the process and to facilitate a consitent approach, it is
recommended that a single point within the Personnel Dept of each Business Unit
should make decisions on prosecutions, following advice from Legal Services Dept
as to the likelihood of success and the potential for embarrassment to be caused to
the Post Office.
7. Conclusion
The proposals in this paper have been formulated to support the Post Office’s core
competence as a trusted national agent. Personnel Strategy Steering Group are
invited to endorse them as Post Office POLICY.
ANDREW WILSON
December 1997