POL00040038
POL00040038
POST OFFICE LTD — CASE REVIEW
R. v. DELLA LYNNE ROBINSON
Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court
Offence
. On the 18" January 2013 this defendant was sentenced to Community Order with a
requirement that she complete a total of 180 hours of Unpaid Work, for a single offence of
False Accounting. That charge alleged that between 1“ day of January 2011 and the 25"
day of January 2012 she had falsified Branch Trading Statements by making false entries so
as to disguise a shortage in cash of £17,587.86 at the Dukinfield Post Office.
Case history
. On the 23 May 2012 Della Lynne Robinson appeared before the Ashton-under-Lyme
Magistrates Court in answer to a summons alleging False Accounting. Her solicitor
indicated a Not Guilty plea on her behalf and the case was adjourned to the 11" July 2012
in order that the committal papers could be prepared.
. On 11" July 2012 the Defendant again attended at the Ashton-under-Lyme Magistrates
Court whereupon the magistrates deemed the case unsuitable for summary trial and
committed the matter to the Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street for trial. She was
granted unconditional bail to appear at a Pleas and Case Management Hearing at the
Crown Court on the 29" August 2012.
It is to be noted that at the Committal Hearing of the 11" July, counsel representing Ms
Robinson raised issues of disclosure and the reliability of Horizon Online. He said that he
was considering the possibility of advancing an application to stay the proceedings.
Counsel also indicated that he wished to acquire a better understanding of how the Horizon
system worked. Mr Smith, representing POL, said that arrangements might be made for
him to see and experience the system if the case was going to proceed to a trial however
matters were not pursued by defence counsel or his instructing solicitors.
Page L
5.
POL00040038
POL00040038
At the Pleas and Case Management Hearing Ms Robinson entered her Not Guilty plea and
the matter was listed for trial to commence on the 12" January 2013.
On the 12" January Ms Robinson changed her plea to one of Guilty — she did not enter any
Basis of Plea and so accepted the prosecution case against her in its entirety. On the 18"
January 2013 she was sentenced as noted in paragraph 1 above. Proceeds of Crime
proceedings were abandoned upon noting that Ms Robinson was devoid of realisable
assets.
Prosecution case
Ms Della Lynne Robinson was the sub postmaster of Dukinfield Post Office branch and had
been since January 2006. Two other members of staff worked at the office, as did Ms
Robinson’s partner.
On the 24 January 2012 members of the Post Office Security Team visited the office as
part of the Operation Torch. Upon arrival the team was informed by staff that they had
concerns related to the large amount of mutilated notes declared in the cash summary. A
check revealed a substantial discrepancy in cash holdings. An audit was conducted that
same day, during the course of which Ms Robinson told auditors that she knew of the cash
shortage and had declared the losses on Horizon on the unusable notes line. She said that
she had been hiding the shortages for about 12 months. The audit revealed a shortage of
£17,587.86 with £17,549.98 being a shortage in cash, the remainder being minor shortages
in stock and postage.
Ms Robinson was asked how the shortage had occurred: she replied:
“About 12 months ago I started to be aware that the office was losing
cash. At first I paid cheques/cash into the office to cover the losses. After a
while I realised I couldn’t keep doing this, but did not know what to do for
the best. I didn’t know why there were so many losses every month. So
when I declared the cash I added the shortfall onto the ‘muts’ (unusable
notes). I made a note of all the discrepancies on the cash declarations in
pencil.”
Page2
POL00040038
POL00040038
10.Ms Robinson was interviewed about these matters on the on 2" March 2012, the
interviews being conducted under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice. Ms Robinson declined the assistance of a solicitor
but had a Post Office ‘friend’ present. She told officers:
— The losses started about two years ago (i.e. March 2010). She and her
partner had made good those losses themselves. She had initially viewed
these losses as being the result of mistakes.
— She had stopped making good the losses around August or September 2010
because she could no longer afford to do so.
— She had never inflated the cash in hand but instead had asked her partner to
maintain a record of the shortages as she intended to pay them back. This
record was kept by declaring the amount on the mutilated notes line.
— She denied stealing money belonging to Post Office Limited. She said that
other members of staff may have been responsible: staff had made significant
errors and money had continued to go missing when a particular member of
staff was appointed. Matters got no better when a second staff member
joined. Ms Robinson suggested that those staff-members were aware that
she was falsely recording the figures; they had warned her that if the office
was audited she would be discovered and suspended. She trusted her staff
“~,.80%...” Ms Robinson suggested that one member of staff may have
stolen from the office to purchase a coat and two electrical items for her
home. She accused another staff-member of having “...a lavish life-style.”
— The shortages increased on a daily basis and escalated to about £6,000. She
did not know what to do to rectify the situation. She thought that there
were mistakes being made over the counter.
— She sought no advice about the shortages.
— She confirmed that she did the balance herself and had no help from her
partner or staff.
— Any member could complete the cash declarations. They knew each day
how much the discrepancy was.
— She accepted that she had falsified her accounts.
— She confirmed that cash declared as being carried forward on each branch
trading statement included previous losses that had not been made good.
Page
POL00040038
POL00040038
Defence case
11. As set out in interview: she had taken no money from POL but had deliberately falsified the
mutilated note line so as to achieve a balance. She could not explain the shortages but
suggested error or theft by staff.
12. A Defence Statement was served on the 29" August 2012 in answer to an allegation of
theft (not charged). I reproduce extracts from relevant passages here:
i. The defendant denies having any dishonest intention to make a gain for
herself or to cause a loss to another, specifically the Post Office. The
prosecution is put to proof.
ii. The evidence produced by the prosecution fails to show that the defendant
misappropriated any funds or otherwise received a benefit in any way other
than that which she was entitled.
iii. The prosecution have failed to identify what evidence they intend to
rely upon to prove ....dishonesty.
iv. The defendant maintains that errors or deficiencies in accounting or
record keeping were contributed to be the difficulty she experienced with
the Post Office online database, the Horizon system.(sic)
13. Notwithstanding the poor drafting of this Defence Statement, I regard the defendant to be
raising the integrity of Horizon Online as an issue.
Prosecution response to defence
14. No further disclosure appears to have been made in in response to the Defence Statement
beyond that already provided with the s.3 CPIA letter.
Discussion
Page4
1S.
POL00040038
POL00040038
Whilst in interview Ms Robinson admitted false accounting to hide unexplained losses,
upon having taken legal advice after interview she advanced a defence based upon her lack
of dishonesty to the charge of False Accounting. The Defence Statement made that stance
clear and suggested that “...errors or deficiencies in accounting or record keeping were
contributed to...” by Horizon. I therefore find Ms Robinson’s last-minute change of plea
somewhat surprising, particularly given that she advanced no Basis of Plea designed to
limit her criminal liability.
. Had the Second Sight Interim report been available at or before the date of the trial, I
advise that it would have fallen to be disclosed to the defence, on the basis that it might
have assisted her in advancing the defence set out in the Defence Statement, ie. no
dishonesty. Similarly I would have disclosed the Helen Rose Report. The fact that Ms
Robinson had initially made good losses reinforces me in this view, as does the proposition
that, had the defence seen the report they might then have decided to proceed with the trial.
I do not consider there to be any issues related to either training or support in this case: Ms
Robinson had been in-post for a little over four years when her first loss occurred
(according to her in interview).
Safety of Conviction
. It is not the purpose of this review, nor of the review process overall, to determine whether
or not any particular conviction is unsafe: that decision is reserved to the Court of Appeal
only. The purpose of this process is to identify those cases where the material contained
within the Second Sight Interim report would have met the test for disclosure as provided
in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the Code of Practice enacted
thereunder and the Attorney-General’s Guidelines on Disclosure, had that material been
known to Post Office Ltd. during the currency of the prosecution and accordingly would or
ought to have been disclosed to the defence.
. In this case I have no doubt that, had we known of those matters identified in the Second
Sight Interim report the and the Helen Rose report, both should and would have been
disclosed to the defence in accordance with our disclosure duties as prosecutors. For that
Page
POL00040038
POL00040038
reason alone we must inform those who represented the defendant and disclose to him both
reports.
20. I consider it quite likely that, upon receipt of this material, the defendant will seek the leave
of the Court of Appeal to appeal her conviction. Where a defendant seeks leave the Court
of Appeal will, often before the grant of any leave, invite the prosecution to comment upon
the application.
2
. Ladvise that, should we be so invited and/or should the defendant be granted the requisite
leave, we oppose the grant of leave and any substantive appeal, on the basis that the
conviction may properly be regarded as safe for, amongst other reasons, the following
matters:
— By her plea of guilty, without any Basis of Plea, Ms Robinson admits having
committed the offence, as she did in her PACE interview. I have no doubt that
she would have been advised that:
— By pleading guilty she was admitting guilt;
— She should only enter a guilty plea if she were truly guilty;
— She should not plead guilty if she was in fact not guilty;
— she should not plead guilty solely or mainly in order to achieve a lesser sentence
in circumstances where she was not guilty.
Conclusion
22. This is a case in which, had we been possessed of the material at the relevant time, we
should and would have disclosed to the defence the matters identified in the Second Sight
Interim report and the Helen Rose’s report.
23. Accordingly our duty is now to place the defence on notice of this fact and to serve on
them those documents. I advise that we comply with that duty in this case.
PageO
24.
25.
POL00040038
POL00040038
Should the defendant be granted leave to appeal against her conviction, we should oppose
the appeal.
I will draft a letter to the defence for Post Office Ltd’s approval and, in accordance with
your instructions to us, serve that letter and the reports on defence solicitors.
Simon Clarke 27" September
2013
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors
Page 7