POL00044623 - Summary of facts prepared in accordance with Rule 21.3(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 - Post Office Limited v Susan Jane Rudkin

Evidence on official site

SUMMARY OF FACTS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 21.3(1)(b)
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2005

POST OFFICE LIMITED v SUSAN JANE RUDKIN

and was employed as a Post

The Defendant is 53 years of age (Date of Birth!
Office Assistant at Ibstock Post Office for a period of 7 years and 10 months prior to her

suspension from duty on the 20" August 2008.

On the 20" August 2008 Post Office Network Auditors visited Ibstock Post Office to conduct a
verification of assets audit, where they were admitted to the Office by Susan Jane Rudkin,
wife of the Postmaster who requested a private word with the Auditor Paul Field. She
informed him that the safe would be around £40,000 short.

As a result the Auditor contacted Post Office Limited Investigation Office with regard to the
audit deficiency. As a result Post Office Limited Investigation Officers attended the Ibstock

Post Office.

Enquiries confirmed that Michae! Rudkin had played no part in the running of the Post Office
for over a year and had left this to Susan Rudkin, his wife. The Office has three Horizon
terminals and employs five part-time staff and is situated within a newsagents and general
dealers in a rural village on the outskirts of Leicester. There is also a Sorting Office on the

premises which is a base for 14 postmen.

Post Office Limited Investigation Officers contacted Mr Rudkin who subsequently attended
the Post Office, where they were met by Mr Rudkin, where the Officers introduced themselves
to him, explained the nature of their enquiries. Post Office Limited Investigation Officers also
met Paul Field the Auditor wha handed to them a signed Admission Statement by Mrs Rudkin
and they were informed that the deficiency in the account was £43,856.89 which was mainly

due to the shortage in the cash of £43,761.17.

Mrs Rudkin was subsequently interviewed on tape under caution where she declined legal
representation and also a friend in line with Post Office Limited policy although her son was
allowed to sit in the interview as moral support. During interview she explained that her
husband was heavily involved in the National Federation of Subpostmasters which took him
away from the Business and she felt that the pressure of running the private business, the
Post Office and the household finances had got too much for her. She said that the

Post Office had been experiencing losses and she had been inflating the cash on hand to
cover it up. She also said that she had been taking cash from the Post Office and paying it
into their Lloyds Bank Business Account to cover bills. Although it was not possible to
establish an exact date when the theft started but she said that she had been under pressure

mcriminal work folders\singh jamail crm\260283 - rudkin\260283ai.doc

POL00044623
POL00044623
POL00044623
POL00044623

since the robbery at the Office in January 2006. She said that she felt embarrassed to tell her
husband about the situation and felt that she had let him down. When asked about the cash
declarations she said she kept her running total of the shortage and just added this amount
onto the daily figures. She was adamant that no one else knew what she was doing and on
the occasions that other staff members declared the cash she would overwrite the figures.
She admitted stealing the money from the Post Office and was not at present able to repay it.

In the event of conviction there will be an application for compensation of £43,856.89 and a

contribution towards prosecution costs and Investigation costs.

Documents enclosed herewith:-

Copy Summary of Tape Recorded Interview.
Copy Form GS001.

Copy Admission Statement.

Copy Record of Shortages in Account.
Copy Search Forms.

Copy Audit Reports.
Copy Summary of Weekly Balances and Cash Declaration on the 19"" August 2008.

OPNOnarA wD a

Copy Notebook Entry.

micriminal work folders\singh jarnail crm\260283 - rudkin\260283ei.doc