POL00044807
POL00044807
IN THE CROWN COURT AT
WORCESTER
THE QUEEN
v.
JULIAN WILSON
ADVICE
Jarnail Singh,
Royal Mail Group Limited
Legal Services,
3" Floor,
6a Eccleston Street,
Victoria,
London
SW1W 9LT
IN THE CROWN COURT AT WORCESTER
THE QUEEN
vy.
JULIAN WILSON
ADVICE
1. This is not a straightforward case because of the difficulties in establishing theft and
the fact that the charges of false accounting do not necessarily result in the claim to
the full loss. Having discussed the case with Juliet McFarlane of instructing
solicitors, I have drafted an indictment the counts of which in my view are made out
on the evidence and admissions which have been served, which enables a proper
claim to be made for the full sum of £27,811 odd but also satisfies the criminal
lifestyle condition set out in s.75(2)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for the
purposes of pursuing confiscation.
2. Ihave prepared a draft Case Summary for consideration and service on the defence
and the Court.
3. Ihave also drafted a hearsay application which needs to be signed and served upon.
both the defence and the Court. Needless to say some parts of the application await
the evidence set out below but the first application should be served at this stage.
4. The following additional evidence should be obtained and served on receipt under
cover of a Notice of Additional Evidence:
> a) the trading statement for 11 July 2008 to 15 August 2008, exhibited I assume by
Mr Gary Thomas;
b) any final cash account statements submitted by Mr Wilson during the indictment
period or any digital records of the returns made during 2004, 2005 or 2006
POL00044807
POL00044807
ud
a
c)
d)
identifying the creation of the deficiency of £13,000 odd as at April 2007 which
may be exhibited by any individuals who have access to them. Such documents
should out of caution have the benefit of a certificate under s.117(2) and (5)(b) of
the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to reflect the fact that the figures was hearsay and
derived from entries submitted by staff other than Mr Wilson at the Astwood
Bank Post Office.
A further statement from Mr Patrick should:
i) explain the source of the £696.27 figure which appears on the first page of
DP/01;
ii) give a certificate under s.117(2) and (5)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to
reflect the fact that the audit figure was hearsay and derived from entries
submitted by staff other than Mr Wilson at the Astwood Bank Post Office.
iii) exhibit the original horizon document which gives such breakdown as results
in the £27,811 figure;
iv) state that at all material times the computer was working appropriately and
that there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information received; and
Vv) state whether in his experience there are any issues as to the accuracy of the
information produced from the Horizon software package.
A further statement from Glen Chester giving any signature by the defendant of
the sub-postmasters’ contract and receipt of the relevant terms and conditions.
. Dependent upon what occurs at PCMH it may be necessary to obtain statements
from:
a)
b)
Paul Vantoosy and Keith Bridges, which may not be served, as to his history with
the Defendant and the allegedly exculpatory information provided to him.
Donna Evans, which may not be served, as to her history with the Defendant and
any alleged requests about Horizon and how they were handled.
If a transcript rather than a summary of the police interview was in fact created first, I
would be grateful to see it, in particular the exchange at 26.20 on the second tape
(E38) which related to admission to dishonesty.
POL00044807
POL00044807
be
7.
POL00044807
POL00044807
us
-
In their letter dated 14 May 2009, Mr Canlin of the Defendant’s solicitors apparently
seeks information as to the number and location of other Royal Mail prosecutions.
The legal obligation to provide any such information is limited in my view to the
request satisfying the prosecution’s continuing duty to disclose namely that the
material might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the
prosecution against the defendant or of assisting the case for the accused. I
personally am not aware that Horizon has been found to be faulty in any respects but I
would be grateful to have this point clarified. It is conceivable that other cases may
have sought to take this point but I am not aware of this. If there are no issues about
the system then of course a firm line can be taken. If there is material which is
potentially disclosable then I am of course happy to advise. I assume also that no
defence statement has yet been received. It may be on the other hand that the
defendant’s solicitors are hoping to launch a marketing drive to all Royal Mail
defendants.
Should those instructing me wish to discuss any aspect of this further, they should not
hesitate to telephone me in Chambers from I June.
Anthony Vines
Civitas Law,
Global Reach,
Celtic Gateway,
Cardiff
22 May 2009