CARTWRIGHT KING
BRIEFING NOTE
Branch Name: Ibstock SPO
SPMR Name: Mr Michael Rudkin
Case Number: Moos
1.
Prosecution Case
e The Applicant held the post of Subpostmaster at Ibstock Post Office from 25
October 2000 until his suspension on 20" August 2008 following an audit. The
Applicant was reinstated on 12 November 2008 until he was precautionary
suspended for a second time following another audit on 29 January 2010. The
Applicant’s contract for services was terminated by Post Office on 24 March 2010
with an effective date of 29 January 2010. .
2.
Court Proceedings
¢ Following the 20" August 2008 the applicant’s wife was charged with and pleaded
guilty to Theft
3.
Applicant’s Response to Mediation Scheme
The Applicant complains that:
e Horizon became “defective which caused errors”;
e Horizon could be accessed remotely by Post Office without his knowledge or
consent;
e he received inadequate training;
e the Network Business Support Centre (NBSC) failed to address issues raised; and
e audits were not conducted correctly.
4.
Analysis
e — Itis Post Office's firm belief that the major losses suffered by the Applicant were
caused by theft by his wife. Other very minor losses were likely to have been caused
by simple human error on the part of the Applicant or his assistants. There is no
evidence to support the Applicant’s assertions that there were failings with Horizon
which contributed to the losses at the branch.
e Unless this position is resiled from this case should not cause any problems with any
POL prosecutions past or pending.
POL00046579
POL00046579
5.
Dangers to Post Office Limited
This case did not result in a conviction for the SPMR but did for his wife.
If concessions are made that might render this conviction unsafe then the
Applicant’s wife may well be put in a position whereby she is able to appeal that
conviction.
Were such an appeal to succeed, then POL would be open to a claim for damages
and/or restitution of monies paid by this appellant under any confiscation order.
Such concessions would have to be disclosed to those with similar convictions. This
may well necessitate a review of many hundreds of cases to establish who else may
be entitled to such disclosure.
If concessions are made that might render the sentence imposed in this case
manifestly excessive then the Applicant might well be put in a position whereby she
might be able to appeal that sentence, with similar consequences for POL.
And again those concessions would have to be disclosed to those with similar
convictions, with similar consequences for POL.
This is not a case where any concessions can or should be made; to do so has the
potential to render her conviction by guilty plea unsafe, or her sentence as
manifestly excessive; and accordingly to invite an application to the Court of
Appeal.
Harry Bowyer 14" April 2014
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors.
POL00046579
POL00046579