POL00052888
POL00052888
IN THE BIRMINGHAM CROWN COURT
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
Vv
TAHIR MAHMOOD
ADVICE ON EVIDENCE
Overview of Evidence
1. I have considered the prosecution evidence in this case. Essentially, an
audit of the post office took place on 30 April 2005 and shortages of
£33,437.39 were revealed. Mr Mahmood informed officers as the audit
was taking place that the shortages were likely to exist and be in the
region of £25,000. In interview, Mr Mahmood accepted falsifying the
horizon accounts by inflating the cash on hand figures and by not
actually counting the cash he had at the post office. He accepted that his
gain had been the fact that he had kept his job and not had to pay back
the losses. He told officers that he had been falsifying the accounts,
virtually on a weekly basis, since March 2003, when an earlier audit
took place, and losses had been identified. It was put to the Defendant
in interview, on the basis of the schedules produced by Mr Price, that
the inflation of the cash figure had only been a recent occurrence. This
was denied by Mr Mahmood.
POL00052888
POL00052888
Issues relating to Evidence and Further Evidence
2. A number of issues arise. 1 would be grateful if my instructing
solicitor/Mr Price could assist me.
a. I am unable to properly read DAE/O1 — the audit report. I am unable to
identify how the shortage figure of £33,000 is computed. This needs to
be addressed in a further statement from Deborah Edwards. I consider it
is something the Defence will raise, notwithstanding the fact that Mr
Mahmood agreed the shortage figure at the time of the audit.
b. In relation to the March 2003 Audit, it is unclear from the papers
whether the £40,000 was stolen in the armed robbery? If the loss was as
a result of Mr Mahmood’s accounting practices, why wasn’t he
prosecuted at that stage?
c. Mr Price produces a helpful schedule of the balances declared by Mr
Mahmood at the end of each accounting week. As I understand the
position, it is these balances which have been inflated. Is there any way
in which the horizon system can be interrogated to provide us with the
actual balances for those weeks? Having read Mr Price’s report, I
understand this is unlikely but could this be confirmed.
d. Where does Mr Price source the figures in his schedule from? In
previous cases for the Royal Mail, the horizon printouts have been
exhibited and Mr Price has completed a schedule using the original
information. Is it possible to exhibit the source material which allowed
Mr Price to draw up his schedule? Is this the documentation referred to
in the unused schedule?
POL00052888
POL00052888
e. Mr Mahmood says in interview (page 31 of the bundle) that a suspense
account was in operation after the audit in March 2003. Can this be
explained to me please.
f. Can the term “rems” be explained in a statement from a witness?
g. Does the lack of error notices imply that Mr Mahmood was a careful
postmaster who would not have been incurring these shortages (for
example by overpaying customers), without appropriating the cash for
himself? Does the same principle apply in relation to the surpluses
declared by Mr Mahmood and schedulised by Mr Price?
h. Have the officers analysed the Defendant’s bank accounts, given his
permission for access? If large amounts of unexplained monies entered
his account over the index period, a charge of theft might be
substantiated. I appreciate that the money could have been given to the
head of the household, as was explained in interview.
i. Why is the start of the indictment period 13 August 2003? Why does
Mr Price’s schedule commence on that date? Is there a specific reason
or was a period a few months beyond the last audit chosen?
j. I presume the entry Mr Mahmood made was on the computer, rather
than in his own hand. In those circumstances there does not appear to
be a need to refer to “a document” in the Indictment.
The Indictment
3. My instructing solicitor has formed the view that the indictment should
include counts of false accounting, rather than theft. Given the evidence, I
agree. I am not able to say that there would be a reasonable prospect of
conviction in relation to a charge of theft over the period. There is no
substantive evidence to suggest that Mr Mahmood was appropriating the
POL00052888
POL00052888
money that was found missing at the audit. We have no evidence from his
bank accounts. To some extent, the Crown is reliant on the Defendant’s
admissions in interview. Mr Mahmood accepts in interview that he falsified
the accounts, and that his gain was his not being detected and not having to
pay back the losses, as he was contractually obliged to do. My Instructing
Solicitor will be well aware of the dicta in R -v- Eden 55 Cr App R 193
where a gain could constitute “putting off the evil day of having to sort out
the muddle and pay up ...” He appears to admit his guilt as regards false
accounting. Further, he is adamant that he falsified the accounts during the
whole of the indictment period. Whilst Mr Price is cynical about this
assertion (he feels that there were a few bulk withdrawals) the explanation
given by Mr Mahmood is said to be possible. I have no substantive
evidence to the contrary. In the circumstances, I consider that the
indictment should remain as it is, save the inclusion of the words “for an
accounting purpose” — see attached indictment. Could my _ instructing
solicitor lodge a copy at court please? It will be made clear at the PCMH
that the indictment includes specimen counts and that the loss is £33,000.
Conclusions
4. My Instructing Solicitor will realise that the prosecution has to prove
dishonesty on the part of the Defendant —- R —v- Eden. There is a chance
that a jury form the view that he was “muddled” or “confused” and not
dishonest, notwithstanding his acceptance in interview that he falsified the
account and apparent agreement with the officers that he had been
dishonest.
POL00052888
POL00052888
I would be grateful if these queries could be addressed prior to the PCMH.
I would be happy to discuss the case with my instructing solicitor. If Mr
Price is due to attend on 17 November, I look forward to seeing him. A
short conference can be held on that day prior to the hearing.
If those instructing me wish to raise any matters regarding this case, they
must not hesitate to contact me in Chambers.
Richard Anthony Cole
8 November 2005
IN THE BIRMINGHAM CROWN COURT
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
Vv
TAHIR MAHMOOD
ADVICE ON EVIDENCE
Juliet McFarlane
Principal Lawyer
Criminal Law Division
Ref: CRM/249106/jMcF
POL00052888
POL00052888