In the Guildford Crown Court
Seema Misra
Third Request For Disclosure
This request for disclosure is made as a result of the order made by HHJ Critchlow on
01/02/10 at Guildford Crown Court. At the time of raising these requests the Defence
is not in receipt of all the documentation sought. Further requests may therefore be
made depending on the content of that documentation and to satisfactory answers
being given hereto.
Numbering follows that used by the Defence in the request dated 30/11/09 and
adopted by the Prosecution in their reply dated 27/01/10.
Contract
i)
2)
Training
))
2)
We acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Sub-Postmaster’s contract. This
appears to be a standard contract issued in 1999 with various pages having
been updated. Please provide proof that the Defendant was provided with a
contract in the exact form now served on us.
The Post Office case has always been that the Horizon system is robust
and does not have any problems. If there are sub-postmasters who have
had losses on the Horizon system, but have not been prosecuted for theft
and false accounting, this would tend to suggest an acceptance by the Post
Office that problems can exist, a situation which is borne out by the
immediate recognition of Callender Place, Falkirk by a Fujitsu analyst as
referred to in paragraph 23 of the Castleton judgment. This information
would, therefore, potentially undermine the prosecution case and/or assist
the defence case. Please comply with the request.
We asked for a copy of the training manual supplied to our client. We did
not ask for an appointment to inspect documents at West Byfleet. Please
comply with the request.
We did not ask for details of documents currently available in West
Byfleet. We asked for the date(s) on which the manual, or parts thereof,
were supplied to our client. Please comply with the request.
POL00054008
POL00054008
3)
4)
5)
6)
i)
We have been supplied with copies of 12 pages of training records served
with your response. These appear to be incomplete documents with gaps
appearing in the middle and wording on both sides being cut off. In light
of your response and the contents of Phil Taylor’s email of 29/01/10
confirming that there are no other training documents, please confirm that
you have complied with this request in full.
Noted.
Noted together with email response of 29/01/10. Michael Opebeyi’s ability
to recall that no issues were raised over cash or stock loss yet at the same
time not remembering the training given is a matter of evidence. Please
provide a witness statement from him to this effect.
a) We repeat our non-acceptance that the calls were of a routine
nature. We asked for a copy of the log of all the calls made
for a period from 6 months prior to our client taking over to
the present day — the additional time limit either side to allow
for comparison with calls made before and after our client’s
tenure as sub-postmistress. You have supplied us with a
Fujitsu employee’s overview of the calls made. Please
comply with the request.
b) The calls referred to in Andrew Dunk’s statement make
reference to issues with touch screens requiring recalibration,
problems with the network, printer and pin terminal and the
number of times the system requires re-booting. In light of
Dunk’s assertions that all the calls from West Byfleet are of a
routine nature, we assume similar calls are frequently
received from other Post Offices. Please confirm that this is
the case. If not, please provide an explanation as to why these
calls are deemed to be of a routine nature, which appears to
be the basis on which you have failed to date to provide us
with the call logs.
The wording of this answer would suggest that the word “it” is used to
refer to “identification of lost EPOSS transactions”.
a) Please confirm that the Post Office accepts that there are
circumstances in which EPOSS transactions can get lost.
b) We did not ask whether this subject was covered on the
course. We asked if there had been any training on the
subject and, if so, when it was provided to our client. Please
comply with the request.
c) Your answer to this question (“It is not covered on the course
so that people do not try to correct it themselves”) would
suggest that you do not wish sub post masters to receive
training in this area. In 2000 training was provided by way of
a disc which we have supplied to our Expert but has never
been seen by our client prior to these proceedings. Subsection
14 deals with a process for identifying lost EPOSS
transactions, the implication being that these transactions can
be lost due to equipment failure. Please explain why, not only
do you give the impression that no training has taken place
POL00054008
POL00054008
8)
%»
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
but, you have declined to inform us of the existence of this
training disc.
We repeat our answer to question 2 under the heading Contract above. The
Post Office case has always been that the Horizon system is robust and
does not have any problems. If there are sub-postmasters who have had
losses on the Horizon system but have not been prosecuted for theft and
false accounting this would tend to suggest an acceptance by the Post
Office that problems can exist which is borne out by the immediate
recognition of Callender Place, Falkirk as referred to in paragraph 23 of
the Castleton judgment. This information would therefore potentially
undermine the prosecution case and/or assist the defence case. Please
comply with the request.
We stand by our position. John Longman’s explanation should be placed
in a witness statement so that it can be dealt with in cross-examination.
We repeat the second half of this request. Given the investigator’s lack of
understanding of the system and his reliance on counter clerks who, by
your own view, can be of questionable quality, what back-up teams does
the Post Office have to ensure all reasonable explanations are considered
before a criminal investigation is commenced? Please comply with the
request.
a) As long ago as the first interim report from our expert, served
01/10/09, reference was made to the need to examine data
records. There has been a persistent failure to provide
responses to this issue, save to make reference to the amount
of work and cost involved. In an attempt to make progress on
this issue, we raised a separate request asking for details of
the cost and work involved in order to evaluate the situation.
Far from providing this information, you have simply
repeated the assertion that “we do not understand how your
expert will be assisted by being presented with a mountain of
data covering 5 years”. We did not ask for your opinion on
how any exercise in examining data would assist our Expert.
We asked you to provide details as to the work involved in
allowing our Expert to have access to the service logs and
why the cost is so high. Please comply with the request.
b) In view of that fact that the cost and work involved was an
issue raised by you, we assume you are aware of that which is
involved. Please explain why, having raised the issue, you
have not responded to our request.
We asked for details of the business testing carried out on Horizon not for
an adjective describing its quality. Please comply with the request.
The purpose behind this request was that in interview the Defendant was
told the loss exceeded £79000. However, by the time the incoming
temporary post master did an audit/check, it had reduced to a figure
exceeding £77000. Please explain the discrepancy.
POL00054008
POL00054008
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
a. Whilst it is interesting to know who completed the exchanges of
hardware, we did not ask for this information. We asked for details of
when and why changes took place at West Byfleet. Please comply
with the request.
. Noted
c. Bearing in mind queries raised herein with regard to issues relating to
touch screens, rebooting and network, printer and pin terminal and the
failure so far to allow examination of data records, this question
remains to be answered in full. Please comply with the request.
Substantial disclosure has been properly requested in relation to Highcliffe
Post Office supported by the service of a s9 statement. No information has
been supplied to date. Please comply with the request.
The response demonstrates the Post Office’s automatic assumption that
deficit’s are as a result of criminal offences. We are referring to not taking
any civil action under the contract in light of the post master having
allowed us access. Please reconsider the request to assist the Defence
with the preparation of their case.
“Noted” is not a proper response to this question. Please comply with the
request.
The comparison of the two answers given to this requests gives rise to the
assumption that there are matters to be disclosed in R v Hosi. Please
comply with the request.
We repeat the comments made above. The Post Office case has always
been that the Horizon system is robust and does not have any problems. If
there are sub-postmasters who have had losses on the Horizon system but
have not been prosecuted for theft and false accounting this would tend to
suggest an acceptance by the Post Office that problems can exist, a
situation which is borne out by the immediate recognition of Callender
Place, Falkirk by a Fujitsu analyst as referred to in paragraph 23 of the
Castleton judgment. This information would therefore potentially
undermine the prosecution case and/or assist the defence case. Please
comply with the request.
Please provide full disclosure of the problems with the Horizon system
that were acknowledged to exist in Callender Square, Falkirk as referred to
in paragraph 23 of the Castleton judgment.
Please provide full documentary evidence supporting and explaining how
the error notices, now served, on us have arisen.
POL00054008
POL00054008