POL00054237
POL00054237
IN THE GUILDFORD CROWN COURT
(Indictment No. T2009/0070).
THE QUEEN
“y-
SEEMA MISRA
FURTHER AMENDED DEFENCE CASE STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996
1. No admissions are made as to the Prosecution case.
2. If called upon to establish a Defence, the following statement is served in accordance
with the provisions of The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
3. This statement is served without prejudice to the Defendants’ rights to challenge the
admissibility of any evidence relied on by the Prosecution.
4. This further Defence statement is submitted at the request of the prosecution. It is
confirmation of the further oral Defence Case Statement submissions made to
Guildford Crown Court, and the prosecution, on 14/7/09, 10/11/09 and 20/11/09.
These submissions followed on from the Computer weekly magazine article dated 12-
18" May 2009 which was produced when the case was listed for trial on 30/05/09 and
which resulted in the adjournment of the trial. This also follows the disclosure
requested in each of the two Defence Expert reports of Professor McLaughlin dated
21/09/09 (and served on the prosecution on 01/10/09), and 19/11/09 (served on the
prosecution on 20/11/09), and disclosure request served on the Prosecution on
30/11/09 which contained a Defence witness statement from Mrs. Eleanor Nixon,
dated 25/11/09, which all clearly set out the issues raised by the Defence as to the
veracity/accuracy and fallibility of the Post Office computerized accountancy system
called ‘Horizon’.
POL00054237
POL00054237
General Nature of Defence:
5.In furtherance of the above documents set out in paragraph 4 above, and the
defence statement dated 20" March 2009 the defendant will also assert the following:
a) The defendant took over the running/proprietorship of the West Byfleet post-
office on 29/6/05, which included the Horizon computing system, and commenced
trading on 30/06/05. Thereafter she received a two week training period which
was:
(i) For the first week of trading from 30/06/05 training on the Post Office
Horizon system was conducted on site by the Post Office trainer Junaid.
During this weeks training accounting losses arose each day from day 1.
Initial comment by Junaid was that errors may have arisen during entry so
would correct themselves at the Wednesday weekly reconciliation. When
losses still existed on the first Wednesday, Junaid advised that the losses
should be made good or rolled over and that in due course an error notice
would be received correcting the figures. At no time during the
Defendant’s tenure as sub-postmaster at West Byfleet did she receive a
credit error notice.
(ii) For the second week for trading training was conducted on site by the Post
Office trainer Michael. Accounting losses again arose on a daily basis.
Michael contacted the Helpline indicating that he was unable to explain
these losses. Michael advised that the losses should be made good or rolled
over and that in due course an error notice would be received correcting
the figures. At no time during the Defendant’s tenure as sub-postmaster at
West Byfleet did she receive a credit error notice.
b) Between 30/6/09 and October 2005 the losses increased and despite calls to
the Help-Line the cause of the losses could not be discovered.
(6) In October 2005 the defendant’s line manager was Ms Tomika
Springer, to whom the defendant requested assistance in using the
Horizon computer and, also, an audit.
(ii) An audit check was carried out in October 2005 by Post Office
auditors Dipak, Alan and Keith, which resulted in a £5,000 loss, and
c)
)
e)
POL00054237
POL00054237
for which the defendant had to settle on monthly instalments. Alan
gave the Defendant a warning, in no uncertain terms, that any losses
over £500 would result in suspension and loss of the Post Office.
These losses, together with the fact they were continuing after the audit,
caused the defendant to be concerned as to the integrity of her staff and whether
further training was necessary. To assist in overcoming this problem and to help
identify the loss the defendant organised that the 3 post office tills would be
separate for audit trial purposes, Each would be separately accountable. This in
turn caused suspicion to fall upon, firstly, Shakher Saxsena, and, later, Javed
Badiwalla. The Defendant was satisfied that Shakher Saxsena was not
accountable.
An incident arose with Javed Badiwalla over inaccuracies in his till. He had
recorded on his till within the Horizon system that £6,000 cash was transferred to
the safe, whereas only £4,000 - £5000 in cash was handed to the Defendant. This
led to complaints and promises by him that the loss would be settled, but it was
not. This was at the end of March 2006. The Defendant sacked Javed Badiwalla
forthwith.
Soon after this incident his sister-in-law, Nadia Batliwala, who also worked
for the Defendant, allegedly transferred £1000 from her till to the safe but no cash
was handed over. Nadia Batliwala admitted this theft in the presence of a police
officer and agreed to repay the sum of money. Because of this agreement the
Police did not pursue the allegation and issued the matter with incident number
P2830677.
These thefts caused the defendant to be distrustful of her staff, and give further
attention to the accounting problems shown in the Horizon system, because
according to the Horizon system losses increased to £80,000 by the summer of
2006.
POL00054237
POL00054237
6) Due to the losses continuing to arise, in a manner which the Defendant could
not understand or explain, the Defendant formed the opinion in 2006 that she
should sell the business including the Post Office at the earliest opportunity.
However because of warnings given by the auditors at the October 2005 audit, the
Defendant, being aware that immediate sale of the business would bring to light
the losses, feared suspension and the loss of the Post Office and the knock on
effect this would have on the sale of the business.
) She could not afford the loss of the Post Office in the branch and so she set
about partly meeting short falls by putting her own and family money into the Post
Office accounts and falsifying the records.
8) The losses continued until 14/1/08 when they amounted to £74,609-84p. At no
time has she understand how the losses have continued to accrue. Because she
knew she had taken no money dishonestly from the Post Office and because two
employees admitted theft, she merely thought the losses were caused by theft
and/or incompetence.
9) It was only when alerted to possible Horizon computer accounting errors in
May 2009 that this cause of her losses became of concern to her.
10) The defendant on numerous occasions between July 2005 and January 2008
had spoken to the Post Office Helpline to raise her concerns as to the functioning
of the machine. An example is that losses would double if a re-declaration was
carried out at the request of the Helpline.
11) In this event enquires were made as to the veracity of the Horizon compute
system by the Defence. This resulted in the forensic IT Expert, Professor
McLaughlin, being instructed, and the production of his interim reports dated
21/09/09 and 19/11/09.
12) The general defence is, therefore, that there have been unquantifiable thefts
by former employees causing loss, but this has been compounded by operational
faults in the Horizon computer system.
POL00054237
POL00054237
Matters on which issue is taken.
13. The assertion the defendant was dishonest at any stage.
14. The general nature of the issues between the Prosecution and the Defendant is clear
from the detail set out above, but in principal the accuracy of any
computing/accounting information, and documentation emanating from the Horizon
computer at these premises at West Byfield between June 2005 and 14 January 2008
is disputed.
Reasons.
15. The defendant denies any alleged dishonesty,
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
16. The Defendant repeats the requests set out in the s8 application listed to be heard on
20/11/09, and which still awaits answers.
17. The Defendant repeats the requests set out in a further request for disclosure served on
13/11/09, and which still awaits answers,
18. At the s8 hearing on 20/11/09 Prosecuting Counsel indicated his opinion that some of
the requests may have been widely framed. In order to assist the Prosecution, Defence
Solicitors agreed to submit a further comprehensive request for disclosure and this
was duly served on 30/11/09. The Defendant repeats the requests set out in that
document, and which still awaits answers.
19. In addition the Defendant requests the following:-
i) A copy of the audit result carried out in October 2005.
ii) Notes taken by Dipak, Keith and Alan during that audit.
iii) The name and contact details of the trainer, Junaid.
iv) The contact details of Tomika Springer and any notes taken by
her in relation to the Defendant and her tenure at West Byfleet
Post Office.
v) Copies of any error notices served on the Defendant between
June 2005 and January 2008.
vi) Copies of any documents held by Surrey Police in relation to
POL00054237
POL00054237
incident number P2830677
20. The defence aver that all these requests are reasonable and that the information is
disclosable. The Prosecution have been aware since the 30/05/09 that the Defendant
took issue with the operation of the Horizon system which is why she applied for, and
was granted, an adjournement of the trial due to commence on that day.