POL00054418
POL00054418
GUILDFORD CROWN COURT
a 15TH MARCH 2010
Dear Warwick and John,
Herewith my replies to the Defence's third disclosure request. I would be grateful to Jon if he could read through
all the replies but in particular could he please check and let me have his detailed responses to enquiries 5, 6(a)
and (b), 7, 9, 11(a) and (b), 12, 14, 18 and 21.
Could you please let me have your response by the end of business today so that I can forward on to the
Defence Solicitors.
1 That was the contract in the form it was served.
2 We are well aware of our statutory duty of disclosure as you know the prosecution have reviewed a
large volume of material. The only material disclosable is Callender Place as we know Mr Jenkins is making full
investigations so the full position can be ascertained.
TRAINING
1 The training materia! is at West Byfleet Post Office. Presumably you want simply an opportunity to
inspect or view it on site.
2 We do not understand the relevance to dates to which your Client received the documents. The real
issue is did she steal the money or make mistakes. This is an issue for the experts when they look at the
Horizon data.
3 See above.
4 —
5 The prosecution is under no obligation to provide witness statements. You have full details of the
witness and can contact him if you wish.
6(a) This statement is in the most useful format. The purpose of this statement was to provide material in
digestive form. Logs are impossible to follow unless undertaken by an expert. We do not see the relevant calls
made prior to your Client's taking Office. We have provided the information in the most useful form in the light of
the data.
(b) The analysis data confirms that.
7(a) You have been provided with all available training material.
(b) What are the real issues in the case.
(c) Are we looking at the quality of the training but Mrs Misra made mistakes which will be investigated by
two experts. In fact the real issue in this case, did she steal the money or deliberately attribute it to mistakes by
her and the training background is information only.
8 We believe we have complied with our disclosure obligation. Whether any mistakes were made.
Experts can examine them themselves.
9 We stand by our position. Our response is that there has been a misunderstanding, there is no reason
to put this in a statement form. If it carries to trial it carries with it a risk that your expert and your Miss Hogg will
become witnesses in the case which is highly undesirable. We suggest you re-consider.
10 We have already answered this request. There are no back up teams no more than the Police Force
investigating crime. Investigators consider all reasonable explanations. Your Client did not give an explanation
other than other people were responsible. If your Client had made mistakes that will be ascertained by two
experts in their enquiries.
11 Costs is a consequence of Royal Mail contractual relationship with Fujitsu. Our duty of disclosure is
whether material which undermines the prosecution case and supports your Client's defence. We hope if the
experts look at a short span of information ie the period where your Client falsified her records as set out in our
previous letter. We hope it will not be necessary to examine records for 5 years. Your Client was inflating
figures over a long period. If this were as a result of mistakes over an extended period we think analysis over
shorter period of falsifying accounting offences by your Client did not appear to remedy large loss. There
appears to be a long standing patter of discrepancies which would appear in a short period as it would be on
the long extended period. If mistakes are found in a short span of data the Crown will obviously review its
position as to acceptability of your Client's plea.
(b) Our disclosure obligation do not require us to justify why data for a 5 year period is so expensive.
12 We anticipate the areas are for the experts to discuss.
13 The audit was not completed.
14,15 We have disclosed all information in our possession. We are not required to serve witness statements.
It is clear that Steamline has no relevance.
16 We are not prepared to make any promise in relation to criminal or civil action. The issue is whether
problems referred to was happening at Byfleet is something for the experts to examine.
17 The equipment is being updated. The original equipment is preserved after updating has occurred.
18 Prosecution Counsel has reviewed the case of Hosi. There is no material that requires disclosure.
19 Please refer to our answer to paragraph 8. Prosecution Counsel has reviewed all material. We are still
investigating Callender Place. We recognise our duty of disclosure is a continuing one.
20 We repeat our answer in respect of Callender Place.
Jarnail A Singh
Senior Lawyer
Criminal Law Team
Tel.No::
Fax.Noz
POL00054418
POL00054418