Mr. George Thomson
General Secretary
NFSP HQ
22 Windlesham Gardens
Shoreham-By-Sea
West Sussex
BN43 5AZ
03/04/2009
Private, In the Strictest Confidence and without Prejudice.
Dear George
Further to our telephone conversation on the evening of Thursday 02/04/2009 re-court
case POL v Mrs. SJ Rudkin and the alleged comments of Alan Cook advising you of the
forth coming legal proceedings.
At your discretion and in confidence George having read the enclosed correspondence
between Alan and me it would be of assistance to Susan and me if you would give some
consideration in asking Alan Cook to reconsider this case and instruct his legal
department to withdraw from this private prosecution by POL against Susan for a
number of reasons.
e Alan makes a valid point in his letter when he points out that the “cash and stock
we are accountable for are public funds”. However, given the fact POL has
accepted a re-payment plan of these funds from me. I must ask how are the
interests of the tax payer being served by POL spending thousands of pounds of
that public money on legal proceedings. If it was in the interests of the public why
not let the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) deal with the matter. I know why it’s
not passed to the CPS because they would not proceed because of the reasons I
shall sight below.
Sub-Postmasters Contract - Section 12.
Responsibility for Post Office Stock And Cash,
e Losses — (12). The Sub-Postmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his
own negligence, carelessness or error, and also for losses of all kinds caused by
his assistants. Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good without
delay.
I believe I have complied with the sprit of this clause in having no prior knowledge of the
shortage and with a negotiated repayment plan from salary which has been accepted by
Post Office Ltd.
POL00060421
POL00060421
SPMR Contract - Section 15
Sub-Office Assistant Accused OR pected OF Dishonesty ETC.
e (10) - In cases where an assistant is accused or suspected of dishonesty or any
other offence such as willfully delaying postal packets, the Sub-Postmaster must
report the particulars to the Regional General manager as soon as possible and
await instructions. If the report is made by telephone it must be confirmed in
writing as a matter of urgency.
Response;
Section 15 - (10), George we complied immediately, with Susan acknowledging prior to
the commencement of the audit their would be a substantial shortage in the Post Office
accounts and that I had no prior knowledge BECAUSE I was working for the NFSP &
POL and she had lost control of running the business.
e (11) Incases where the person employed by the Sub-Postmaster is guilty of
misappropriating Post Office Counters Ltd money, any sum which may be
tendered by, or on behalf of, the offender may be accepted but a receipt must be
given showing that the money is held pending possible investigation and without
prejudice to any action that Post Office Counters Ltd may be advised to take. The
Sub-Postmaster should be careful not to take any action which may be liable to
prejudice the question of legal proceedings. A copy of any receipt must be kept
for reference.
Response;
Section 15 — (11) - Stating the obvious you got me the office back George so £21,000
loss from salary over three months is neither here nor there but I do have to argue the
case with a friend, and - may be advised to take, indicates a high level of discretion with
the use of the word MAY. So is it mandatory to take legal action or is it at the discretion
of POL whether or not to take legal action. Not all cases end up in court with POL as the
prosecutor.
SPMR Contract - Section 19.
Suspension From Office.
e (5)— Where a Sub-Postmaster is suspended his remuneration in respect of any
period of suspension will be withheld so long as such suspension continues.
POL00060421
POL00060421
Response; Not a problem here George, logical, but is does create even further financial
difficulties when SPMR’s are already experiencing difficulties.
Section 19 - Continued
¢ (6)—On the termination of the period of suspension whether by termination of
contract or reinstatement, the Sub-Postmaster’s remuneration in respect of the
period_may, after consideration of the whole of the circumstances of the case, be
forfeited wholly or in part. If remuneration is paid any rent or other expenses
which may have been paid to him in respect of the continued use of his premises
for Post Office purposes during the period of suspension will be deducted.
Response; The use of that discretionary word again MAY. I ask once more are
proceedings mandatory or discretionary.
Your interpretation of the following please George - refer to the enclosed letter dated 8"
December 2008 from Dawn Wall - Agents Debt Team - Chesterfield. Outstanding debt to
be deducted from remuneration £12,000, is the instruction clear on how much debt is to
be recovered? My interpretation from the instruction is only £12,000 of the £44,000 is to
be recovered from salary - or is it?
Whilst we have a national agreement that stipulates no more than 25% of a Sub-
Postmasters salary shall be deducted in anyone year so as not to create financial hardship
to the SPMR, £12,000 is representative of 25% of my salary. However the letter is
ambiguous to say the least, it states the terms are £12,000 to be recovered to clear
outstanding debt over 12 months. Once more open to interpretation but if they are writing
off the balance of approximately £32,000, I am very, very grateful and have no wish to
prejudice this magnanimous offer!!
George I refer you to the enclosed letter dated 11" November 2008 to Paul Williams
seeking clarification on the restraining/confiscation order. I think highly of Paul and Paul
did state to me at the RTU he had never come across an order of this kind but would seek
clarification for me. It gives me cause for concern when 21 weeks on and still no replies
to my letter on the matter of the restraining order.
As you will appreciate George our concerns grow when our solicitors are struggling to
get an answer from POL’s legal team on the restraining/confiscation order?
I must ask the question is someone thinking/being instructed to proceed using the
proceeds of crime act and taking Susan’s share of the business/property because if they
POL00060421
POL00060421
POL00060421
POL00060421
do it effectively bankrupts us as a couple. £4,000 has already been spent in defense costs
before we were eligible to claim legal aid. You can only receive legal aid once a
summons has been served on you and as we know it took POL 22 weeks to come to that
decision, creating further financial hardship. I learn something new everyday George.
As you may be aware Susan has been receiving counseling and medication from her
Doctors at Ibstock surgery for depression, anxiety as a result of talking of ending it all,
taking her life because of the shame she has brought about and ending my other life
within the NFSP.
Yesterday (Friday 3" April 09) Susan was asked to attend the Doctors surgery to see her
GP - Dr Peden who has now confirmed after blood tests Susan is suffering from Systemic
Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). This disease is an autoimmune condition which attacks
healthy body cells.
Some of the symptoms are:-
Fever, Weight loss or Gain, Swollen Lymph Glands, Recurring Mouth Ulcers, Hair
Loss, High Blood Pressure, Depression and Anxiety, Migraine, Anemia, Raynaud’s
Phenomenon (condition limits the blood supply to your hands), Kidney Damage, Heart
Conditions, Pleurisy, Joint Pain.
More test are now required to establish how advanced the Lupus (SLE) is in the case of
Susan; effectively she is wasting away from the inside out George. NHS statistics state 3
in 10,000 women have SLE; the condition is nine times more likely in women than men.
Susan has attended her first interview with the probation service on Saturday 4" April 09
at 09:30 hrs in Leicester. The probation officer will produce what is known as a Probation
Standard Report (PSR) about Susan Rudkin and the background to the case as they see it
for the courts.
The author of the (PSR) will be Ellen Hodgins who spoke with Susan at length on
Saturday 4" April 09, then Ellen took the opportunity to speak with me in the presence of
Susan to confirm the events that have taken place since the 20 August 2008 when I was
suspended from office. (Copy enclosed). Ellen went to great lengths to explain to Susan
that this will be a custodial sentence with a very slim chance of a suspended sentence.
Ellen the Probation Officer did express concern with one of the remedies that had been
put in place, she understood POL will be reimbursed out of my remuneration at the rate
of £1,000 per month but then couldn’t understand why POL had become obstructive with
a restraining order prohibiting me from selling and repaying or doing anything.
POL00060421
POL00060421
One final copy enclosed George is in the strictest of confidence and is taken from my
Magistrates Sentencing Guide Book so you can see and understand the structured
approach that is applied by the courts (HMCS) when considering sentencing and please
take particular notice of the starting point for sentencing in the guide. This is why I am
asking you for one last effort if you feel you can enter into discussion with Alan Cook
who does have the discretion and ability to stop these proceedings.
Ihave personally dealt with this matter in the strictest of confidence and will continue to
do so even to the point; the correspondence between Alan Cook and me has not and will
not be divulged to the solicitors representing Susan, not that there is anything
incriminating or derogatory in the correspondence.
Furthermore the trial if POL still proceed will not be heard in Leicester it has been moved
to Stafford I hope you can understand why the court have taken these steps George.
Should the prosecution proceed I will most certainly have to resign as a Magistrate, a loss
to me personally and a loss to the Federation as another skill will be lost to the EC.
Yours Sincerely.
Mr. EM Rudkin.
Sub-Postmaster