POST OFFICE LTD ~ CASE REVIEW
R. v. LYNETTE HUTCHINGS
Portsmouth Crown Court
Offence
1. On the 24" August 2012 this defendant was sentenced to a Community Order of
12-months with a requirement that she complete 120 hours of Unpaid Work. The
sentence was imposed for a single charge of False Accounting, alleging that
between 13" day of January 2010 and 30" March 2011 she had falsified Branch
Trading Statements on Horizon so as to show that she had more cash and stock in
hand than she in fact did have, thereby to conceal shortages totalling £10,868.08
Case history
2. The defendant appeared before the Portsmouth Magistrates Court on 19" April
2012. She gave no indication of her intended plea and the Magistrates deemed the
case unsuitable for summary trial. The case was adjourned for the preparation of
committal papers and the committal hearing took place on 6" June 2012.
3. The matter next came before the court for a Pleas and Case Management Hearing
at Portsmouth Crown Court on the 30" July 2012, whereupon the defendant was
arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charge and signed a written Basis of Plea
documents, which reads:
“Lynette Hutchings pleads guilty to False Accounting on the basis that she
made the books balance in order to “put off the evil day of having to sort
out the muddle” (see R. v. Eden Archbold 21-235) and not on the basis
that she took, or intended to take, any money.”
L.L Hutchings
POL00060715
POL00060715
4. The matter was adjourned to the 24" August 2012 for sentencing, with the
outcome recorded at paragraph I above.
Prosecution case
5. The defendant Lynette HUTCHINGS had been sub-postmaster at the Rowlands
Castle Sub Post Office Office since 22™ January 2009. This was a fortress-type
sub-post office located in a pet supplies and grooming business.
6. On 30" March 2011 an audit revealed a deficit in the accounts of £9,743.76. The
audit had been arranged after the branch failed to return £30,000 as requested,
returning only £14,000. When errors in favour and against the branch were
subsequently processed, the outstanding debt at the branch was found to be
£10,814.83
7. There is very strong evidence to support the allegation that Mrs. Hutchings had
inflated the amount of cash held within the branch, usually by inflating the figure
for cash held in £50 notes, on the days upon which Branch Trading Statements
were completed. It would appear that deficits in the accounts were covered up in
this manner for some considerable period of time.
8. In interview on 20" April 2011, conducted under the provisions of the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice, a prepared
statement was read out by Mrs. Hutchings’ solicitor, following which Mrs
Hutchings exercised her right to silence. The relevant part of that prepared
statement reads:
We migrated to Horizon on Line in approximately May/June 2010 (in fact
5" July 2010). At the time of migration all of the accounts balanced.
Ever since we have been with HOL, the balances have been wrong. When I
talk about “we” I also refer to my husband who assists me in the Post
Office.
At no stage have we stolen money from the Post Office nor are we aware of
making mistakes in our day to day operation of the system.
Because of this we have always believed that the incorrect balances would
be sorted out through transaction corrections.
POL00060715
POL00060715
Defence case
When I altered the cash declarations this was not done in order to create a
financial gain for myself or a loss to the Post Office. I genuinely believed
that there was no loss and that the balances would be corrected in the
fullness of time. The only reason the case declarations were altered was to
enable me to operate the Post Office.
I am unable to explain why the balances are incorrect, but would give
examples of some difficulties as follows:
— The Helpline was difficult to access and unreliable.
— Secure stock created unexplained discrepancies on a weekly basis.
— The screen on the stock unit needs recalibrating on occasion due
to the cursor sticking,
— The back office printer was replaced because it was unreliable.
— The small counter printers have stuck and not produced expected
receipts.
— One monitor crashed and the power pack had to be replaced.
Only myself and my husband worked in the Post Office. ....We only ever
used our own Log-ins and did not know each others passwords.
T did not sign any Trading Statements.
At no time did I act dishonestly.
9. Negated by the guilty plea, however see discussion below.
Discussion
10. The defendant has unequivocally admitted making false entries into Horizon in the
belief that the balances would be corrected in the fullness of time. In particular she
stated in her prepared statement that she did not do so dishonestly. Had she chosen
to advance that account at trial the jury would have been entitled to accept what
she said and to acquit her; or to reject the account and convict her. Thus the
opportunity was there for her to seek an acquittal.
POL00060715
POL00060715
POL00060715
POL00060715
\
11. The reference in the defendant’s signed Basis of Plea document (reproduced at
para.3 above) to the case of “R. v. Eden” is a reference to Lord Justice Sach’s
judgement in the well-known Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Eden, (1971) 55
Cr. App. R. 193 in which he said:
“It could be perfectly proper for a jury....to find that an accused person
who has deliberately made false entries ..............in order to cover up a
muddle guilty ......... , The question for the jury would be whether he had
dishonestly falsified the accounts for “gain” ............ that could obviously
include temporary gains of many types. Such a gain could be constituted
by putting off the evil day of having to sort out the muddle and pay up what
may have been in error kept within the sub-post office when it ought to
have been sent to head office.” (my emphasis)
12. Given the reference to the extract from Eden in the signed Basis of Plea, it seems
to me that this plea is unequivocal and unimpeachable — it is plainly entered
following advice from counsel who has properly considered the issues and has
appropriately advised.
13. As for the defendant’s reference to the inadequacy of the Helpline, this does not
seem to have been pursued; indeed no Defence Statement was served, and it is in
that document that I would expect to see the real nature of the defence including
such assertions. It should not be forgotten that it is the Defence Statement which’
in setting out the defence, acts as a trigger for disclosure. The failure to serve a
Defence Statement may militate against disclosure.
Safety of Conviction
14. It is not the purpose of this review, nor of the review process overall, to determine
whether or not any particular conviction is unsafe: that decision is reserved to the
Court of Appeal only. The purpose of this process is to identify those cases where
the material contained within the Second Sight Interim report would have met the
test for disclosure as provided in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act
1996, the Code of Practice enacted thereunder and the Attorney-General’s
Guidelines on Disclosure, had that material been known to Post Office Ltd. during
the currency of the prosecution and accordingly would or ought to have been
disclosed to the defence.
15. In this case I advise that, given the chronology and circumstances of the guilty
plea, and the reference in the Basis of Plea to the leading case on the topic of the
charging of False Accounting, the Second Sight Interim report and the Helen Rose
report would not have been disclosable during the currency of the prosecution and
accordingly do not now fall to be disclosed.
Conclusion
16. This is a case in which, had we been possessed of the material at the relevant time,
we would not have disclosed to the defence the matters identified in the Second
Sight Interim report and the Helen Rose’s 6" June report.
17. Accordingly we are not required to disclose that material now.
Simon Clarke 19” July 2013
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors
POLO0060715
POL00060715