POLO00060974
POL00060974
Message
From: Jarnail A -
on Jarnail A Singh <IMCEAEX-
behalf
of
Sent: 15 Nov 2013 13:53:27
To: Chris Ayjard I
Subject:FW: 2nd sight and QC ---
Chris
As discussed .
FYI SEE BELOW!
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
148 Old Street, LON’
@postofficen
From: Jarnail A Singh
Sent: 28 July 2013 22:30
To: Susan Crichton
Subject: 2nd sight and QC ---
Susan
I was thinking about what we have been working on. Here are my thoughts.
I was the Prosecution lawyer in the case of R v Misra at Guildford Crown Court in 2009-2010. As far as I am
aware, this is the only criminal trial where a jury has been required to consider in detail the integrity of the
Horizon system. I can say generally about what lessons can be learned from the case, in the hope that this may
be of some assistance to the business in response to the and sight interim report and proposed appointment of a
ac
1, The lessons to be learned from the Misra case
POL-0057453
POLO00060974
POL00060974
There are a number of lessons that can be drawn from Misra. I am aware of the independent nature of the
inquiry and of its expertise. I am seeking to merely set out some lessons and tentative suggestions that I have
derived from completion of a difficult case.
Horizon is a complex computer system, about which even eminent experts can make mistakes. There was no
reason to doubt Professor McLachlan’s expertise and good faith but time and time again he had to be corrected
by Mr Jenkins. Professor Mclachlan is not the only expert to have misunderstood Horizon. I have spoken to
colleagues who prosecute these cases and they have come across other experts who have also fallen into error. It
would be right for me to suggest how the independent inquiry should set about its work. The independence of
the inquiry is obviously vital, but what I saw from the case was, that both sides in Misra were completely
beholden to Gareth Jenkins and his deep knowledge of Horizon. The reliance that both sides had on his
testimony was unique and only goes to show the intricacies and complexity of the Horizon system. The inquiry,
will, 1am sure, find its own way of immersing itself into the complexities of Horizon. Whether this involves the
assistance of someone like Gareth Jenkins will be a matter entirely for the inquiry to decide but I cannot see any
other alternative. What did Second Sight do to understand the system?
However, having said that, although the technical aspects of Horizon may be complex, its practical use by an
SPM is not. Gareth Jenkins gave evidence about how the screen was designed to be easy to use and how the
system gave simple instructions to the SPM as they went through a transaction. Prior to the trial
prosecution visited the West Byfleet office with the Defence, where we were shown by a member of staff how
they operated the system. That operator was able to explain with some ease how they used the system.
Watching operators use the system in practice and interviewing such operators may be highly instructive to the
independent inquiry
It is very easy for a dishonest SPM, as Mrs Misra was proved to be, to make vague accusations against Horizon
where other lines of defence are closed. It is not difficult to attract sympathy for such false claims. An SPM is
likely to be viewed as a hard-working person of good character. Most SPMs who steal do so because they are in
financial difficulties, often stealing simply to prop up their failing shop business. In such circumstances there
will be no evidence of luxurious living. A dishonest SPM can use these factors to create a false picture that he
or she is the honest, hard-working victim of a complicated yet flawed computer system. Proving such a picture
to be false is difficult: it has to be conceded that no computer system is perfect and that there have been
problems with Horizon e.g. Bugs 62 and 14 problem. The only way to test whether a problem has arisen at a
particular office is for a detailed analysis of the relevant transaction logs to be undertaken, as happened in the
Misra case. A purely theoretical approach, as undertaken by Professor McLachlan, is worthless/pointless as it is
only natural to list “potential” flaws but it is the “factual” that needs to be looked at.
POL-0057453
POLO00060974
POL00060974
I imagine that the independent inquiry will be examining some, perhaps all, of the cases on 2" Sight’s requested
schedule. In none of those cases were the transaction logs ever examined?. This is time-consuming and
expensive though it may be the only way to investigate the concerns raised by these former SPMs. Obtaining
the transaction logs from their offices, for the relevant times and an analysis may be potentially be the only way
to do it. If an individual case is being examined it would make sense for the complainant SPM to be invited to
provide as much detail as possible about the problems they claim to have encountered. The SPM has a major
advantage over any expert examining the data: the SPM had the stock in front of them not just the computer
data. They should be able to give substantial clues as to what to look out for in the data. If an SPM is unable or
unwilling to provide this information it may be because their allegations are false.
It is important in any case not only to examine the computer evidence but also to look at other evidence, in
particular the behaviour of the SPM. Mrs Misra’s failure to mention any computer problem until her case was
first listed for trial severely undermined her claims. If there is a genuine, serious computer problem one would
expect an SPM to contact the helpline about it. The jury had full details of Mrs Misra’s communications with
the helpline. Although she had regularly sought help in relation to small problems she had singularly failed to
report her serious, on-going losses. If human error was to blame it would have involved a long series of errors
over a long period of time which somehow managed to create a neatly rising deficiency. The jury heard a lot of
evidence about the training that Mrs Misra had received. They were entitled to reject the suggestion that she had
been badly trained. After all, hiding a deficiency by false accounting in itself suggested considerable skill in the
operation of Horizon. The evidence of other staff who have used the same equipment as a complainant SPM
may be highly relevant, as the evidence of incoming sub postmaster was in the Misra case. If other operators at
an office have not encountered a computer problem this may suggest that a complaint is untrue. One would
think that if losses were being incurred through no fault of their own, they would want to investigate it or look
for solutions, as it is in their best interest.
Hope this helps.
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
POL-0057453
POLO00060974
POL00060974
POL-0057453