CARTWRIGHT KING
Response To
Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme Post Office Preliminary Investigation
Report
Branch Name: Gaerwin
SPMR Name: Mr Hughie Noel Thomas
1.
Heading Text
Executive Summary
The Applicant was the Subpostmaster of
Gaerwen Post Office from June 1994 until he
was suspended following an audit on 13th
October 2005. The audit revealed a shortage
of £48,454.87 and a cheque discrepancy of
£1,803.02 resulting in a final shortage figure
of £50,257.89.
CK Response
1. This is a case that predates the migration to Horizon on Line.
2.
Heading
Text
Executive Summary
The sentencing report (Doc 010) states that
the Applicant appeared at Caernarfon Crown
Court on 6" November 2006 and was
sentenced on the charge of ‘False
Accounting’ (to which he had pleaded guilty
at an earlier hearing on 29 September
2006)
The Applicant was sentenced to 9 months in
custody and ordered to pay £750 costs.
CK Response
1. This defendant pleaded guilty on legal advice. There is no suggestion that this plea
was on a basis
2 Aplea of guilty to a charge entails a complete admission of the offence to which the
plea is entered, in this case an unqualified admission to having “...dishonestly and
with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another, falsified a
document required for an accounting purpose.” (The exact wording of the
indictment is not available but the above is from the specimen indictment for false
POL00061199
POL00061199
accounting in Archbold)
3 The defendant was sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment of 9 months
which clearly suggests the serious view of the evidence taken by the sentencing
judge. There is no evidence that this sentence was appealed as being manifestly
excessive.
3.
Heading Text
Executive Summary - Training
Although there is no evidence of the
Applicant requesting further training on
Horizon operational issues, it is recognised
that had these events happened today, then
under Post Office's current practices, the
issues encountered by the Applicant may
have been dealt with earlier.
CK Response
1. This concession should not be made. There is no evidence that he requested further
training. The evidence is that he was falsifying his accounts and would have been
highly unlikely to have made such a request.
2. This Applicant was operating an earlier Horizon system and under an earlier POL
training regime. To concede that this was inadequate in circumstances where there
is no supporting evidence for the defendant's claim is extremely unwise.
4.
Heading Text
Executive Summary - Installation of a new I Although no documentation has been
Horizon System located regarding the outcome of these
tests, it could be concluded that those tests
did not reveal any issues as the Applicant's
prosecution continued as planned.
CK Response
1. There should be no doubt in this sentence which ought to read “should be
concluded”. The possibility that POL would have continued with the prosecution
having found that the Horizon apparatus was defective in the way alleged by the
Applicant is outrageous.
5.
Heading Text
Executive Summary - Summary
Overall, there is nothing to suggest from the
available documentation that Horizon
malfunctions caused the loss incurred by the
POL00061199
POL00061199
Applicant. The evidence points to user error
by the Subpostmaster (or his assistants)
which, had this occurred today, may have
been dealt with differently under Post
Office's current operating practices.
CK Response
1. The evidence in this case, including this Applicant’s guilty plea, points to dishonesty
by the sub postmaster.
2. The concession should not be made that this case may have been dealt with
differently had it occurred today. If we received a case today where the sub
postmaster had incurred a loss of some £50,257.89 we would certainly investigate it
as a potential criminal case. In this case we do not have the Applicant’s interviews
and do not know what explanations were put forward at the time. We do know that,
following legal advice, he admitted falsifying his accounts to such an extent that a
Crown Court Judge was satisfied that only an immediate custodial sentence could
adequately meet the case.
3. Whilst we have not seen the interviews in this case we have seen correspondence
from J Emlyn Hughes, the applicant’s contract manager, dated 24 October 2005
dealing with the applicant’s suspension on the grounds of; “your admitted falsifying
of the weekly cash account by inflating the cash on hand figure for a prolonged
period.”
6.
Heading
Text
Response to issues raised by the applicant
4. Horizon transaction anomalies — nil
value balance following cash
withdrawals
Analysis was undertaken prior to the court
proceedings by the Investigation Manager on
nil value transactions for 3 separate periods
at the branch to test the integrity of the
system (Doc 007). The results categorically
showed Horizon was operating correctly and
all nil value transactions appeared with valid
reasons with no failures being due to system
integrity or data.
If cash had been paid out on nil value
transactions this would suggest operator
error, rather than Horizon failure.
CK Response
1. The last sentence should read; “If cash had been paid out on nil value transactions
this would suggest theft or operator error rather than Horizon failure.”
Conclusion.
POL00061199
POL00061199
1. The reality in this case is that this defendant pleaded guilty on legal advice and was
sentenced. That sentence was not the subject of a successful appeal.
2. The most generous interpretation of this conviction is that the defendant had a loss which he
covered up in order to avoid his contractual liability with Post Office to make good. The
POL00061199
POL00061199
reality is that the immediate custodial term imposed indicates that that was not the basis for
sentence.
3. It seems to us that all liability in this case lies with the Applicant and his fraudulent activities
and this report should make that clear.
Harry Bowyer 10" February 2014
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors.