ROYAL MAIL GROUP (POST OFFICE LTD) —- CASE REVIEW
R. v Alison Henderson
Norwich Magistrates’ Court and Norwich Crown Court
Offence and Case history
1.
On 15" December 2010 at Norwich Crown Court, this defendant pleaded
guilty, on a basis, to one count of False Accounting, contrary to section
17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and was sentenced to a 12 month community
order with a 200 hour unpaid work requirement. The prosecution offered no
evidence on the theft count and a not guilty verdict was entered.
Ms Henderson first appeared at Norwich Magistrates’ Court on the 12"
August 2010. The case was adjourned to 7 October 2010 when it was
committed to Norwich Crown Court after a not guilty plea had been indicated.
The PCMH before the Norwich Crown Court was listed on the 3 November
2010. This was subsequently changed to 3" November 2010.
At the PCMH the defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts on the
indictment, Theft and False Accounting, and the case was warned for trial in
the week of 29" November 2010.
A defence statement was served on the 5" November 2010 where the
defendant said that she had no explanation for the discrepancy, did not
understand how it had occurred and denied stealing the £11,957.78 of the
discrepancy.
POL00061747
POL00061747
POL00061747
POL00061747
5. An amended defence statement was served on the 16” November 2010
specifically pointed to a malfunction of the Horizon system as being a possible
cause of the deficit.
6. The defence indicated in conversations with POL by telephone that the
defendant was likely to plead to Count 2, False Accounting, and accepted that
she was contractually bound to pay back the deficit.
7. On the 1* December 2010 the case was listed, seemingly for a Goodyear
indication, at Norwich Crown Court and the Judge, whilst not giving a
Goodyear indication, adjourned the matter to 15" December 2010 so that the
defendant could repay the money.
8. A cheque arrived at POL for the full amount and on the 15" December 2010
the Judge proceeded to sentence as per paragraph 1 above, remarking that “I
take it that your plea was based on muddle and confusion.”
Prosecution case
9. The defendant, Alison Henderson, was during the relevant period, 1/1/1997 —
11/02/2010the sub postmaster at Worsted Sub Post Office.
10. On 10" February 2010 an audit took place at Worsted, Sub Post Office to
verify financial assets due to POL and confirm compliance with a range of
business processes, procedures and business requirements.
11. On the date of the audit, 10" February 2010 the auditor found a total shortage
of £11,957.78 made up as follows:
¢ £11,963.15 (-) identified as a difference in cash figures
© £19.48 (-) identified as a difference in stock figures
© £24.85 (+) identified as a difference in foreign currency figures
POL00061747
POL00061747
12. Mrs Henderson, in her interviews, conducted under the provisions of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice, on
the 11" March 2010 said that:
— The result of the audit was a complete shock
— .She had had no shortage before that point
— There had been no problems with balancing before.
— The cash on hand in the last branch trading statement was the amount
that she actually counted
— She denied stealing any cash
Defence case
13. In interview the defendant denies taking POL money and was completely
shocked by the audit figures. In her defence statement she firmly raised the
issue of a potential malfunction of the Horizon system.
Discussion
The Second Sight Interim Report
14. This case was dealt with by way of a guilty plea to False Accounting at a very
late stage. That guilty plea was indicated telephone conversations with the
defence legal team.
15. This case differs from the run of the mill case of this type where the defendant
admits false accounting but denies theft. At no stage in interview or in the
defence statement did the defendant concede any false accounting by her or,
indeed, any dishonesty at all. The plea, when it eventually came, was only
after a Goodyear indication where the Judge indicated that on a guilty plea
POL00061747
POL00061747
there would be no custodial sentence. In a case such as this it would be
difficult to rule out a pragmatic decision to avoid an immediate custodial
sentence as opposed to an admission of guilt when the defendant entered her
guilty plea. Nonetheless a plea of guilty is taken to amount to an admission of
guilt of the offence pleaded to. This defendant was legally advised throughout
the process and should have been advised as to the consequences of her plea. I
would doubt that any appeal will succeed in this case but it is my view that
had we been in possession of the Second Sight Interim Report we would have
disclosed the matters raised within it when we were in possession of the
defence statement.
Conclusion
16. This is a case where we should disclose the issues raised in the Second Sight
Interim report and those instructed by Ms Henderson should be written to
accordingly.
Harry Bowyer 2" September 2014
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors