POST OFFICE LTD
Vv
TIRATH CHAHAL
INITIAL ADVICE
Prosecution Case
1. On the 2.4 May 2013 an audit was conducted at the Durham
Road Post Office, Stockton - On -Tees. The sub postmaster is
Tirath Chahal who has been in service for 21 years. The audit
revealed a shortage in the branch of £82,795.57 made up as
follows:-
£78575.10 (-) identified as a difference in the cash
£4323.41 (-) identified as a difference in the stock
£116.94 (+) identified as a difference in the postage
£14 (-) other
2. The audit was carried out by Ruth Barnes and two of her
colleagues.
3. The auditors attended the site at 0845am where they were
met by the sub postmaster’s wife, Charnjit Chahal who was
already in attendance. She is reported as making telephone
POL00108114
POL00108114
calls to try and locate her husband. Her son, Harjoyt Chahal
_arrived at 10am to explain that I”
premises were then closed whilst Harjoyt Chahal
noon, with access to the secure area, access to the safe was
not available until Harjoyt Chahal returned again at 1355pm
is understood that the
I Although the shop reopened at 12
and handed over the safe keys. It transpired these had been
in a drawer next to the safe all along. He was asked that
someone remain with the auditors whilst the cash and stock
was counted, but this request was declined. Consequently,
whilst one auditor checked the cash and stock, this was
rechecked by the other two.
. Later at 1630pm when Harjoyt Chahal again returned to the
Post Office, and was informed of the auditors findings, he
questioned whether this could be right, although he claimed
he had no dealings with the Post Office itself. He was invited
to conduct his own independent count of the money on hand
as against the record of cash counted by the auditors (Tier 2
Audit - Cash Sheet) exhibit JS/01. He declined, but
apparently admitted that it did not look like the amount
stated on the previous days cash declaration.
. A decision was taken to precautionary suspend Mr Chahal
and the branch was shut at the end of the day and remained
closed. Prior to that, the alarm codes on the safe were
changed by a Romec engineer. According to the auditors
report, the engineer noted that the alarms on the safe had
been removed at 0729am that morning. Five keys for the safe
were removed from the premises along with only one key
for the secure area.
. In interview on the 8 May 2013, Tirath Chahal submitted a
prepared written statement which said that :-
** He ran the Post Office successfully for 20 years
** He remitted back to the cash centre about £30K per
month
** He ran two other businesses successfully and therefore
had no reason to dip into Post Office monies
*» He received a bravery award in 1996 for challenging an
armed robber at the branch
POL00108114
POL00108114
** He challenged the accuracy of the auditors findings
and queried why an independent witness was not
present
** He suggested the attitude of the auditors towards his
son had been poor from the outset
** Demanded an independent recount/audit.
**» He then went on to say in the remainder of the
interview that he and his wife balanced the office the
night before the audit when they counted roughly over
£90K in cash
oe
.
* He then put the bulk of the cash in the 40 minute
delayed safe, approximately £78K, of which £25K was
in coin.
*» He claimed his son did not work in the Post Office
although in fact his son was registered as Officer in
Charge
fe
* He was shocked to learn there was £78K missing
4
te
* The scratch cards were sold on the shop side but they
kept a record of the transactions in a book and
transferred the money across once any deductions for
prizes had been made
* Denied that there could be scratch cards missing
** His wife inputted the figures into Horizon after they
both counted the money and checked each others
figures
POL00108114
POL00108114
POL00108114
POL00108114
“+ Denied being responsible for a record of coin found in
the safe that bore a close resemblance to the sum of
coins actually found by the auditors
** Maintained that he had kept £17k in one pound coins
in the office in accordance with declarations in his last
two branch trading statements despite the
impracticalities of keeping this much coin in the office
7. On the 17s May 2013, a second audit was performed in the
presence of Mr Chahal’s solicitor. Inside the secure area a
sum of coin covered in a red mail bag amounting to £17,200
was presented by Mr Chahal.
8. A safe audit(download of safe activity) was obtained for the
safe described by Mr Chahal as being used to store the bulk
cash. The data exhibited (MS/26) suggests that this safe had
not been used since 25 October 2012, disproving Mr
Chahal’s account that he had used it on the 1st May 2013.
Whilst this piece of evidence should form a crucial part of
the case against Mr Chahal, it is of concern that the data from
pages 4-10 inclusive of this report suggests that the safe was
in use in 2015!
Defence Case
9. The defendant has thus far maintained that he put all the
money in the safe the night before the audit. He is using his
absence from the branch on the day of the audit in an
attempt to shift responsibility away from himself with
regard to the missing monies. He has challenged the results
of the audit, due to a lack of any independent witnesses, and
is by implication attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of
the auditors. He will no doubt try and suggest that the
additional £17200 counted on re-audit was present from the
outset, in an attempt to further discredit their original
POL00108114
POL00108114
findings. In addition, some form of attack on the Horizon
system will no doubt be considered.
Statements
10. We have statements from:
¢ Gereldine Dresser
e Jennifer Smith
e Ruth Barnes
e Michael Stanway x 2
e Steve Bradshaw
All of these require signature.
11. We will need further statements from:
e The Romec engineer fully describing his actions and
findings upon his attendance at the branch on the 24
May 2013. Describing in detail the safe/s in question,
how it/ they are accessed, with keys and codes ect.
How the data in (MS/26) is generated/ obtained, what
each entry means in the report, and explanation for
how there are entries for the year 2015. A detailed
explanation for the passage in the report of Ruth
Barnes, “ the engineer stated that the alarms on the safe
had been removed at 0729am that morning”,
particularly if this related to the outer or inner safe,
and how this was compatible with the data in MS/26
suggesting the inner safe had not been used since
October 2012. Furthermore, what explanation if any for
the fact that Mrs Chahal told Ruth Barnes at 0845 that
she did not have keys for the secure area. Must that
statement in fact be untrue or can the safe alarms be
accessed outside the secure area. Details of all other
alarms installed at the premises, including secure area
if applicable, and how they were operated. Would it be
possible to determine by checking the alarm system to
see if anyone had stepped inside the secure area
overnight between 1st and 2™4 May 2013, and between
the 1st and 24 audits to deposit the additional £17200
in coin as suspected by the investigator
Ruth Barnes to set out in detail exactly what she and
her colleagues encountered when they arrived at the
premises on the 2"4 May 2013, who else apart from Mrs
Chahal was present, her views on the possibility that
someone had been in the secure area that morning
before she and her colleagues arrived, how and when
they first gained access to the secure area, who else
might have gained access to the secure area between
when it was opened and when they counted the cash
from the safe. Where they were during this period, and
who else had sight of them at this time. Describing in
physical terms what £17200 in coin would look like
and weigh and how it would not have been possible to
overlook such an amount during the first audit, or
remove it or other cash without anyone else noticing.
Description and exhibiting of by her, or whoever in
fact found, the cash sheets in the safe suspected of
being the true reflection of the money in the branch,
and how closely this matched the monies they actually
found. Detailing where she found the five safe keys
and what enquiries she made about any other secure
area keys in existence and any responses she received
Statement from Steve Bradshaw or Michael Stanway
to explain why £94K was an unusually large amount of
money for this branch to be holding by comparison to
the earlier branch trading statements, confirmation of
what the actual overnight cash holding limit was for
this branch. Explanation of why he might have had to
POL00108114
POL00108114
POL00108114
POL00108114
make such a large declaration, if in fact he had stolen
£78K already.
¢ Confirmation of the last date the branch was known to
balance correctly
Horizon Issues
12. It is assumed that the safe data itself and any alarm system
data is not interfaced or reliant on the Horizon system.
Nevertheless, ultimately the case is based on Horizon data
with regard to quantum, irrespective of the fact that the
defendant categorically states that he put £78K into the 40
minute delay safe on the night before the audit. It is likely
that this defendant will grasp at any potential defence
available to him, and therefore an attempt to jump on the
Horizon bandwagon must be anticipated.
Discussion
13. This case could be properly charged as a single charge of
theft to cover the missing cash and scratch cards between
the date of the previous audit and 1st May 2013. The courts
do not like Theft and False Accounting charges to be laid in
tandem for the same course of conduct. R v Eden 55 Cr. App.
R. 193 CA (Archbold 21-238)
14, At present I believe there is insufficient evidence to afford a
realistic prospect of conviction in respect of the other losses
in the branch.
15.The data confirming that the inner safe had not been opened
since October 2012 will be crucial to this case. This clearly
needs to be firmed up and clarified and the issues regarding
the date of 2015 appearing in the report resolved.
Consideration should then be given to re-interview of Mr
Chahal to give him the opportunity to respond to this vital
part of the case.
16. This case should be in good order to prosecute when the
statements and additional information is gathered.
POL00108114
POL00108114
17. In the light of the Second Sight Report I would suggest that
a suitable expert is identified and able to prepare a report as
to the integrity of the Horizon system is issued in this case.
Andrew Bolc
Cartwright King Solicitors 13 September 2013