POL00108247
POL00108247
POST OFFICE LTD
PHILIP DAUNCEY
ADVICE ON EVIDENCE
1. This case has caused concern to the POL Accredited Financial Investigator,
Dave Posnett, that “the court would hold a dim view of the fact we applied for
Restraint Orders but then assets have been frozen whilst there have been
‘undue delays in continuing the proceedings or the prosecutor does not intend
to proceed’.”
2. Mr Posnett is certainly right in bringing his concerns forward in this case and
each case should be kept under review as time between audit and intended
prosecution continues.
3. In my view, for the reasons set out below, this case does not give any undue
cause for concern
Prosecution case
4. On 16" May 2013 an audit was carried out by Paul Jones Network Field
Support Advisor at the North Cornelly Post Office in Bridgend. The audit was
conducted because concerns had been raised that the sub-post master had been
holding excess cash and not returning it when requested. The total loss to the
Post Office Ltd is £52,757.24.
5. The audit revealed a shortage in the branch of £48,428.54, the breakdown is as
follows:
POL00108247
POL00108247
© £48,428.54 (-) identified as a shortfall in cash
e £77.50 (+) identified as a surplus in stock figures
e £106.20 (-) identified as a surplus in postage figures
e TOTAL: £48,457.24
6. A cash check of the ATM stock unit revealed a cash shortage of £11,000. Mr
Dauncey explained to the auditor that he had a problem with the remittance of
£77,000 a year before which he had not reported. A check of the AA stock unit
revealed a shortage of £37,428.54. Mr Dauncey then stated that he had been
inflating his overnight cash declarations to hide the shortage. A record of the
conversation was completed and signed.
7. Further investigations revealed the following:
e £4,300.00 (-) identified as missing deposit for Filco Foods Ltd
8. Information received from the Santander Investigation team showed that the
missing deposit of £4,300.00 had been completed by a member of staff at
Filco supermarket, North Cornelly on 15" May 2013, and checked by a
colleague. The cash was sealed in a remittance bag and despatched to North
Cornelly Post Office. The pouch was signed for by Mr Dauncey but was never
input onto the Horizon system.
9. In interview on 22" May 2013 Mr Dauncey said that:
i) Maintained that he had made a keying in error for a remittance of
£77,000 and had been submitting false declarations ever since.
ii) On being challenged regarding the veracity of his account he
recanted and stated that it must be an error in an internal cash
transfer,
iii) On further challenge he admitted he didn’t know where the error was
iv) He admitted false accounting although he denied stealing any money
from the Post Office.
v) He was further interviewed on 10" July regarding a complaint that a
business deposit of £4,300 from Filco Foods Ltd had gone missing.
10.
He stated that he had always processed the deposits properly and
others could have had access to the money.
vi) He said that there was a possibility that when the money was being
checked the slip was on the counter and when the end of day work
was being done it could have gone on the daily returns to Santander
without being scanned in. It was pointed out that if this had happened
the cash would be over.
Mr Dauncey consented to a search of his house and provided information
regarding his debts regarding a civil court case which left him £26,000 in
debt. He was also in arrears with the Inland Revenue and had made false
declarations regarding his staff hours. .
Defence Case
ll.
Mr Dauncey denies theft from the Post Office Ltd however he admits false
accounting.
Conclusion
12.
13.
14.
15.
This case is still relatively fresh, the second interview having taken place in
July 2013.
The defendant admits false accounting in interview in circumstances that do
not justify such a course — the initial explanation is a simple remming
mistake that would be easily sorted with no loss to the defendant. The very
strong inference is that the defendant has stolen the money and is falsifying
the accounts to cover it up.
The inference that he stole the £4,300.00 is equally strong.
Owing to the current furore in relation to the Horizon system there is very
likely to be a challenge to the Horizon system. Post Office Ltd is
investigating the instruction of an expert to give the Horizon System a clean
bill of health. Once that expert is instructed this case can be rapidly put into
order to prosecute.
POL00108247
POL00108247
POL00108247
POL00108247
16. This is not a case where there are any undue delays in continuing the
proceedings or that the prosecutor does not intend to proceed. The delay in
this case is still less than 7 months which is well within normal bounds for a
serious allegation of fraud/theft and such delay as there is is quite justifiable
in the context of a Post Office prosecution. The moratorium on the issue of
summonses until the instruction of a suitable expert cannot be equated with
a lack of intent to prosecute.
17. In my view, whilst Mr Posnett is absolutely right to raise his concerns as to
the progress of this case, the case is not one that would cause a Judge to
quibble at any restraining order. [t is not sufficiently elderly and we have a
good prima facie case. Any delay that there has been can be easily justified.
Harry Bowyer 4/02/2014
Barrister
ing Solicitors,