CARTWRIGHT KING
Response To
Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme Post Office Preliminary Investigation
Report
Branch Name: Tovil
SPMR Name: Mr Kangasundaram Prince
1.
Heading Text
Executive Summary The Applicant initially indicated a not guilty
plea to an offence of Fraud by False
Representation. However, when the case
was committed to Maidstone Crown Court in
May 2012, the Applicant entered a guilty
plea and in Jun 2012, he was sentenced (Doc
02 refers) and a compensation order was
made to repay the shortage (Doc 03 refers).
CK Response
1. Mr. Prince first appeared before the court on the 12 January 2012 where he indicated a
plea of not guilty. On the 11% May 2012 at the Maidstone Crown Court he entered a
guilty plea to a single offence of Fraud by False Representation. On the 15" June 2012
Mr Prince was sentenced as described.
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 intending thereby to make a gain for himself or to cause loss to
another, made a representation which was and which he knew was untrue or
misleading, namely that a cash declaration of £48,010.00 was a true figure...”
2.
Heading Text
Executive Summary Examination of the investigation file
identified that the investigation was carried
out appropriately and was proportionate to
the suspected offence. Contrary to section
2.8.3 of the CQR, which suggests that the
interview concluded when an admission was
made, no admissions were made, therefore
questions around the theft of funds would
POL00108263
POL00108263
POL-0106386
not have been appropriate. However, it has
identified a missed opportunity, with the
Security Team not being made aware of key
information from the Contracts Manager in
relation to the overnight cash holdings.
CK Response
1. Inher statement of the 15" February 2012 Ms. Ballan, the Contracts Manager, makes no
reference to correspondence between her and Mr Prince.
2. Given that this letter could have assisted Mr Prince in his defence it is surprising that his
lawyers did not draw attention to it during the course of the investigation or
prosecution, other than that they were not provided with it or told of it’s existence. We
do not understand why it is only now that Mr Prince chooses to reveal it.
3. If the contents of the letter are as asserted then it is certain that, had CK known of it
they would have advised further investigation, although in many cases it is a pattern of
returns which prompts the audit.
4. Whilst we agree that the Contracts Manager ought to have been canvassed prior to this
Applicant’s interview, and that if it were the case that the Contract Manager had been
alerted to ONCH issues at an earlier date, that information might have triggered an
earlier intervention, the concession “...a missed opportunity...” should not be made,
and certainly not without sight of the original letter. The suggestion that an opportunity
to intervene earlier in this case was missed is speculative; further, it does not absolve
this Applicant from his culpability in falsifying his figures. It is to be recalled that, in so
doing, this Applicant's very purpose was to hide his wrong-doing from POL for as long as
possible.
5. The fact that the opportunity to catch this defendant earlier was missed does not
excuse his offending.
3.
Heading Text
Executive Summary In conclusion there is no evidence to support
the Applicant’s complaint that problems with
Horizon caused the issues experienced at
this branch. There is, however, evidence to
suggest that a lack of proper controls being
in place at the branch and user error
resulted in a significant level of debt
suggesting issues with the competence of
those working at and managing the branch.
POL00108263
POL00108263
POL-0106386
¥ PER:
CK Response
1. The concession that there is “...evidence to suggest that a lack of proper controls
being in place at the branch and user error resulted in a significant level of debt...”
should not be made.
To do so may well open up an argument that the Defendant’s sentence was
manifestly excessive, for the sentence imposed is intended to reflect and punish the
defendant's culpability. If we were to concede that the loss was as a result of user
error then that goes to reduce his culpability in the eyes of the court and opens up
the question whether his sentence was too heavy. Thus to make such a concession
may prompt this Applicant to lodge an appeal against sentence with the Court of
Appeal.
Further, if it were conceded that part of this loss was the result of error then the
Confiscation order made against this Applicant too becomes a live issue; it is not
beyond the bounds of possibility that monies paid by him in Confiscation may have
to be refunded to him.
This concession also gives rise to wider implications: we would be bound to disclose
the fact of the concession to other, similarly placed, defendants. And again, such
disclosure may result in appeals to the Court of Appeal against conviction and/or
sentence, and the potential for the re-opening of Confiscation Proceedings.
The position as presently stated is absurd. In interview this Applicant asserted that
he had placed £48,010.00 in physical cash in the safe on the Monday and could not
explain why it was not there the next morning when audited, save to impugn the
honesty of the auditors. Such an explanation is sufficient evidence to convict him of
the theft of that sum and he was fortunate not to be sentenced on the basis that he
had stolen the money in breach of trust.
4,
Heading
Text
Response to issues raised by the Applicant
1. Horizon generated shortages
The volume of transaction corrections would
suggest an element of user error and a lack
of proper controls around processing Lottery
sales conducted through the retail counter.
The production of multiple cash declarations
also suggests user error or could be the
result of the user manipulating cash
declarations.
CK Response
It is unfortunate in a case where a defendant has pleaded guilty to Fraud that the
paragraph reads that the TCs suggest user error or “could be” the result of the user
manipulating cash declarations. We would suggest that the words “could be” should
be deleted as the latter suggestion is more likely in this case and should not be
qualified.
POL00108263
POL00108263
POL-0106386
Heading
Text
Response to issues raised by the Applicant
Horizon generated shortages
9. The Post Office Investigation
The Applicant claims that the business failed
to mitigate potential losses if it was known
from 14 Mar 2011 that the Over-night cash
holdings (Onch) information had been
inflated. The Onch information (Doc 20
refers) was collated as part of the conduct
enquiry after the audit at branch, and was
subsequently used by the Contracts Manager
in the conduct charge letter (Doc 16 refers).
However, as detailed previously, key areas of
financial risks are monitored during the
production of the Financial Branch
Performance Profile which is what triggered
the audit response. There is no evidence in
the investigation case file to suggest that the
Security Manager was aware of the Onch
inflation charges made by the Contracts
Manager in the conduct charge letter. This
identifies a missed opportunity within the
investigation process.
CK Response
1. See Response 2 above.
2. To suggest that, with hindsight, that this Applicant’s wrong-doing may have been
detected earlier is both speculative and counter-intuitive: the whole purpose of his
falsifications was to defeat the possibility of detection.
3. Again, the suggestion that this Applicant might have been caught stealing earlier
cannot and does not mitigate his position or reduce the amount of the loss caused
to the Post Office.
Conclusion.
POL00108263
POL00108263
1. The reality in this case is that this defendant pleaded guilty on legal advice and was
sentenced on a very favourable basis.
2. The evidence was extremely strong and assisted by the defendant's absurd lies in interview.
3. He now tries to blame the conduct of the Post Office Investigators, his own Federation
Advisor and his legal team.
4. Much of what he argues in his CQR has only been recently produced and has not been seen
by Cartwright King.
POL-0106386
POL00108263
POL00108263
5. The “Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme Post Office Investigation Report”
document fails to adequately reflect what was in fact a very strong prosecution case. To
make the concessions suggested therein would be to invite both an appeal against sentence
and the refund of monies paid by the Applicant in Confiscation proceedings. Perhaps more
seriously, such concessions would undoubtedly require disclosure to other, similarly placed,
applicants, thereby giving rise to the risk of further appeals against conviction, sentence and
Confiscation Orders. Given that the suggested concessions are neither warranted not
appropriate, we advise against them being made.
6. 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 6" February 2014
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors.
POL-0106386