POL00119833
POL00119833
CLI Review of R v David Charles Blakey
Case Summary
Introduction
1.
At the time of the audit at Riby Square Post Office, David Blakey was the Sub Post Office
assistant. He had worked for Post Office Ltd (‘POL’) from September 1996. He was the
husband of the Subpostmistress (‘SPMR’), Gillian Blakey.
Following the audit on 13 May 2004, Mr Blakey was charged with seven offences.' He
faced one charge of theft (of £64,435.24 belonging to POL between I April 2003 and 12
May 2004), contrary to section I of the Theft Act 1968. He also faced six charges of false
accounting, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (namely that on six occasions
between 3 April 2003 and 13 May 2004, he dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or
with intent to cause loss to another, falsified the weekly cash account).
On 17 December 2004, at Grimsby Crown Court, Mr Blakey pleaded guilty to Counts two
to seven (i.e., the six counts of false accounting). Count I (i-e., the theft count) was left to
lie on the file.
On 25 February 2005, Mr Blakey was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment suspended
for two years, concurrent on each count. No order for compensation was made. Costs of
£1,000 were ordered, to be paid in monthly instalments of £50 (with the first payment due
four weeks after 25 February 2005).?
Mr Blakey’s convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 23
April 2021. He has given human impact evidence to the Inquiry.
Prosecution Case
6.
On 13 May 2004, auditors Glen Morris, Lynne Eastwood and Christopher Taylor attended
Riby Square Post Office in Grimsby as a result of the branch having a disproportionately
high cash on hand figure.
Mrs Gillian Blakey, SPMR, was at the branch and was asked to produce all cash, stock and
vouchers on hand for the audit. Whilst auditors were waiting for the time lock on the safe to
finish so that they could commence their audit, Mr David Blakey arrived at the branch and
asked to speak with the auditors.
Mr Blakey spoke to the audit team, informing them there would be a shortage of cash in the
region of £60,000 due to cash going missing from the office “over the last few months”.
One of the auditors, Glen Morrison, asked Mr Blakey to write and sign a statement
' Doc ID POL-0063031; POL-0089805 — Memo from Phil Taylor to Paul Whitaker (cc PSO Leeds). No
indictment is among the available documents.
? Doc ID POL-0063031; POL-0089805 — Memo from Phil Taylor to Paul Whitaker (cc PSO Leeds).
1
POL00119833
POL00119833
confirming those comments, which he did.’ At the conclusion of the audit, a total shortage
of £64,435.24 was discovered.
Interview of David Blakey
9. Mr
Blakey was interviewed under caution by Paul Whitaker and Helen Dickinson on 13
May 2004 at Riby Square Post Office between 13:08 and 13:50 hours, and 13.53 and
14.25 hours. It is apparent from the Record of Tape recorded Interview that Mr Blakey
declined the offers to seek legal representation or to have a Post Office friend present in the
interview.’
a)
b)
c)
)
e)
Mr Blakey confirmed that he would attend the branch office every day after finishing
his work as an engineer, to help do the daily cut offs and the weekly balancing on a
Wednesday. Mr Blakey stated that whilst there were four other members of staff, and
his wife who would run the office in the daytime, he would always enter the figures
onto Horizon and produce the cash accounts.
He explained that on 13 May 2004, his wife rang him and said auditors were there. He
told his boss he needed to leave work as there was an issue at the post office.
When Mr Blakey arrived at the branch, he approached the auditors and explained there
would be a discrepancy. Mr Blakey agrees that he signed piece of paper with this
account on, stating that “about 3 months ago money started to go missing” and he had
covered this up, hoping to replace it. The note also stated that his wife
the note, Mr Blakey had said the shortage would be £63,259.00 but in interview, when
discussing the signed note, he said he meant to write £63,529.00. That was the cash he
“knew was short”.
Mr Blakey was adamant throughout the interview that he did not know where or how
the money had gone. He was hoping there was an error but it did not “appear to be the
case” and the figure had just accumulated.
According to Mr Blakey, the branch suffered big discrepancies when they took it over,
which he put down to someone “unsavoury” working for him. Gillian Blakey had
ind was worrying when there were big discrepancies. He replaced the money,
but his wife____GRO _; That was why, when more recent losses appeared, he tried to
protect her by not telling her.
Mr Blakey said that he completely trusted his employees and did not believe them
capable of stealing money. He did, however, say that it was possible the money went
* There is no copy of this note but it was referenced in Mr Blakey’s interview. It was said that he wrote that the
loss would be £63,259.00, and later corrected this to £63,529,00 during interview.
* Doc ID — POL-0049091; POL-0088620 — Record of Tape-Recorded Interview of David Blakey on 13 May
2004 between 13:08 and 13
hours. See also Doc ID POL-0041310; POL-0087743 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044831] — Record of Tape-recorded interview of David Blakey on 13 May 2004 between 13:53 and
14:25 hours.
POL00119833
POL00119833
missing as a result of errors / incompetence on the part of his staff. As an example, he
said that Patricia Brown who had recently retired, used to make a lot of mistakes.
g) Mr Blakey said that he was in the process of obtaining a loan from his bank in order to
repay the missing money and had an appointment with the bank the next week. When
questioned further about the bank loan, Mr Blakey said that did not have an
appointment, but he had already seen the bank manager and been given forms to fill in.
He was going to call the bank later, after the interview, to make a second appointment.
The loan he was going to ask for was for £50,000.00 and he claimed he had told the
bank manager that it was for office building projects.
h) Mr Blakey was asked why he would repay the sum if the discrepancies were a regular
occurrence and likely to just continue, given that he had not told anybody about them.
Mr Blakey responded that his intention, once he had repaid that sum, was to inform
somebody the next time there was a discrepancy. He did not say who he would inform.
i) He was repeatedly asked where the money had gone and Mr Whittaker repeatedly
accused Mr Blakey of stealing the money, saying he did not believe his account. In
response, Mr Blakey vehemently denied stealing the money and asserted that he did not
know where the money had gone.
j) At one point, Mr Blakey accepted that his account seemed implausible given that he
had failed to inform anyone and had failed to even gather his employees together to
discuss the matter at hand, if he believed it was a result of errors or incompetence on
their part. He did, however, recollect that when they had first started at the branch and
had discovered an employee stealing, he had confronted the man in question, who had
in turn handed in his notice. Mr Blakey noted that the losses had subsequently stopped,
until the more recent discrepancies started.
k) Paul Whittaker attempted to narrow down the period of time in which the money had
gone missing. Initially, Mr Blakey had said three months. However, the cash accounts
showed that the cash on hand had steadily risen from the normal region of £40,000.00
to the figure £94,414.49 in May 2004. At this point, Mr Blakey said it was more likely
to be a year ago that the money started going missing, although he could not remember
exactly when.
1) Ultimately, Mr Blakey admitted false accounting in the interview and said that the last
true account was probably a year before the audit. He said that he had kept it to himself
and altered the account every week to cover up the loss. He vehemently denied stealing
the money.
Interview of Mrs Blakey
a) Mrs Blakey was interviewed after Mr Blakey and confirmed that he completed all daily
and weekly accounts for the branch. She knew nothing about any shortages prior to the
audit and stated that she did not believe her husband could have stolen the money.
3
POL00119833
POL00119833
b) Mrs Blakey was suspended as SPMR following her interview and a temporary SPMR
was appointed for the branch.
Further Enquiries
10. Mr Blakey’s mother, Shirley Blakey, who occasionally worked in the branch, was
interviewed but denied knowledge of any theft or the shortages.
11. The four other employees at the branch (Natasha Beck, Patricia Bown, Samantha
Callaghan and Deborah Oxten) were interviewed in the days following the audit and all
confirmed that Mr Blakey was the only person to complete daily and weekly accounts for
the branch — only he would input figures onto Horizon. They all denied theft of the money
and stated that Mr Blakey would ask for the daily cash figures to be recorded on paper and
given to him, and he would then personally input the figures on Horizon.
12. Although the initial shortfall discovered at audit was £64,435.24, further investigation after
the audit determined the final shortfall to be £65,366.46. It was subsequently found that
there were charges of £1,000.00 and £46.00 in relation to error notices, dated 24 March
2004 and 7 April 2004 respectively, which had not been considered at the audit. Finally,
there was a credit of £114.78 discovered, which was deducted from the final debt figure,
relating to remuneration made on 13 May 2004.
13. Paul Whittaker, the investigation manager, believed that Mr Blakey had stolen the money
and made enquiries with the local information office at Grimsby Police station, to establish
whether anything was known of Mr Blakey’s “/ifestyle choices’. It does not appear that
anything untoward was discovered.
Charges
14. Following advice from Jarnail Singh,’ Mr Blakey was charged with seven offences:
1) That between I April 2003 and 12 May 2004, he stole £64,435.24 belonging to
POL (contrary to section I of the Theft Act 1968).
2) That on or about 3 April 2003, he dishonestly with a view to gain for himself or
with intent to cause loss to another falsified a document required for an accounting
purpose namely the weekly cash account for week ending 2 April 2003 by making
an entry therein purporting to show that the cash on hand was £58,226.97 when the
true figure was a lesser amount (contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Act 1968).
3) That on or about the 10 April 2003 he dishonestly with a view to gain for himself or
with intent to cause loss to another falsified a document required for an accounting
purpose namely the weekly cash account for week ending 9th April 2003 by
making an entry therein purporting to show that the cash on hand was £51,494.56
when the true figure was a lesser amount.
§ POL-0041299; POL-0087741 [Inquiry URN: POL00044820]
4
POL00119833
POL00119833
4) That on or about the 2 October 2003 he dishonestly with a view to gain for himself
or with intent to cause loss to another falsified a document required for an
accounting purpose namely the weekly cash account for week ending 1 October
2003 by making an entry therein purporting to show that the cash on hand was
£87,286.63 when the true figure was a lesser amount.
5) That on or about the 9th day of October 2003 he dishonestly with a view to gain for
himself or with intent to cause loss to another falsified a document required for an
accounting purpose namely the weekly cash account for week ending 8th October
2003 by making an entry therein purporting to show that the cash on hand was
£79,133.52 when the true figure was a lesser amount.
6) That on or about the 25th day of March 2004 he dishonestly with a view to gain for
himself or with intent to cause loss to another falsified a document required for an
accounting purpose namely the weekly cash account for week ending 24th March
2004 by making an entry therein purporting to show that the cash on hand was
£91,639.71 when the true figure was a lesser amount.
7) That on or about the 13th day of May 2004 he dishonestly with a view to gain for
himself or with intent to cause loss to another falsified a document required for an
accounting purpose namely the weekly cash account for week ending 12th May
2004 by making an entry therein purporting to show that the cash on hand was
£94,414.49 when the true figure was a lesser amount.
Court hearings
15.
Mr Blakey appeared before Grimsby Magistrates’ Court for the first appearance on 22
September 2004. The case was committed to Grimsby Crown Court on an unknown date.
. At the Plea and Case Management Hearing on 17 December 2004, at Grimsby Crown
Court before Recorder Kelly, Mr Blakey pleaded guilty to six counts of false accounting.
One count of theft was ordered to lie on the file. The alleged shortfall was £65,366.46.
. On 25 February 2005, Recorder Gibson sentenced Mr Blakey to nine months’
imprisonment suspended for two years (concurrent on each count of false accounting). A
pre-sentence report was ordered but this is not among the available papers. Mr Blakey was
ordered to pay £1000 towards the costs of the prosecution to be paid in monthly instalment
of £50. According to Gillian Blakey in the Group Action documents, the Judge said in
sentencing that Mr Blakey was “foolish but not dishonest”.° It was apparently also stated
by the Judge that Mr Blakey would have to “repay the £64,000.00 to the post office at
some point” but no formal order for compensation made.
Human Impact Evidence
Mr Blakey’s evidence
© Doc ID POL-0062943; POL-0089775 — Post Office Mediation Application Form from Gillian Blakey, dated 6
September 2013.
POL00119833
POL00119833
18. Mr Blakey has given Human Impact Evidence to POHIT Inquiry in a witness statement
dated 29 October 2021.’ Mr Blakey states that he suffered a stroke in September 2017,
which he attributes to the stress of reliving his experiences when he joined the Justice for
Sub-Postmasters Alliance. Mr Blakey explains that as a result of losing their jobs with
POL, he and his wife had to sell their home, which only had £26,000 left on the mortgage.
He had to declare bankruptcy, so the proceeds of the sale went to the Official Receivers.
After this, Mr and Mrs Blakey moved into rented accommodation.
19. Mr Blakey states that he has suffered low mood, poor sleep pattern, tiredness, a loss of
enjoyment in activities, poor appetite, poor concentration, lack of motivation, low self-
esteem, feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness, low self-confidence and feelings of guilt.
He also states that he has suffered suicidal thoughts. He also suffers from feelings of
unease, palpitations, migraines, and headaches.
20. Mr Blakey states that, “J was very difficult following my conviction. I even suffered with
hypnagogic hallucinations. I can recall several occasions where I have even heard a
voice or a noise. I once saw a figure in the bedroom and thought this was my sister. I felt
a sense of unease all the time. I tried to get a job as a plumber, but it was hard to make a
living, everything became a challenge”.
2
. For 2-3 years Mr Blakey struggled to find employment due to the reluctance to employ
individuals with criminal records. He was therefore forced to claim benefits. Mr Blakey
eventually did find a job as a handyman at a leisure centre. After 8 years in the role, being
paid half what he was paid before his conviction, he was promoted to health and safety
manager as well as engineering manager.
22. Mr Blakey explains that, before his conviction, he had a number of hobbies including
painting and going on holiday. Following his conviction, he lost his passion for painting.
23. As a result of Mr Blakey’s conviction, his sister disowned him. He and his wife were the
life and soul of the party, but this was taken away from him. Mrs Blakey noticed that he
became “snappy and less tolerable”, and he would lose his temper easily. It was upsetting
for Mr Blakey that his mother passed away without knowing that his conviction had been
overturned.
24. Mr Blakey avoids certain things like going into a Post Office. He tried to switch off from
anything to do with the Horizon case.
25. Mr Blakey explains that his mother also lost her job as a result of his conviction, as she
worked in the Post Office. He and his wife struggled for two to three years to find work,
which Mr Blakey felt was degrading. Mr Blakey’s sister still has nothing to do with him
and he has lost out on having a relationship with his nephew.
7 https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/WITNO1530100%20-
%20David%20Blakey%20-%20First%20Statement_0.pdf
6
26.
POL00119833
POL00119833
Mr and Mrs Blakey now live in social housing. He receives a state pension and £300 per
month. As he lost his job following his conviction, Mr Blakey stopped paying into his
private pension. Mr Blakey concludes by stating, “Even though my innocence has been
proven, I feel guilty about going through everything in the first place. I also feel guilty
about the impact this has had on my family. One of the biggest things for me now is that I
do not own anything”.
Mrs Blakey’s evidence
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Mrs Blakey also gave Human Impact Evidence to POHIT Inquiry in a witness statement
dated 13 January 2022.8 She stated that the training she received on how to use Horizon
was not adequate or sufficient, with very little training on the accounting, financial, and
management side of the business. Mrs Blakey stated that the training was inadequately
focused, as more focus should have been placed on balancing. She remembered being
shown how to do the balancing procedure once but stated that this was not a
straightforward process. Mrs Blakey explained that she struggled to roll the balance over.
Mr and Mrs Blakey asked for assistance and Ron McLauchlan visited the branch. Mrs
Blakey stated, “he was hopeless; worse than hopeless. He did not have a clue about
Horizon, or the balancing procedure, so he was totally unable to help”. Mrs Blakey stated
that Mr McLauchlan’s presence made things worse, as he was unable to balance. She
stated that, “The whole process was really very tiring. We had had a busy day working in
the post office, and we could not manage to figure out how the system worked. I think it
was concerning, given that the process was taking so long, and taking so long such a
short time after Horizon had been installed”.
Mrs Blakey explained that she could not remember whether her and her husband
telephoned the helpline to rectify the problems they were having. She stated that her branch
was audited twice before Horizon was installed and no problems were found.
Mrs Blakey described how shortfalls began accumulating, which her husband hid from her
to avoid exacerbating her asthma. Mrs Blakey described her shock and disbelief that the
shortfall was so high. Mrs Blakey stated that she was interviewed the day after her
husband’s interview. She stated that she asked the interviewer, Mr Whitaker, if there could
be any problems with Horizon. Mrs Blakey stated that Mr Whitaker looked surprised and
replied “no, someone has stolen it’. She was informed by her husband that Mr Whitaker
asked him if he was having an affair.
Mrs Blakey stated that, to assist the investigation, she gave Mr Whitaker the name of
someone who worked in the branch who appeared to be living beyond her means. Mrs
Blakey stated that Mr Whitaker showed this person the email and told her to sue Mrs
Blakey for defamation.
Mrs Blakey stated that she knew that POL had not checked her and her husband’s bank
accounts.
* https:/Awww.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/WITN02310100%20-
%20Gillian%20Blakey%20-%20First%20Statement.pdf
7
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
POL00119833
POL00119833
Mrs Blakey described how her husband lost his job following his conviction. Her “world
had come crashing down” and she was worried that she would lose her home. Mrs Blakey
underwent counselling for the stress and worry.
Mrs Blakey described how she and her husband had no choice but to file for bankruptcy.
All the proceeds of the sale of their house went to the mortgage lender. They lost their car
and had to move into rented accommodation.
Although Mr Blakey received compensation, Mrs Blakey stated that most of the
compensation was taken up by legal costs.
Mrs Blakey stated that POL robbed her and her husband of their business, livelihood and
home: “It robbed us of the chance of a peaceful, happy and prosperous retirement, and
the chance of selling a thriving business”. She described her husband’s devastation at his
conviction. Mr and Mrs Blakey continue to live in rented accommodation. Mrs Blakey
described how her husband has been diagnosed with PTSD and that his pension is very
much reduced.
Mrs Blakey ended her statement by stating: “/’d like the Inquiry to put this right and to
show where the blame really belongs and to put us in the position we would have been in
if none of this had ever [sic] happened”.
Investigation
CLI Questions
POL00119833
POL00119833
Q.121. Who was
responsible for conducting
the investigation?
Paul Whitaker (Investigation Manager)
POL-0041297; POL-
0087740 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044818]
Q. 124. What (if any)
advice or guidance did they
receive regarding (a) their
duty to conduct a thorough
investigation; (b) their
duty to pursue all
reasonable lines of enquiry;
and (c) their duty of
disclosure? Were these
adequate?
In his memo dated 23 June 2004, Jarnail
Singh asked the investigators to obtain the
following statements:
1) Statements from the auditors.
2) A “statement from the Retail Network
Manager concerning the appointment of the
Subpostmaster and identifving Mrs Blakey
the Subpostmistress and producing a copy of
the relevant extract of the contract showing
that it is not permitted to use Post Office
funds”.
3) Statements from other members of staff
4) A “statement from Paul Graham Whitaker
and Helen Dickinson outlining their total
involvement in the matter and producing all
relevant exhibits including the interviews”.
5) Any other statements the Officers
considered relevant.
The memo does not address the specific
duties in this question, and does not suggest
investigation into the matters that Mr Blakey
raised during his interview. There is no other
material amongst the available papers that
deals with these specific duties.
In POL’s Respondent’s Notice dated 2
October 2020, it was accepted that the
evidence from Horizon was essential in this
case. “The audit was a comparison of the
office snapshot with the cash and stock
held at branch. There was no investigation
into Horizon. Based on the papers
available from the criminal proceedings,
there is nothing to suggest any ARQ data
was obtained.”
It further states “there was no investigation
into the matters raised by Mr Blakey
during his interview, nor was there any
investigation into Horizon reliability.”
POL-0041299; POL-
0087741 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044820]
Respondent’s Notice dated 2
October 2020
9
POL00119833
POL00119833
The Court of Appeal also noted that “there
is nothing to indicate that any ARQ data
was obtained at the time of the criminal
proceedings. There was no evidence to
corroborate the Horizon evidence. There
was no investigation into the matters raised
by Mr Blakey during his interview, nor was
Hamilton & Others v POL
[2021] EWCA Crim 577
there any __ investigation
reliability”.
into Horizon
Q.125. What factors
influenced the scope of
enquiries undertaken?
Not known from the available papers.
considerations play?
Q.126. What (if any) role
did financial or reputational
Not known from the available papers.
Q.127. Who was
this investigation?
responsible for supervising
or reviewing the conduct of
Not known from the available papers.
all) was independent
relation to the
adequate?
Q.129. To what extent (if at
oversight exercised in
conduct of these criminal
investigations? By whom
was it exercised and was it
Not known from the available papers.
Charging
Q.130. Who made the
charging decision?
Jarnail Singh (Senior Lawyer, Criminal Law
Division)
POL-0041299; POL-
0087741 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044820]
Q.133. What policies,
guidance or principles did
they apply when making
charging
decisions? Were they
suitable and applied
appropriately?
It appears from Jarnail Singh’s ‘charging
memo’ (see answer to question 134) that he
considered whether or not there was a
“realistic prospect of conviction’ (i.c. part of
the ‘Full Code Test’ used by Crown
Prosecutors, without referencing the test).
There is no indication that Mr Singh gave
consideration to ‘public interest’ factors.
Q.134. What (if any) legal
advice did they receive
concerning the
appropriateness of
bringing charges in
individual cases?
On 23 June 2004, Jarnail Singh provided a
‘charging memo’ to S & A Casework (cc
Paul Whitaker) and provided his opinion that
there was a “realistic prospect of conviction
of Mr Blakey for an offence of theft with a
low prospect of success and for false
POL-0041299; POL-
0087741 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044820]
10
POL00119833
POL00119833
accounting with a high prospect of success”.
Mr Singh continued, “Clearly in the absence
of any admissions from Mr Blakey for theft
of the £64,435.24 then we will need to
eliminate the involvement of Mrs Blakey and
other members of staff, and they will need to
give evidence (if they can do so) to implicate
Mr Blakey in the preparation of the inputs of
all the daily figures for the Office on the
Horizon system and that each week he
completes the Office balance — and
subsequently produces and signs the weekly
cash account and the other members of staff
do not perform any of the accounting
procedures at the Office. This has been
accepted by David Blakey. This fact needs to
be confirmed in witness statements. The
witnesses will need to confirm that they did
not steal cash or falsify the accounts. Once
we can get these statements, then I would
confirm that there would be a good prospect
of success to prosecute Mr Blakey for theft.
The case will further be strengthened by the
further enquiries which are in hand in
relation to his finances.”
Mr Singh stated that in his opinion the case
was more suitable for trial in the Crown
Court.
Q.135. What (if any)
action did they take upon
receipt of such advice?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.136. Was an offence of
theft charged? If so, was
there sufficient evidence to
support it? Did the charge
place improper pressure
on the D? Was that
intended?
Yes, theft was charged. In its judgment, the
Court of Appeal concluded (§§ 351-352):
“POL accepts that this was an unexplained
shortfall case and that evidence from
Horizon was essential to Mr Blakey's case.
There is nothing to indicate that any ARO
data was obtained at the time of the criminal
proceedings. There was no evidence to
corroborate the Horizon evidence. There
was no investigation into the matters raised
by Mr Blakey during his interview, nor was
there any investigation into Horizon
reliability. There was no proof of an actual
loss as opposed to a Horizon-generated
shortfall.
POL concedes only that Mr Blakey's
prosecution was unfair (Ground 1) but we
Hamilton & Others v POL
[2021] EWCA Crim 577
POL’s Respondent Notice
(dated 2 October 2020)
11
POL00119833
POL00119833
are bound to conclude that his prosecution
was in addition an affront to justice (Ground
2). The public interest requires us to mark
this latter conclusion. We do so by allowing
his appeal both on Ground 1 and on Ground
2. His convictions are unsafe.
Notwithstanding his guilty pleas, we quash
his convictions on all six counts”
Q.137. Who was
responsible for supervising
or reviewing the charging
decision?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.139. To what extent (if
at all) was independent
oversight exercised in
relation to
charging decisions? By
whom was it exercised
and was it adequate?
Not known from the available papers.
Prosecution
Q140. Who was
responsible for conducting
the prosecution?
Jarnail Singh (Senior Lawyer, Criminal Law
Division)
POL-0041299; POL-
0087741 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044820]
Q.143. What legal advice
did they receive
concerning the
appropriateness of
pursuing private
prosecutions in individual
cases?
The only relevant document seen amongst the
available papers is the charging memo at
question 134 above.
Q.144. What action did
they take upon receipt of
such advice?
As noted in answer to question 134 above, in
his ‘charging memo’ Mr Singh advised that,
in the absence of admissions from Mr Blakey
for theft, it was necessary to eliminate the
involvement of Mrs Blakey and other
members of staff. He stated that others
needed to give evidence on the involvement
of Mr Blakey in the preparation of the inputs
of all the daily figures into Horizon and that
other members of staff did not perform any of
the accounting procedures at the Post Office.
He stated that these facts needed to be
confirmed in witness statements. Mr Singh
stated that there would be a good prospect of
success to charge Mr Blakey with theft and
that the case would be strengthened by the
further enquiries which were being made into
Mr Blakey’s finances. Mr Singh stated that,
once the evidence was forthcoming from
POL-0041299; POL-
0087741 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044820]
12
POL00119833
POL00119833
other members of staff, it would be
appropriate to proceed by way of a summons.
It can be seen that there are a number of
witness statements among the available
papers.
Q.146. Who was
responsible for supervising
or reviewing the conduct
of the prosecution?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.148. How (if at all) was
supervision of private
prosecutions exercised?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.149. To what extent (if
at all) was independent
oversight exercised in
relation to the conduct of
In his ‘charging memo’ Jarnail Singh states
that the prosecution will be conducted by his
agent, Messrs Frank Allen Pennington,
Solicitors of Hill House Chambers, South
POL-0041299; POL-
0087741 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044820]
prosecutions? Parade, Doncaster. It is not known from the
available papers what involvement they had
in the conduct of the prosecution. No details
of known of counsel instructed to prosecute
in the Crown Court.
Disclosure
Q150. Who was Not known from the available papers. I POL-0041296; POL-
responsible for making
disclosure decisions?
However, there is a (unsigned and undated)
schedule of unused among the available
papers
It is not known who the Disclosure Officer
was, but it is likely that it was Paul Whitaker.
Similarly, it is not known who dealt with
disclosure from the legal team, but as lawyer
with conduct of the case, it is likely that
Jarnail Singh had responsibility for this task.
0087739 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044817]
Q.153. What legal advice
did they receive
concerning duties of
disclosure?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.154. What action did
they take upon receipt of
such advice?
Not known from the available papers.
However, there is a schedule of unused
material among the available papers.
POL-0041296; POL-
0087739 [Inquiry URN:
POL00044817]
Q.155. What factors
influenced the scope of
disclosure?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.156. What (if any) role
did financial or
reputational considerations
play?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.157. Were the decisions
which they took in relation
Not known from the available papers.
13
POL00119833
POL00119833
to disclosure appropriate? I
Negotiation and Acceptance of Pleas
QI158. Who was responsible for
decision-making re: negotiation
and acceptance of pleas?
Not known from the available papers. Mr Blakey pleaded
guilty to six counts of false accounting and the theft was left
to lie on the file.
Q.159. What policies, guidance
or principles did they apply
when making their decisions?
Were they suitable and applied
appropriately?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.160. In what circumstances
and upon what conditions were
charges not pursued? Were
these appropriate?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.161. In what circumstances
and upon what conditions were
pleas accepted? Were these
appropriate?
Not known from the available papers.