POL00123322
POL00123322
Jarnail Singhf GRO
Ce: Angela Van-Den-Boge:
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.F1D20472253]
Attachment: _DOC_29102295(4)_Note on pensions and allowances reintroduction fraud 22 Jul 14.DOCX
Attachment: _COMPARISON_29109971(1)_ Comparison of pensions note 22 Jul 14 v 3.PDF
Dear All
Many thanks to Dave for his help with this today.
I have revised the note to take account of Dave's comments below and expanded on the point relating to non-bar
coded books as a result of our discussions. I have attached a comparison showing the changes made since the
version we sent around yesterday.
Provided you are happy the content is correct, we are happy for the clean note (not the comparison) to be sent on to
Second Sight.
If you have any queries, please let me know.
Kind regards
Victoria
Victoria Brooks
Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Dave Posnett j. ]
Sent: 22 July 2014 09:55
To: Brooks, Victoria; Belinda Crowe; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Chris Aujard; Jarnail Singh
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Sensitivity: Private
POL00123322
POL00123322
Victoria,
The vast majority of P&A books were barcoded. They should have been scanned by the SPMR/clerk and
if the book had been reported lost or stolen then Horizon (or indeed its previous incarnation) would have
instructed the SPMR/clerk to impound the P&A book. The actual foils, vouchers, etc within the P&A book
were not barcoded, but they did contain customers National Insurance or Pension numbers ... providing an
audit trail/information for the DWP.
If a P&A book wasn’t barcoded (which was rare) then the SPMR/clerk could conduct a manual entry on
Horizon (basically entering the pension type and amount in effect). The fraud involving the encashment of
lost/stolen books was evident when the DWP spotted high volumes of manual entries (non scanning) and
that the bulk of these encashments related to lost/stolen P&A books ... i.e the National Insurance or
Pension numbers on the submitted foils, vouchers, etc were cross referenced to P&A books that had been
reported lost/stolen.
There are also other methods e.g. swapping book covers so the scanning would be genuine to Horizon,
but the foils, vouchers, etc within the book would be lost/stolen. But this could confuse matters and simply
add more noise if communicated to Second Sight. In summary, the P&A books had safeguards, but they
weren't 100% secure and fraudsters naturally look for ways to circumnavigate these safeguards. Fraud
was significant and indeed a main driver (in addition to costs) for moving to Post Office Card Account.
Regards,
Dave Posnett I Accredited Financial Investigator
t, London, EC1V 9HQ
From: Brooks, Victoria [mailt
Sent: 22 July 2014 09:38
To: Belinda Crowe; Dave Posnett; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Chris Aujard; Jarnail Singh
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Sensitivity: Private
Dear All
Please see attached clean version of the note, and, for ease of reference, a comparison document in pdf format (not
to be sent on to Second Sight) which shows the changes we have made. On reflection, we also added another bullet to
the executive summary just to reinforce the point that these frauds cannot cause a loss unless the surplus is withdrawn
from the branch
One thing that is not covered in the note, which Ron may come back on, is why is Horizon not designed so that these
frauds cannot take place e.g. why do the vouchers / dockets not have a unique code number or bar code which could
be inputted into Horizon and which would check if the voucher had already been claimed against? This might be
something Dave can help with. This need not stop us from sending the note over now, but it would be worth knowing if
we have an answer to this in case it is asked.
If you have any queries, please ask.
POL00123322
POL00123322
Kind regards
Victoria
Victoria Brooks
Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brooks, Victoria
Sent: 22 July 2014 08:59
To: ‘Belinda Crowe’; Dave Posnett; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Chris Aujard; Jarnail Singh
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
ity: Private
Thanks Belinda and Dave. I will make the changes suggested (which are helpful — thank you) and send the note back
to you shortly.
Kind regards
Victoria
From: Belinda Crowe [mailto:
Sent: 22 July 2014 08:24
To: Brooks, Victoria; Dave Posnett; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Chris Aujard; Jarnail Singh
Cc: Belinda Crowe
Subject: FW: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Sensitivity: Private
Thanks all,
This looks good to me. Victoria, you may want to tweak to take account of Dave’s comments but otherwise I think
that we could send this over to Second Sight with a covering email from Chris which explains that:
In direct respond to Second Sight’s specific request there is no overarching brief on this, because, as is clear from the
note, that there is no pattern of ‘failed’ prosecutions as far as POL is aware and therefore no underlying issue.
We will to investigate cases as they come to us but would point out that those who apply to the Scheme do not cover
the who spmr population, and the fact that an applicant asserts a position needs to be tested by the investigation
process established for the Scheme.
POL00123322
POL00123322
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ.
From: Dave Posnett
Sent: 21 July 2014 18:33
To: Brooks, Victoria; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Sensitivity: Private
Hi Victoria,
Thank you. I think this is an accurate portrayal of P&A book processes and associated frauds. The only
things I would mention (to change if you wish) are the following:
« Whilst these days we refer to ‘Transaction Corrections’, these were formerly known as ‘Error
Notices’ ... not an issue, but previous terms have been explained for some items within the report.
e — If DWP noticed an overclaim/reintroduction on their rota check, this would trigger a further 4 week
check. If the overclaim/reintroduction was a one-off then the branch would be subject to an Error
Notice. If there were more overclaims/reintroductions evident then only then would an investigation
be raised.
e POU = Paid Order Unit ... part of the DWP responsible for paid orders (or vouchers, dockets, foils,
etc). This isn’t explained in the report and Second Sight may wonder what POU is?
« When deciding on prosecution, various parties have an input or are part of the decision making
process ... DWP/POL Investigator/POL Decision Manager/POL Legal/Barrister ... I only re-iterate
the point that we don’t simply prosecute (as some would perceive), there are many checks and
balances before cases even get to court.
Regards,
Dave Posnett I Accredited Financial Investigator
Security Team, 5" Floor Bunhill Row wing, 148 Old St, London, EC1V 9HQ
From: Brooks, Victoria [mailt:
Sent: 21 July 2014 17:38
To: Parsons, Andrew; Dave Posnett
Cc: Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances 'Reintroduction' Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
POL00123322
POL00123322
Dear Dave
I am a colleague of Andy Parsons in commercial disputes and I have recently started to assist with the Horizon
mediation scheme. Andy asked me to take a look at this and prepare a note for you, which is attached.
As you will see, we have put the section dealing with the criminal prosecutions onto a separate page after a page
break. This is because this goes beyond the more factual analysis of the frauds in the first section and is an issue
which we may not want to refer to whenever this note is used as Belinda points out in her email (particularly as it notes
that commenting on the merits of prosecutions is not part of Second Sight's expertise or scope), so we have put it in a
separate section to aid ease of removal when it is not needed.
Please do let us know if you have any comments or changes to this note.
Kind regards
Victoria
Victoria Brooks
Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 14 July tee -
To: ‘dave.posnett@
Cc: 'belinda.crowet, G RO Brooks, Victoria
Subject: Re: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Sensitivity: Private
Apologies - I meant BD. We'll do a draft and send it over to you for your thoughts. A
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Sent by blackberry
From: Dave Posnett
POL00123322
POL00123322
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 05:52 PM
To: Parsons, Andrew _
Cc: Belinda Crowe <i Brooks, Victoria
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Andy,
Yes, fine. When you say ‘we’ do you mean Bond Dickinson or you and me?
I think I covered everything in my previous email on this, but happy to add further or clarify if need be.
Regards,
Dave Posnett I Accredited Financial Investigator
Security Team, 5" Floor Bunhill Row Wing, 148 Old St, London, EC1V 9HQ
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:
Sent: 14 July 2014 11:48
To: Dave Posnett
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Brooks, Victoria
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Sensitivity: Private
Dave
We can do a first draft if that works for you?
A
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
From: Belinda Crowe [mailto:
Sent: 14 July 2014 09:05
To: Parsons, Andrew; Jarnail Singh
Cc: Rodric Williams; John M Scott; Jonny Gribben; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; David Oliver1; Dave Posnett; Chris
Aujard; Belinda Crowe
POL00123322
POL00123322
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances 'Reintroduction' Fraud - Confidential
Sensitivity: Private
Having now reviewed all the emails on this, I think we need to do a paper for second Sight which we can refer to again
and again on these cases. I do not think we should have them all reviewed, except insofar as we need to for the POL
investigation.
However, the combination of points made by Dave, Andy and Jarnail (the latter being that it is important to ensure
that assertions are made on the basis of fact) and there is a broader point about the fact that matters relating to
criminal law and procedure are outside second Sight’s scope and expertise and accordingly they are not required to
give an opinion on them (as set out in their letter of engagement).
Andy/ Dave would it be possible for you to get your heads together and draft a detailed note for Ron which sets out
the position. As set out above, I think this is something we would want to refer to every time one of ‘these’ cases
arises. We can, as we have done with the ATM briefing, append it to any responses to draft CRRs where SS have not
listened to or response (although I realise that there may be some parts we would not wish to appeand).
Hope that makes sense, if not, happy to discuss (Andy we can pick up when we speak later if helpful).
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:i
Sent: 03 July 2014 20:05
To: Belinda Crowe; Jarnail Singh
Cc: Rodric Williams; John M Scott; Jonny Gribben; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; David Oliver1; Dave Posnett; Chris Aujard
: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential
7: Private
Belinda
My 2 cents...
Ron seems to be drawing a distinction between (i) cases of outright fraud and (ii) cases where the SPMR innocently re-
entered the same pension docket twice.
In terms of termination of an SPMR's contract, this may make little difference. The former is clearly grounds for
summary dismissal whereas the latter demonstrates a failure to follow procedures / incompetence which may also be a
sound basis for summary dismissal. Obviously, there is a question of whether the incompetence is so serious as to
warrant dismissal but Post Office do regularly dismiss SPMRs on this ground. The latter therefore perhaps presents
an issue worthy of investigation by SS as along as SS accepts that it does not lead to an automatic conclusion that
POL acted wrongly.
POL00123322
POL00123322
Ron also alludes to the idea that SPMRs may have been wrongly prosecuted and may have suffered damage as a
result. Clearly, the first line of defence will be as per Dave's email on all the possible reasons for why a prosecution
may be stopped. In any event, the proper claim in this area would be "malicious prosecution". This requires not
merely error or negligence on the part of POL in bringing a prosecution but rather recklessness or bad faith (eg. POL
knew the SPMR to be innocent but prosecuted anyway). It would therefore require a dramatic failing on POL's part to
tip over this threshold.
We'd also need to consider, on a case by case basis, if any civil claims resulting from the above would now be legally
time barred. Dave suggested in his email that P&A dockets with withdrawn in around 2005 which suggests that most
claims would be beyond the usual 6 year limitation period (though there may be an extended period for Malicious
Prosecution — I'd need to check this).
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Belinda Crowe .
Sent: 03 July 2014 18:47
To: Jarnail Singh
Cc: Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; John M Scott; Jonny Gribben; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; David Oliver1; Dave
Posnett; Chris Aujard; Belinda Crowe
j RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential
7: Private
Thanks Jarnail
This is useful background. I will not, of course, pass this on. I will draft something for Chris to consider as a response
to Ron based on this and Dave’s very helpful assessment. Everyone will have an opportunity to comment/clear it
before it goes.
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
‘Postline
POL00123322
POL00123322
From: Jarnail Singh
Sent: 03 July 2014 14:09
To: Belinda Crowe
Cc: Parsons, Andre'
Van-Den-Bogerd; Davi Uj
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ’Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential
Sensitivity: Private
Rodric Williams; John M Scott; Jonny Gribben; Angela
Belinda
In the Jasvinder Kaur Uppal case in the second sight list ref M108
Mrs Uppal,, faced 8 charges of theft from Royal Mail customers via their Post Office Card Accounts. The
total loss alleged is £5,461.97. The prosecution case was that Mrs U as a sub-postmistress on 38 occasions
asked 8 elderly customers to input their PIN numbers a second time on the pre-text that it had not worked
the first time. The case is that Mrs U then gave the customer a single amount of cash keeping the second
for herself. She made full admissions in her second PACE interview. In her defence statement, she denies
the theft claiming no knowledge of where the money has gone.
It was not in the public interest for this case to continue to be prosecuted particularly; Defendant remained
GRO}to stand trial she was nd was not able to give evidence at
he nto account the order which is likely to
her own trial. Death of 2 of p
be imposed if Ms Uppal was found guilty . Sentence options are restricted, due to:
advised by counsel likelihood o' the amounts in
community impact and the minimal likelihood of her conduct being repeated. The’
which POL could not dispute, in relation to on-going impact also militates against the continuation of the
case. Hope this helps
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
. 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V
(Device 9HQ
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
POL00123322
POL00123322
(Device
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device Post Office stories
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device @postofficenews
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
From: Jarnail Singh
Sent: 03 July 2014 10:40
To: Belinda Crowe
Cc: Parsons, Andrew
Van-Den-Bogerd; Da’ ; ;
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential
Sensitivity: Private
Rodric Williams; John M Scott; Jonny Gribben; Angela
Belinda
Thanks .
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
: 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V
(Device 9HO
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device
Independent
Bitmap) >>
GRO. Postline:t
POL00123322
POL00123322
<< OLE
Object: Picture {~ j
(Device ; GRO I Mobex
Independent i J
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device Post Office stories
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device @postofficenews
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 02 July 2014 18:22
To: Jarnail Singh
Cc: Parsons, Andrew }; Rodric Williams; John M Scott; Jonny Gribben; Angela
Van-Den-Bogerd; David Oliver1; Dave Posnett; Belinda Crowe; Chris Aujard
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential
Thanks Jarnail,
As discussed, I think at this stage the issue might be slightly more straightforward. That is that we want to explore
whether or not there was a generic issue here. I would not want to speculate at the moment on what that might be
but a look at the cases might explain whether there is a link between them in some way. I realise that all cases are
dealt with on a case by case basis and that may well be our response to Second Sight — that there is no common link in
the way that they suggest and that each case will be investigated by POL in the usual way when they are submitted.
So at this stage I do not think we need the review by lawyers in the way you describe at this stage — let’s take it step at
a time and see what an initial trawl through throws up.
I have no problem with us alerting CK to the fact that SS have raised this, just for information and we will need to
make sure, as we address these points in our investigations we are mindful of the fact that SS could start to draw a
parallel between cases. Hence being able to give them a firm response at this stage and, if appropriate, being able to
nip this in the bud.
Best wishes
POL00123322
POL00123322
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, ECIV 9HQ
'Postline
From: Jarnail Singh
Sent: 02 July 2014 15:09
To: Belinda Crowe; Chris. Auiard.
Cc: Parsons, Andrew ¢__
Van-Den-Bogerd; David Oliver1; Dave Posnett
Subject: RE: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential
Sensi 7? Private
; Rodric Williams; John M Scott; Jonny Gribben; Angela
Belinda/ Chris
The attached Shah case does not cause POL any concerns. Daksha Shahs conviction was rightly over turned by the
court of appeal. She was represented by completely incompetent barrister at her trial before the crown court and it
was for that reason the court of appeal concluded that her conviction was unsafe. In brief her barrister should not
have agreed to the evidence of vulnerable witnesses to be read, given the defence his client wanted to advance.
Turning to other DWP issues being raised by second sight;
L.It is not surprising that second sight is looking for trends. I anticipate that they will look to identify other trends in
the mediation applications too.
2. Clearly POL needs to be in position to say they have looked into and considered such issues. No doubt there could
be adverse publicity should it be alleged POL are not properly investigating the issues which are raised.
3. There could be number of reasons for the failure/ withdrawal of a prosecutions. Second sight appear to be saying
that they are struggling to understand the reasons themselves..
4. I would recommend that independent specialist Lawyers be instructed to look at the cases highlighted by second
sight ,with view to identifying the reasons for the failure / withdrawal of the cases. No doubt they could be asked to
look at available evidence in any given case with view to explaining whether or not the commencement of proceeding
were justified against the individual concerned. It is my view this should be done by a) specialist criminal lawyers b)
Outside the organisation to avoid any suggestion being made in due course that POL have not investigated
adequately or have investigated in such a way as to brush the issues under the carpet. Such an instructions in my view
offer POL maximum protection both publically and POLS dealings with second sight.
Regards
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
<< OLE 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V
Object: Picture 9HQ
(Device
POL00123322
POL00123322
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture ee
(Device Postiine:I GRO I
Independent Lacie
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture a
(Device i GRO
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device Post Office stories
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE
Object: Picture
(Device @postofficenews
Independent
Bitmap) >>
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 02 July 2014 10:26
To: Dave Posnett F
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Parsons, Andrew (:
Scott; Jonny Gribben; Angela Van-Den-Boger:
Subject: FW: Pensions & Allowances ‘Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential
Sensitivity: Private
Rodric Williams; Jarnail Singh; John M
Dave, I think you may be the first port of call on this. Below is an email from Ron Warmington of Second Sight. He
raised this matter yesterday at a meeting with Chris Aujard yesterday.
The gist is that Second Sight claim to have identified a potential pattern of cases — case details set out in the table
POL00123322
POL00123322
below — where DWP related fraud prosecution related cases were either withdrawn or failed for some reason.
The Post Office has only completed its investigation on two of these cases (highlighted in red). I The majority of the
information Ron has used to inform his question below has been gleaned from cases put by the applicants. However,
we do need to able to answer his broader question of whether there was a specific problem relating to these types of
prosecutions which resulted in them either failing or being withdrawn.
Are you able to provide a response on this that Chris can use to respond to Ron. That response does not need to
address the individual cases, as that will be done through the Post Office investigation process.
I think we will need to get back to Ron by the end of the week.
Best wishes
Belinda
Case Ref Name of applicant Post office FAD Code
moo2 TAYLOR Agnes Road 497340
M004 JONES Rhigos 484611
M020 BATEMAN Twigworth 235523
mos2 COUSINS Hertford Heath 119129
M059 BROWN Annfield Plain 153329
M061 RHODES Marchington 330238
M100 FOULGER Boaler Street 171420
M108 UPPAL Lazy Hill 231242
M131 BHANOTE Langley 295246
M144 ENGLISH Great Haywood 321238
M150 CONNOLLY Killeter 179714
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
‘Postline
GRO
GRO!
POL00123322
POL00123322
From: Ron Warmington:
Sent: 01 July 2014 15:12
To: Chris Aujard -
Cc: Belinda Crowe; mediatio1
Subject: Pensions & Allowances Reintroduction’ Fraud - Confidential
Sensitivity: Private
Strictly confidential - prepared in contemplation of litigation:
Chris:
As mentioned today, we have a number of cases (we now have 11) where ‘Pensions
and Allowances’ matters have been raised (cases M002, 004, 020, 052, 059, 061,
100, 108, 131, 144 and 150). Whilst, as yet, we have only received the CQRs on 8
of these (M002, 020, 052, 059, 061, 100, 108 and 131)... and, of those, POL will
only see the CQRs on two of those later this week (M020 and M131)... and we
have only as yet received the POIRs on cases MOO2 and MO52, something of a
pattern is emerging.
The pattern here is that some of the Applicants are describing being arrested,
interviewed under caution (PACE interviews) and then charged with fraudulently
‘reintroducing’ dockets (sometimes referred to as ‘vouchers') but later
(sometimes much later) the prosecutions all failed.
The underlying fraud here (that seems to have been suspected by POL's
Investigators) was that some SPMRs (or their staff) were taking already-
encashed benefit cheques/dockets and putting them through again, thereby
generating cash surpluses (i.e. by pretending that they'd paid out when they
hadn't)... and that they immediately pocketed those surpluses (or used them to
pay off shortages that they were carrying). Where duplicated payments were
booked, POL would then presumably have been duped into reclaiming those
(falsely-reported) outlays from the DWP.
It is not yet clear to us why the Standard Operating Procedure; the design of
the dockets; and the cancellation process (presumably deployed whenever a
POL00123322
POL00123322
docket is encashed) did not PREVENT reintroduction fraud in the first place...
but that will doubtless emerge.
More importantly than why such fraud was not prevented is the issue of failed
prosecutions. We have yet to see an example of a successful prosecution of one
of these cases (maybe there's one that we have yet to see). In that context I
have previously supplied Angela (on 10th Feb this year) with details of another
case (not one of our 150) where the conviction was overturned on appeal (the
Regina v Shah case - see attached). Back in February we had started to seea
pattern (of withdrawn or failed DWP-related prosecutions) but as yet, nothing
POL has sent us has cleared the mist as to why all the prosecutions failed.
Here's the email and Shah case attachment:
<< Message: Untitled >>
It follows, Chris, that we are still in the dark as to what has really happened in
these cases... and we cannot finalise our CRRs on them until we have a far better
understanding of what was going on in those branches. And our CRR on M002 is
due for delivery next week so we are writing that report now. Was POL (and
maybe the DWP) barking up the wrong tree here and unable to proceed to trial
because the suspects had nothing to do with the fraud... or were the cases
where POL informed the court that it would submit no evidence simply driven by
technical/evidential errors/shortcomings?
In that context, on Case MOO2 (Joy Karen TAYLOR), the Applicant submitted
with her Lnitial Application a 20 June 2003 report by POL's Investigator JR
Downie that includes the following text: "Although enquiries have been
protracted in this case they have failed to identify with any certainty the likely
offender. In short although I believe that Mrs Taylor is the most likely culprit
in these matters there is sufficient doubt cast by her to make the proving of it
difficult without admissions.".
The question that we are trying to deal with in light of that document/statement
is this: was Downie's above-quoted conclusion the driver of that case being
pulled (as seems highly likely) and were the similar decisions made on other cases
similarly driven... or did POL perhaps conclude that all of the accused really had
been innocent all along? Perhaps, as the investigation of all those cases
proceeded, some other perpetrators emerged?
POL00123322
POL00123322
We (2nd Sight) need to arrive at a balance of probabilities view as to what was
going on in each of these branches and the POIRs (which as yet make little or no
reference to the criminal cases) really aren't helping us arrive at a justifiable
view on any of them.
In case MOO2, we are, quite simply, trying to form an evidence-based view as to
whether this lady was stealing money by deliberately reintroducing P&A
dockets... or whether she was accidentally duplicating entries and then absorbing
the resultant surpluses into the mish-mash of her unreliable balancing
processes? If the former, then her case should be thrown out. If the latter,
and she has suffered damage as a consequence of being charged with an offence
she did not commit, then she may have a claim deserving of attention, as may the
others. If she was truly innocent of the P&A fraud, the reported Audit date
shortfall (£810) seems relatively trivial and possibly insufficient grounds for her
suspension and termination.
Lastly, the dates are all a bit drawn out in this case. The Audit that resulted in
her suspension was on 25 June 2001... the two ‘Security Interviews’ were in
February 2002... Downie's Report (quoted above) was dated 20 June 2003 and
the cases were ‘pulled’ (POL write to the Applicant's solicitors advising them
that there was not enough evidence to support a criminal prosecution so the case
was dropped) in July 2003. In another case, we have been told that the
prosecution was pulled the night before the trial.
Perhaps there's an over-arching briefing report that covers all these P&A
‘Reintroduction’ fraud cases that would help us to find out why seemingly all the
prosecutions failed (or in the Shah case succeeded... only to be overturned at
appeal)?
Thanks and regards,
Ron Warmington CFE, FCA
Director
Second Sight support Services Ltd
Tythe Farm
Maugersbury
Cheltenham
Gloucestershire
GL54 1HR
Phone:
POL00123322
POL00123322
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JER IIIS IJ AI IKI III III II III III DBI ASO ADI IDI DI I SOI I SS ADS SOSA
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential gally.nrivileged and protected by k only is authorised to
access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not belinda.crow Jease notify andrew.parson Soon a6 possibie and delete any
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this ication of attachments is} be unlawful.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage
which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before of ent
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
This email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. ¢
office is St Ann’s Wharf, 112 Quayside, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NEL
X, where a list of members’ names is op
the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
JERI IRIS SI III II III III ISI ASIII ASI ASI DISS ISO IS SOS SOS SIS DOSS
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JOO III III SO ISO II III I III IBIAS LOI I DBO ASI ASI ISS SIS SOS SIS AIS IIIA
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
POL00123322
POL00123322
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JOA SII AISI ISI III III II III IBIAS IOI I III ASI SISOS SSIS SOS SOS DOSS OI IA.