CARTWRIGHT KING
Response To
Initial Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme Post Office Preliminary
Investigation Report
Branch Name: South Warnborough
SPMR Name: Josephine
Hamilton
1.
Heading Text
Case review actions and findings Ms Hamilton was the SPMR for South
Warnborough from October 2003 until
her contract for services was terminated
in March 2006. During that time the
branch suffered losses totalling
£36,644.89.
On the 19" November 2007 at Winchester
Crown Court she admitted and pleaded
guilty to falsifying accounts and pleaded
not guilty to theft. This plea was accepted
by the Crown
CK Response
We have not seen the prosecution file in this case as it pre dates the cut-off period for
the review process.
Ms Hamilton was initially charged with Theft. At some stage in the Crown Court
proceedings she pleaded guilty to a count of False Accounting and the Theft count was
not proceeded with either by the offering of no evidence or by being left on the file.
In either event the practical result is the same: the prosecution inform the court that the
pleas are acceptable. In the case of offering no evidence the Crown formally offer no
evidence and a verdict of Not Guilty is entered by the Judge. If a count is left on the
file it cannot be proceeded with without leave of the Crown Court or the Court of
Appeal. Instances of cases being reopened after being left on the file, whilst not
unknown, are vanishingly rare.
POL00140350
POL00140350
The meaning of a “Not Guilty” verdict. In the courts of England and Wales no
defendant is ever found to be “innocent”. Rather, defendants are found to be “not
guilty” of the offence charged. This distinction arises because the test to be applied, in
both the Magistrates’ Court and by juries in the Crown Court, is the same: defendants
are guilty only if the tribunal is “satisfied so that they are sure” of guilt. This of course
means that many defendants are acquitted not because he or she is “innocent” but
rather because the tribunal is not sure of guilt. The distinction between the two
concepts is important here because “not guilty” does not and cannot mean “innocent”;
it means “not proved”, a very different proposition from “innocent”.
It is to be noted that distinction between the two concepts of “innocent” and “not
guilty” is regularly made by Crown Court judges in answer to costs applications made
by acquitted defendants.
The distinction drawn above between ‘not guilty’ and ‘innocent’ applies equally to Ms
Hamilton’s circumstances. Where a prosecutor accepts guilty pleas to one charge and
in consequence foregoes a trial on another; that does not mean that he is declaring the
defendant to be innocent of the charge not pursued. It simply means that he does not
intend to pursue the matter.
2.
Heading Text
The Applicant’s Issues and Post Office I Ms Hamilton raises four issues: 1) Lack
Ltd’s Headline Response of training provided by the Post Office; 2)
Lack of support provided by the helpdesk;
3) The inability to “park” issues and
investigate further; 4) The “unexplained”
issues that arose in the first place.
CK Response
It seems to us that the headline responses are appropriate. The reality of these
allegations are that the position of Post Office Ltd was hopelessly compromised by the
criminal behaviour of this defendant when she falsified the accounts — on her own
version to conceal what was going on.
POL00140350
POL00140350
3.
Heading Text
Response to Issues Raised by the
Applicant
CK Response
Please refer to response 2
We have seen none of the documents provided to Second Sight (Pt_001 — PT_016)
Conclusion.
This was a case where a legally represented defendant pleaded guilty to False
Accounting. We conclude that there are no prosecution/conviction issues with this
case.
On the material we have seen we do not see any scope for a successful appeal against
conviction; indeed we are well past the time when any such appeal could properly be
launched.
It seems to us that almost all liability lies with Ms Hamilton and her False Accounting
activities.
Harry Bowyer 14" January 2014
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors.
POL00140350
POL00140350