POL00142279
POL00142279
ROYAL MAIL GROUP (POST OFFICE LTD) — CASE REVIEW
R. v GREGORY CHARLES HARDING
Bradford Crown Court
PRE HORIZON ON LINE CASE
Offence
1. On the 5“ November 2010 this defendant was sentenced, at Bradford Crown
Court, to 20 weeks imprisonment suspended 12 months with 200 hours unpaid
work. The single charge of False Accounting alleged that between the 30°
September 2005 and 30" September 2010 he had falsified branch trading
statements. Costs were awarded in the sum of £1,948.00.
Case history
2. This case first appeared on the 28" May 2010 at the Halifax Magistrates
Court and was committed on 23" July 2010.The case was next listed on 16%
September 2010 when the defendant pleaded guilty and was adjourned for
reports to the 5 November 2010 when the defendant was dealt with as above.
Prosecution case
3. The defendant, Gregory Harding was during the relevant period the sub
postmaster at the Hipperholme subpostoffice. He ran the post office for 5
years prior to being suspended on the 30" September 2009.
POL-0143537
4. On 30" September 2009 auditors attended the Hipperholme Post Office to
verify financial assets and confirm compliance with a range of business
processes.
5. On the date of the audit, 30™ September 2009, the auditor found a total
shortage of £20,209.36 made up as follows:
£18,517.50 (-) identified as a difference in cash figures
£1,682.99 (-) identified as a difference in stock figures
£8.87 (-) identified as a difference in Foreign currency figures.
£20,209.36 Total Shortage
6. During the audit Mr Harding asked the auditors how much the shortage was
and upon being told said, “I didn’t think that it was quite that much.”
7. In his interviews, conducted under the provisions of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice, on the 6" October
2009, the defendant said:
He had had losses over the past 4 years which he could not explain.
He worked in the branch full time with one assistant.
He wished that he had sorted things out with the Federation
beforehand.
He had been able to balance the accounts by falsifying the records.
He found it hard to believe that someone had been stealing from him
He had made no gain from the Post Office.
He had not paid bills through the Post Office.
He had not settled a transaction correction when he was required to
make a loss good as he did not have the money so he rolled it over
without putting the money in.
At one stage he thought that it was his assistant but the losses
continued after the assistant stopped working for him
POL00142279
POL00142279
POL-0143537
POL00142279
POL00142279
Defence case
8. In interview the defendant denies theft but admits false accounting to cover up
losses.
Discussion
9. This is a pre Horizon on Line case. The Second Sight Interim Report deals
largely with Horizon on Line. If this was a case where the allegation was one
of theft or the defendant was sentenced on the basis that he had appropriated
the money we might well have had to consider disclosure.
10. In this case there were discussions between the Judge and Counsel on the 16"
November 2009 when the defendant pleaded not guilty to the theft count but
guilty to the false accounting count. It was agreed that the defendant would be
sentenced on the basis that, “No financial benefit, no one took the money, that
it was lost during the normal course of operating a business and that the
defendant falsified accounts to cover this up.”
. In this case he was charged with False Accounting and on his own admissions
in interview he is guilty of the offence to which he pleaded guilty on the basis
upon which the Judge sentenced.
Conclusion
12. This is a case in which, had we been possessed of the Second Sight Interim
Report, we would not have needed to disclose anything contained therein to
this defendant. The passage of time has not changed that position, in my
opinion, and we need take no further action upon this file.
Harry Bowyer 22" November 2013
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors
POL-0143537