POL00142328
POL00142328
POST OFFICE LTD — CASE REVIEW
R. v. Mahesh Patel & Prakesh Patel
Investigation stage
Offence
1. This case is at an early stage and is yet to be charged. Likely charges are theft
and False Accounting.
Case history
2. Nia.
Prosecution case
3. Mahesh Patel was the sub-postmaster at the Sunnyville post office, Billericay.
He had one staff member called Laura Smith.
4. On 9 January 2013 an audit was conducted. Mahesh Patel told the auditors
that his brother, Prakesh Patel had been running the branch for him for the last
year due to him being ill.
5. The audit revealed a shortage of £41,116.10, of which £35,622.4 was a
shortage in the cash. £5519.31 was a shortage in the stock figures, £425.47 (+)
was the difference in the postage figures and £399.79 was the shortage in the
foreign currency figures.
6. Mr Mahesh Patel was interviewed about these matters, on 4" March 2013, the
interviews being conducted under the provisions of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice. He said:
e He had been the postmaster for the last 9 years
1440
POL-0143582
POL00142328
POL00142328
e He owns the newsagents and the post office situated in it.
e He became ill in December 2011 and was currently undergoing
chemotherapy.
e He asked his brother, Prakesh Patel, to run the post office on his
behalf.
e Prakesh had no formal training except what Mahesh could teach him.
e¢ Mahesh did not inform the contracts manager of the change in his
health and did not advise the contracts manager that Prakesh would be
running the post office.
e In January 2012 Prakesh needed some time off and Mahesh covered
for him. He worked for two days and the audit took place on the third.
¢ He did not dispute the findings of the audit but was surprised as he had
not been told of any problems.
e He asked his brother about the loss and he was told that it was down to
a problem with the lottery and a lost REM pouch.
e He had not taken any money himself and he did not think that any of
his staff had.
e He had no real debts apart from business overdrafts and the retail
business was surviving.
7. Mr Prakesh Patel was interviewed about these matters, on 24" April 2013, the
interviews being conducted under the provisions of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice. He said:
e He had been running the post office for about 6 months up to 22/12/12
for his brother as he was undergoing chemotherapy.
1441
POL-0143582
e He used to work in a post office years ago but had no formal training
before working in Sunnyhill Post Office.
e He had refresher training from his brother.
© On 22/12/12 he went to put a pouch together for £16,000. He scanned
the pouch but put no money in it. He got distracted by people at the
counter and put it on the floor. He forgot about the pouch and did not
tell his brother to scan it out. He assumed that the money woud bbe
found by an auditor when the audit was conducted.
e He received no training on the lotto system and was unsure of the
process to follow.
e He set up a separate stock unit, LOT, and transferred the money from
AA stock unit to this stock.
e The £399.79 loss of foreign currency was his error as he did not wait
for the card to be authorised before he gave the euros to the customer.
The customer’s card was declined.
e He made the cash declarations with Laura Smith who he used to train.
e He might have made mistakes.
Defence case
8. As set out in their interviews: Neither had taken any money from POL; They
could not explain the shortages but I suspect that Prakesh’s lack of training
will be to the fore; The defence will be certain to want to explore other ways
in which the deficiencies occurred and will be bound to point to horizon.
9. Given the very early stage of this matter no Defence Statement has been
served. It is highly likely that the Defence Statement will suggest Horizon
issues, and training and back-up deficits.
POL00142328
POL00142328
1442
POL-0143582
POL00142328
POL00142328
Prosecution response to defence
10. None thus far: case still under investigation.
Discussion
11. The defence in this case is inevitable going to focus, in part, on Horizon issues
and inadequate training. I deal with each in turn:
i. Horizon
In their interviews both the defendants deny taking post office
money. They will have to explain the losses and, whilst the main
thrust will be addressed to Prakesh’s incompetence there is bound
to be a suggestion that Horizon may be at fault. In view of this I
advise that both the Second Sight Interim report and the Helen
ROSE report meet the test for disclosure in this case.
ii. Training
Here again the defendants, perhaps unwittingly, raise issues of
adequacy. Prakesh will want to point out that even with the
approved level of training serious errors can occur which lead to
losses of thousands of pounds
Conclusion
12. This case is still in the investigative stage. If the defendants are charged then
the duties of the prosecutor take effect and the Second Sight Interim report and
the Helen ROSE report should be disclosed to the defence as Primary
Disclosure.
13. Although this advice is aimed at disclosure I would add that this case will be
very difficult to prosecute to a conviction. Mahesh is effectively running alibi
in that he was not present during the majority of the time that the losses
occurred. He will have the sympathy card to play conceming his illness.
Prakesh will blame his own incompetence and lack of training. The actual
1443
POL-0143582
POL00142328
POL00142328
losses will be difficult to prove if he was not using the horizon system
properly and was training others to make the same mistakes. The trick in this
case will be to prove dishonesty over cock up and, at the moment, I am not
sure that we have the material to do it
Harry Bowyer
7 August 2013
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors
1444
POL-0143582