POL00151715
POL00151715
Patrick Bourke}
Sent: Fri 27/03/2015 2:44:35 PM (UTC)
To: Rodric William: Belinda eee .
Crowe{, Tom Wechsler[t i
‘andrew.parsons¢ GRO
Subject: RE: POL Pt Il Response - Revised
I would personally end the sentence after “accounts”. The reason is that I would not want to encourage a subjective
debate about whether or not Applicants intended to gain, or cause us loss. I can just see someone saying ‘I was in such
a muddle, I didn’t know what else to do, but I didn’t mean to...” etc etc.
Does that make sense ?
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 27 March 2015 14:40
To: Patrick Bourke; Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; 'andrew.parsons\
Subject: RE: POL Pt II Response - Revised
Good distinction, but I think it should reflect the actual offence. Wid you be happy with this?:
It is important to understand that Subpostmasters are not prosecuted by Post Office for incurring losses in
branch. Prosecutions for false accounting occur where a person dishonestly falsifies branch accounts with
a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another.
I know it’s legal, but I don’t think we should try to paraphrase the statute (at least not without running it past the
experts).
POST
OFFICE
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 27 March 2015 14:23
To: Belinda Crowe; Rodric Williams; Tom Wechsler; 'andrew.parsonst
Subject: RE: POL Pt II Response - Revised
Rod
Many thanks.
I have put into a word doc and tweaked (attached). I am not absolutely wedded to the idea, but I have put in a couple
of lines to make it crystal clear that we do not prosecute people for incurring losses. We prosecute people for
committing the crime of disguising those losses. I think that is a distinction that many people fail to draw (including
some of the Applicants).
POL00151715
POL00151715
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 27 March 2015 14:18 7
To: Rodric Williams; Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke; 'andrew.parsons¢,
Cc: Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: POL Pt II Response - Revised
Looks good to me.
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ,
+ Postlin
GRO
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 27 March 2015 14:12
To: Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke; 'andrew.parsonst
Subject: POL Pt II Response - Revised
All —can you please take a look at my amends response to section 26 and lety me have any comments asap.
Thanks, Rod
Post Office's response to section 26 — Post Office Investigations
311.This section of the Report provides Second Sight's opinion on the process that is undertaken by
Post Office when it investigates branch activity, including potentially criminal conduct.
312.This topic is outside the scope of the Scheme (which is to consider "Horizon and associated
issues") and is also outside the scope of Second Sight's expertise. Second Sight, as forensic
accountants and not criminal lawyers, are not qualified to comment on Post Office's prosecution
processes. Further, much of this section of the Report is based on generalised, anecdotal
statements. Post Office therefore disputes the findings Second Sight makes in this section of the
Report as inexpert opinion and speculation based on unsubstantiated assertion.
313.Nevertheless, Post Office needs to address some specific inaccuracies which Second Sight
advance in this section of the Report concerning the criminal offence of false accounting. Post
POL00151715
POL00151715
Office denies Second Sight's assertion that the focus of Post Office investigators is to secure an
admission of false accounting and not to consider the root cause of any losses. This is incorrect —
Post Office investigators’ first task is to establish what has happened in the branch, and its
approach to each investigation will, by necessity, be influenced by the particular circumstances of
the individual case.
314.That task will be frustrated when a Subpostmaster deliberately falsifies his/her accounts, which is
an act which precedes any Post Office investigation. By falsifying the accounts (whether through
the inflation of cash on hand or otherwise) Subpostmasters or their assistants prevent Post Office
from being able to identify the transactions that may have caused discrepancies and losses. The
first step in identifying a genuine error is to determine the days on which the cash position in the
accounts is different from the cash on hand. Where the cash on hand figure has been falsely
stated, this is not possible.
315.The false accounting therefore hides any genuine errors from Post Office and a Subpostmaster. It
hides it at the time the losses occur and it remains the case now that Post Office is not able to
identify which transactions may have caused the losses. The Report is therefore entirely incorrect in
its evaluation of how Post Office approaches prosecutions. It is the Subpostmaster's (or their
assistant's) false accounting that prevents Post Office from investigating the underlying losses, not
the attitude of Post Office investigators.
316.Where the Post Office discovers evidence of criminal wrongdoing, it may exercise the right to bring
a private criminal prosecution which is available to all companies and individuals in England and
Wales. In deciding whether a case is suitable for prosecution, Post Office considers (among other
factors) whether it meets the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. That Code requires
Post Office to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and
that the prosecution is in the public interest. The Code is issued by the Director of Public
Prosecutions and followed by Crown Prosecutors. Like the CPS, the Post Office keeps cases under
continuous review all the way up to and during any trial, and when Post Office does decide to
prosecute, its conduct of the prosecution is scrutinised by defence lawyers and ultimately by the
Courts themselves.
POL00151715
POL00151715
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.