POL00168926
POL00168926
ROYAL MAIL GROUP (POST OFFICE LTD) — CASE REVIEW
R. v ALI HASHIMI
Stockport Magistrates Court
Offence
1. On the 12" January 2012 this defendant was sentenced, by District Judge Taff,
to a 12 month community order with a 120 hour unpaid work requirement for
an offence of Fraud. The single charge alleged that between 17" November
2010 and 28" June 2011 he had dishonestly made false representations in the
Final Branch Trading Accounts at the Poynton Sub Post Office Branch to the
tune of £4,432.30. Costs were awarded in the sum of £748.00.
Case ‘ory
2. This case was listed before the Stockport Magistrates Court on 16" November
2011 when the case was adjourned as the defendant was abroad. The case was
next listed on 21* December 2011 - the case was again adjourned as the
defendant had provided no instructions owing to having been abroad. On the
next occasion, 12" January 2012, effectively the first appearance, the defendant
pleaded guilty and was dealt with as above.
3. The mitigation put forward was that the defendant was naive and had been left
to manage the premises by Mr Mahmood — had got into some difficulty and
had not sought the appropriate help to rectify the position.
Prosecution case
4. The defendant, Ali Hashimi was during the relevant period employed as an
Officer in Charge at Poynton Sub Post Office. He had been working as such for
11 months prior to his suspension.
5. On 28" June 2011 auditors attended the Poynton Sub Post Office owing to
concerns over stock adjustments.
6. On the date of the audit, 28" June 2011, the auditor found a total shortage of
£4,432.30 made up as follows:
e £177.59 (-) identified as a difference in cash figures
¢ £1,498.88 (-) identified as a difference in cheque on hand figures
e £222.12 (-) identified as a difference in stock figures
e £167.30 (+) identified as a difference in postage figures
e £61.04 (+) transaction figures revealed to documentation
e £2,755.42 (-) Discrepancy as per office snapshot
© £6.64 (-) Other
7. A cheque for £1,498.88 had been declared on the Horizon system but was not
on hand in the branch to support the entry. The defendant was asked why and
replied that he had paid his business rates using Post Office cash. He gave the
auditor £1,500.
8. Mr Hashimi confirmed that the figures were correct.
9. A cheque for £1,499 dated 20" June 2011 was found in an envelope with “Ali”
written on the front. The cheque was made out to Post Office Ltd and signed S
Mahmoud. This cheque did not form part of the branch account.
POL00168926
POL00168926
10. In his interviews, conducted under the provisions of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice, on the 7" July 2011, the
defendant said:
Defence case
He had encountered a stock error in his accounts in November 2010 for
approximately £2,500.00 which involved remming in more books of
stamps than he received — he rang network business but got no answer.
This was followed by a loss of £1,500 owing to a price change - he put
this amount in cheques.
He made another error with scratch cards
He hid these losses by inflating his cash on hand by £2,500.00 and
entering a fictitious amount in his cheques on hand figures each week
since.
He admitted that he had been inflating the cash and cheque on hand
figures to hide shortages in the branch account.
He had lied to the auditors to save embarrassment in front of the staff.
He had taken the £1,500 to repay a loan to a friend and not his business
rates.
The unaccounted cheque of £1,499 signed S Mahmood had been
written by him and entered into the branch account on 20" June 2011 to
cover up a loss and had been withdrawn on 22™ June 2011. The cheque
related to the business account and belonged to his brother and that
account was now closed.
11. In interview the defendant admits both taking Post Office money and
fraudulently covering up losses.
Discussion
12. This is a case where the defendant effectively pleaded guilty at the first
appearance in the Magistrates Court. It is difficult to see how he could have
been assisted by the issues raised by the Second Sight Interim Report which,
POL00168926
POL00168926
POL00168926
POL00168926
even had we been aware of it we almost certainly would not have disclosed at
this stage or indeed at all in this case where there were full admissions to the
offence charged.
13. On his own admissions in interview and those made through his legal
representatives he is guilty of the offence to which he pleaded guilty.
Conclusion
14. 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 23" September 2013
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors