POST OFFICE LTD - CASE REVIEW
R -v- SCOTT RICHARD DARLINGTON
Chester Crown Court
PRE-HORIZON ON-LINE CASE
Offence and Case History
1. On the 23" February 2010 at the Chester Crown Court before HHJ Dutton,
this defendant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment suspended for
12 months. He was also ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work He
was charged on an indictment containing 5 counts:
a)
b)
4)
e)
False accounting on or about 21% August 2008 in that he falsified a
Final Branch Trading account for Alderley Edge Post Office for the
period ending 21st August 2008 by representing that the amount of
cash in hand was greater than the true figure;
False accounting on or about 16'» October 2008 in that he falsified a
Final Branch Trading Account for the period ending 16% October
2008;
False accounting on or about 19* November 2008 in that he falsified a
Final Branch Trading Account for the period ending 19 November
2008;
False accounting on or about 17' December 2008 in that he falsified a
Final Branch Trading Account for the period ending 17» December
2008;
False accounting on or about 14' January 2009 in that he falsified a
Final Branch Trading Account for the period ending 14‘ January
2009;
2. Although a confiscation timetable was set, no POCA proceedings were
pursued for reasons which I will outline in the ‘Discussion’ part of this
advice. The defendant was ordered to make a contribution towards
prosecution costs of £410.10.
POL00168961
POL00168961
POL-BSFF-0132552
POL00168961
POL00168961
7 and was aged 46. He
was summonsed and appeared before the Macclesfield Magistrates Court
on 30 September 2009. The magistrates declined jurisdiction and he was
committed to the Chester Crown Court on the 30 November 2009 for a
Plea and Case Management hearing on the 5 January 2010. On the 1st
February 2010 he pleaded guilty to all 5 counts on the indictment. The
case was adjourned for sentence to 23" February 2010 when he was
sentenced as outlined in paragraph 1 above.
Prosecution case
4. The defendant had been sub postmaster at Alderley Edge Sub Post Office
for 4 years, a 2 position counter located within a gift shop. On 12%
February 2009 as part of ‘Operation Hogmanay’ (branches identified as
holding too much cash), officers arrived to perform an audit at 0830
hours and the defendant arrived at 0850 hours. He was present when the
officer printed out the previous night’s cash declarations. Before he
started to count the cash, the defendant admitted to inflating his
overnight cash holding (ONCH) by around £40,000 each time he entered a
cash declaration since around Christmas time, as he thought an error had
been made by one of his employees whilst inputting an ‘automated
payment’. He said he was hoping to receive a ‘transaction correction
notice’ for around this amount.
The audit resulted in a shortage of £44,508.46. This was made up as
follows:
- £42,767.79 cash deficiency;
- 0.27 cheque shortage
- £1969.35 stock deficiency
- £3.91 postage surplus
- £25.04 foreign currency surplus
POL-BSFF-0132552_0001
£200 ‘other’ surplus
. The defendant was interviewed under caution on 12 February 2009. He
said as follows:
He was responsible for completing the daily work and the Branch
Trading Statements at the end of each month;
There are 3 part time assistants working there.
He confirmed that he told the auditors that he added £20,000 to the
£20 notes and £20,000 to the £10 notes when declaring the cash;
There must have been an error in a transaction which resulted in the
shortage;
The shortage began at £9,000 in September 2008, increased to
£16,000 over that week.
The loss once again increased by a further £11,000 to £27,000 and
nothing was found to explain the shortage;
He did not inform anyone of the discrepancies as he was afraid the
money would be taken out of his salary
He admitted falsifying the Branch Trading Statements.
He was shown trading statements for 5t» March - 9t April 2008, 12t
November - 10'* December 2008 and 8" July - 12" August 2009 and
confirmed that all those Final Trading statements were false accounts;
He had been false accounting since 5" March 2008 until the audit on
26% August 2009.
. Examination of the defendant’s bank statements showed unexplained
cash deposits between October 2008 and January 2009 amounting to
£9,450. The defendant explained the deposits variously as payment for
external audio-visual work, and some as shop takings.
. The defendant admitted that he paid his staff cash from the shop till with
no wage slips. One of the staff members when interviewed said that she
had been paid cash out of the Post Office till.
POL00168961
POL00168961
POL-BSFF-0132552_0002
Defence case
8.
The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges on the indictment but on the
basis claimed through his counsel that there was no loss sustained by the
Post Office. The judge was told that the prosecution did not accept this
basis and that the prosecution would ask for a Newton hearing to resolve
this issue.
Discussion
9.
10.
11.
The defendant raised, by inference, what he would call an ‘error’ in the
workings of the HORIZON system when he made reference to the
‘disappearance’, over a period of time, of £40 000. He pleaded guilty on
the basis that he did not derive any benefit from the loss and that the Post
Office did not sustain a loss. This basis was not accepted by the
prosecution and they called for a Newton hearing. However, the judge
declined to order a hearing as ‘resolution of the issue would involve a
very great delay and such delay would be inappropriate and unfair on the
defendant’ (Counsel’s advice dated 12" April 2010 para 2). In addition,
the prosecution ‘could not produce’ accounts in legible form which was
required to prove the loss (advice as above para 1). The judge sentenced
on the basis that no loss was occasioned. No order was made under the
Proceeds of Crime Act 2003 as a result.
Although the ‘purported unexplained errors’ on the HORIZON system by
inference raised by the defendant amount to £40,000 over a period of 5
months, the defendant admitted that his system of accounting, including
paying his staff wages, did not follow proper office procedures. A staff
member stated that she had been paid regularly from the Post Office till.
This defendant admitted false accounting from the beginning and
pleaded on the basis that there was no loss to the Post Office and was
sentenced on that basis. In this, it seems to me, he was very lucky in that
POL00168961
POL00168961
POL-BSFF-0132552_0003
POL00168961
POL00168961
there was ample evidence, in the form of evidence of other staff and
unexplained /badly explained deposits into his bank accounts to show
that he had been taking and using POL funds for his own ends and had
this case been differently handled he would probably have faced and been
convicted of counts of Theft. In the event he pleaded to false accounting
on his own basis and admissions and I cannot see how he could possibly
be assisted by any disclosure of the issues raised in the Second Sight
Interim Report.
Conclusion
7. This is a case where there is no requirement to make further disclosure to
the defendant's lawyers.
Harry Bowyer 8th September 2014
BARRISTER
CARTWRIGHT KING SOLICITORS
POL-BSFF-0132552_0004