ROYAL MAIL GROUP (POST OFFICE LTD) — CASE REVIEW
R. v NEELAM SHANEZ HUSSAIN
Wolverhampton/Derby Crown Court
Offence
1.
On the 6" September 2011 this defendant was sentenced, at Derby Crown
Court, to 21 months imprisonment for an offence of Theft. The single charge
alleged that between the 1 July 2009 and 13 November 2009 she had stolen
£83,000
Case history
2. This case was listed before the West Bromwich Magistrates Court on 18"
October 2010 when it was committed to Wolverhampton Crown Court. Both
the Defendant and her brother were charged. The PCMH took place where the
defendant pleaded not guilty and the case was listed for trial on the 20" June
2011. On the first day of the trial the defendant pleaded guilty to Count 1 on
the indictment, theft, and no evidence was offered against her brother on Count
2 and Count three, transferring Criminal property was left on the file as against
this defendant. The case was adjourned to the 6" September 2010 when the
defendant was dealt with as above, having followed the Judge to Derby Crown
Court.
POL00198136
POL00198136
Prosecution case
The defendant, Neelam Shanaz Hussain, was during the relevant period the
office manager at West Bromwich Sub Post Office. She had been working as
such for 12 months prior to her suspension. She effectively ran the Post Office
for the subpostmistress, Baljinder Dhadda and prepared the monthly trading
statements which would be sent to the Post Office Limited headquarters in
Chesterfield.
Auditors attended the branch on 13" November 2009. The auditors soon found
that there were unreconciled cash transfers for stock unit GG. This meant that
money had been transferred out from other stock units but had not been
accepted in by the receiving stock unit GG. GG showed a shortage of £83,000.
Stock unit GG was a phantom unit purposely created to conceal a shortage. If
money is transferred to such a unit but not accepted then both units would
balance.
From an event log printed on the day the auditors were able to determine that
the unit GG was created on 16" October 2010 by Horizon user NHU004 which
is the Horizon ID of Neelam Hussain.
The final audit showed losses of £101,617.15.
From transaction logs the auditors could show that there were 5 transfers to
stock unit GG, 2 from stock unit BB totalling £74,000 and 3 from stock unit
BC totalling £9,000. 4 of the 5 transfers were with the user codes of Neelam
Hussain. The fifth used the user code of Raheela Mahmoud who was a
prosecution witness and denied the transaction. In December 2009 Mrs
Mahmoud confronted the defendant on the telephone and the defendant
admitted the transaction as she had lost a cheque and the accounts would have
shown a shortage. The defendant said that she used everyone’s codes.
POL00198136
POL00198136
POL00198136
POL00198136
8. During the audit a cheque was found in the sum of £85,000 made out to the
Post Office with a piece of paper attached and on it was written “chq to put in
system — growth bond.”
9. During the Audit the defendant asked several people if they could provide a
personal or a company cheque to cover the shortage in the accounts.
10. The defendant was arrested following the audit and taken to West Bromwich
Police Station.
1
. In her interviews, conducted under the provisions of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant Codes of Practice, on the 13" December
2009, the defendant made no comment to the majority of questions put to her.
On the 18" December 2009 she was reinterviewed and submitted a prepared
statement which read:
— I Neelam Hussain will say as follows; I strongly deny that I am
responsible for any of the money which has allegedly been missing. It is
always the practice in our Post Office that members of staff will use
each others user name and password. In particular Sarvjit Kaur who
had managerial access and I therefore believe may have been
responsible for the money which is said to be missing. Recently, before
12" November 2009 she had asked for her user name and password to
be changed, her working hours to be reduced and then she had given
her notice in to leave. I now realise that this behaviour was unusual and
raises suspicion. I confirm that any of the Growth Bond transactions
which have dealt with have been legitimate. I hereby wish to say no
comment to all questions.
— She thereafter made no comment.
Defence case
12. In interview the defendant denies responsibility for the theft.
14.
15.
16.
. She served a defence statement which denied creating the stock unit GG,
denied the transfers to GG and denies telling Raheela Mahmoud that she had.
She suggests that her user ID’s and passwords were known to other staff and
these may have been responsible for the theft.
She also suggests that the deficits might be down to accounting errors.
She suggests that the other staff might have been trying to set her up as a result
of her intention to buy the Post Office.
Discussion
17.
This is a case where the defendant pleaded not guilty on the basis that she had
nothing to do with the transactions. The majority of this case was dependant on
the efficient working of the Horizon system. It is my view that had we been in
possession of the Second Sight Interim Report at the relevant stage of these
proceedings we would have disclosed it. It would have been obvious that the
defence would have been interested in any material that might help them
explain transactions for which the defendant denied responsibility.
Safety of Conviction
18.
19
It is not the purpose of this review, nor of the review process overall, to
determine whether or not any particular conviction is unsafe: that decision is
reserved to the Court of Appeal only. The purpose of this process is to identify
those cases where the material contained within the Second Sight Interim
report would have met the test for disclosure as provided in the Criminal
Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the Code of Practice enacted
thereunder and the Attorney-General’s Guidelines on Disclosure, had that
material been known to Post Office Ltd. during the currency of the prosecution
and accordingly would or ought to have been disclosed to the defence.
. In this case I have no doubt that, had we known of those matters identified in
the Second Sight Interim report, that material should and would have been
POL00198136
POL00198136
POL00198136
POL00198136
disclosed to the defence in accordance with our disclosure duties as
prosecutors. For that reason alone we must inform those who represented the
defendant and disclose to them the Second Sight Interim report.
20. I consider it possible, upon receipt of this material, the defendant will seek the
leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal his conviction. Where a defendant seeks
leave the Court of Appeal will, often before the grant of any leave, invite the
prosecution to comment upon the application.
2
. L advise that, should we be so invited and/or should the defendant be granted
the requisite leave, we oppose his the grant of leave and any substantive appeal,
on the basis that the conviction may properly be regarded as safe when one
looks at:
e The defendant’s plea of guilty.
e The defendant’s acceptance through the confiscation hearing that she
had taken the money alleged in the indictment and specifically what she
had done with it — the latter rather more consistently than the former.
The defendant told the author of the pre sentence report that £82,000
of the money stolen had been sent by way of individual cheques to
Pakistan to fund medical expenses of her mother in law — she later said
it went by money transfer — there is doubt that it went by either!
e The circumstances of the setting up of stock unit GG
¢ The use of the defendant’s user code in the transfers to stock unit GG
e The bizarre behaviour of the defendant during the audit
e The cheque for £85,000 for which a handwriting expert found strong
support for the contention that the defendant had written
Conclusion
22. This is a case in which, had we been possessed of the material at the relevant
time, we should and would have disclosed to the defence the matters identified
in the Second Sight Interim report.
23. Accordingly our duty is now to place the defence on notice of this fact and to
serve on them those documents. I advise that we comply with that duty in this
case.
24. Should the defendant be granted leave to appeal against her conviction, we
should oppose the appeal.
25.1 will draft a letter to the defence for Post Office Ltd.’s approval and, in
accordance with your instructions to us, serve that letter and the reports on
defence solicitors.
Harry Bowyer 22™ November 2013
Barrister
Cartwright King Solicitors
POL00198136
POL00198136