POL00411347
POL00411347
IN THE MATTER OF:
POLTD/1415/0118
R (POST OFFICE LTD)
-v-
ZEN ELVINS
CHARGING ADVICE
Background.
1. The Springfield Sub Post Office Branch located within a convenience
store é
audited on 25" February 2015. At the time of the audit, Mrs. Sajida
Seema Noor was the Subpostmistress and the owner of the
convenience store. I am told that Mrs. Noor worked in the store but in
the Post Office. She employed her son, Zen Elvins and her daughter,
Ayesha Iqbal, to manage the Post Office.
The Investigation.
2. The current investigation relates to the sale, reversal and encashment
of postal orders. On 12" December a postal order was purchased at the
Springfield Branch for £4.00. The sale was reversed and then
immediately thereafter the postal order was cashed.
3. On 12" January 2015 a large number of Postal Orders were sold,
reversed and cashed. The majority of the transactions were carried out
under the user name of Zen Elvins and related to postal orders in the
sum of £250.00.
POL00411347
POL00411347
4, In total 22 postal orders were sold, reversed and cashed by Mr. Elvins.
5. Mr. Elvins was interviewed under caution on 9th March 2015 and he
had the benefit of legal representation throughout the interview.
6. Mr. Elvins made a full and frank admission, explaining that he had
discovered that it was possible to sell a postal order, reverse the
transaction and cash the postal order before the cut off point every day
at about 7 p.m. He had not told anyone and had carried out the
transactions so as to make up a loss of about £3,500 which they had
incurred. Mr. Elvins admitted that his actions had been dishonest.
Discussion.
7. There is undoubtedly strong evidence in this case which would be
capable of supporting charges of fraud or theft. The evidence of the
transactions carried out on the Horizon system reveals that £4,819 of
postal orders were sold, reversed and cashed in the Springfield branch
between 12" December 2014 and 3" February 2015 and in his interview
under caution, Mr. Elvins admitted that he was responsible for the
fraudulent activity. Neither his sister nor his mother had been aware of
the position.
8. Whilst this case does not appear to contain an ‘Horizon issue’, I am
concerned about the possible effect of commencing proceedings
against Mr. Elvins thereby putting a case into the public domain in
which a suspect said “...to be honest there’s so many little loopholes in
the system that you kind of just find them...”
2IPage
9. My understanding is that Mr. Elvins was able to exploit a known
weakness in the Horizon system. Whilst this is not an ‘Horizon issue’
to the extent that the system permitted the sequences of transactions in
accordance with its programming, it does not of course make the
position any less embarrassing for Post Office Ltd. There is in my
opinion a substantial risk that any reports generated by a prosecution
in this case may be utilised by those who seek to argue that Horizon is
defective or otherwise inadequate. There is, of course, also the risk that
the dissemination of information concerning this particular flaw may
also encourage others minded to commit acts of dishonesty against
Post Office Ltd to attempt to replicate the situation for their personal
gain.
10.1 also note that the relatively small sum in this case will have been
recovered from Mr. Elvins mother who is the Subpostmaster.
Charging Decision.
11. Whilst the public interest test in this case is clearly met, for the reasons
set out above I do not regard a prosecution as being in the public
interest.
Martin Smith 21st" April 2015
Solicitor
Cartwright King Solicitors
3/Page
POL00411347
POL00411347