WBON0000027
WBON0000027
Analysis of Marine Drive Transactions
Ref: _ d:\gij\pathway\messagestores\6818.marine drive\6825.anal.doc
Author: Gareth I Jenkins
Date: 06/09/2006 13:52:00
1. Introduction
As part of a prosecution associated with Marine Drive Post Office, Anne Chambers
and Gareth Jenkins have undertaken an analysis of all transactions that took place
during Cash Account week 42 in that Office.
Week 42 transactions were those between 8" Jan 2004 08:59:11 and 15" Jan
07:36:14.
Note that there were £408 of National Lottery transactions recorded at about 07:00 on 8" Jan
which were accounted for in week 41; and £326 of similar transaction at about 07:28 on 15"
Jan together with the correction of £1,103 which I understand is in dispute.
The purpose of this note is to outline what was done and also to comment on the letter
sent on from the Post Office Ltd solicitors where Mr Castleton is claiming to have
shown that the Horizon figures are incorrect.
2. Analysis undertaken
The initial set of data obtained was the extract from the Transaction Log that was
submitted to Post Office Ltd as supporting evidence (ARQ 421).
Subsequently a complete extract of audit data for the period concerned was obtained.
This included non transactional data (including opening figures) and the electronic
Cash Account information (which was subsequently submitted to Post Office Ltd’s
back end systems) and represents the same information as was printed on the paper
Cash Account which Mr Castleton signed at the time to indicate that it was correct.
The figures examined have been compared with both the electronic Cash Account
information retrieved and also copies of the paper cash accounts for week 42 (and also
weeks 41 and 43) held by Post Office Ltd. Specifically, the Carried Forward figures
from Week 41 matches the Brought Forward figures in Week 42 and the Carried
Forward figures from Week 42 matches the Brought Forward figures in Week 43.
The initial check was that each Session’s data was completely recorded in the
Transaction Log. This check identified a transaction missing from the ARQ 421 data
for a value of 92p on 12" January. This transaction did not include its Start Time (a
known fault that occasionally happens) and so the ARQ extraction process ignored it.
However it would not have been ignored by the accounting functions at the counter
and a report would have been generated that night as part of the overnight checks.
Unfortunately, this report is not audited and so is not available for examination.
However we do not believe that this report is material to the case.
Having done that, a copy of the Reference Data in use at all branches at that time was
obtained that defines how each transaction at the Branch maps onto the various lines
c:\documents and settings\njm1\local settings\temporary internet files\olk6f\6825 anal (2).doc Printed at
10:02:46 on 7/9/2006 Page 1 of 3
WBON0000027
WBON0000027
of the Cash Account. This Reference Data was then used to summarise all the
transactions according to where on the Cash Account Report they would appear, thus
enabling the Cash Account Table totals to be re-constructed.
This then shows the following figures:
Opening Figures (from Wk 41) I 54,170.49
Sales Receipts £70,593.16
Stock Remittances into Branch I £51,527.50
Total Receipts £176,291.15
This matches the figures in the Cash Account. However Mr Castleton believes that he
has a value of £2,893.24 more that this (see para 3 of the letter). It is not at all clear
where this figure comes from.
Cheques sent to EDS (total value of £3,083.42) and Debit Card payments (£116.60) are not
included in Receipts. Similarly Parcel Traffic Values in Table 12 (£84.23) are in Table 12
and not Receipts. Misallocation of these to Receipts brings the mismatch down to about £10.
For payments the figures are as follows:
Payments £80,185.38
Cash, Cheque, Voucher and Stock Remittances Out of Branch £3,613.83
Debit Card Payments £116.60
Closing Figures (to Wk 43) £92,374.74
Discrepancy £0.60
Total Payments £176,291.15
Again, this matches the figures in the Cash Account (and the Receipts figure).
Attached to the Cash Account were some other reports showing:
Inland Revenue Tax Credits
Postal Orders Encashed
Giro Cheques
Postage Labels
The totals on all of these reports matched those calculated from examination of the
audit data that was extracted.
Para 4 of the letter states that there was £92,374.74 Stock carried forward from week
41. This is incorrect. The figure for Stock (including cash) carried forward from
week 41 is £54,170.49 (including a carried forward discrepancy of 47p). However
£92,374.74 is the figure for stock carried forward from week 42 to week 43 (which is
perhaps what Mr Castleton meant). This paragraph also states that Mr Castleton
believes there to be a discrepancy of £209.34 (ie £83,916.41 less £83,707.07) in the
Payments figures. Again it isn’t at all clear where that figure comes from.
I’m afraid we can’t make any sense of paragraph 5 of the letter. In particular what
does “£1,706.64 in unallocated cash” mean? Given that Mr Castleton’s analysis of
how the Transactions in logs are accounted for is different from the way in which
Horizon has accounted for them, there seems little point in further analysis without
having a common mechanism for comparing what is agreed and what is in dispute.
Para 6 refers to “giro bank transactions” as being suspected of being the cause of the
discrepancy. On what grounds is this considered to be the problem? It is accepted
c:\documents and settings\njm1\local settings\temporary internet files\olk6f\6825 anal (2).doc Printed at
10:02:46 on 7/9/2006 Page 2 of 3
WBON0000027
WBON0000027
that there were indeed 6 giro bank cash deposits of over £1,000 (including two for
about £18,000 and £24,000), thus representing a significant amount of cash
movements during the week.
Para 8 refers to “missing halves of transactions”. The only missing half transaction is
that for 92p on 12" January at 16:40, However the order in which the transactions
were submitted in ARQ 421 is “time of transaction”. Where both counters were in
use at the same time, this can result in the transactions from the 2 counters being
“interleaved”. Sorting the transactions based on the Session Id, will ensure that this is
compensated for. We have checked that all transactions for each Session Id do indeed
net to zero (apart from the missing transaction on 12" January).
c:\documents and settings\njm1\local settings\temporary internet files\olk6f\6825 anal (2).doc Printed at
10:02:46 on 7/9/2006 Page 3 of 3