WITNO3090200
Witness Name: Marion Holmes
Statement No.: WITN0309_02
Exhibits: One
Dated: 8 March 2022
IN THE POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARION HOLMES
1, MARION HOLMES, make the following SECOND STATEMENT.
1. As detailed in my First Statement, I am the widow of Mr Peter Holmes.
2. Shown to me now is a true copy of a three-page letter my husband, Peter Holmes,
wrote and sent to the Post Office on the 13 June 1999.
3. The letter sets our Peter’s grave concerns regarding the Horizon System, the training
provided to subpostmasters and post office managers; in particular in relation to
Peter’s concerns regarding the lack of training on balancing the system and the
difficulties he was experiencing in balancing the system. 10 years after writing this
letter Peter was convicted of false accounting. On the 23 of April 2021, the Court of
Appeal (Hamilton & Others [2021] EWCA Crim 577) posthumously quashed my
husband’s conviction. The Court found:
Peter Holmes (deceased)
226. The appeal of Peter Holmes is brought posthumously by his widow Mrs
Marion Holmes. On 22 December 2009, in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon
Tyne, Mr Holmes pleaded guilty to four counts of false accounting, asking for
nine similar offences to be taken into consideration. He was acquitted of theft
by direction of the judge. We understand that the alleged shortfall was
£46,049. On 29 January 2010, he received a community sentence order with a
three-month curfew.
227. Mr Holmes was employed for over 13 years as an SPM at Jesmond Sub
Post Office and had served as a police officer for 12 years prior to this. In
Page 1 of 2
WITNO3090200
interview, he had said that he had no idea why there was a discrepancy unless
“it’s the Horizon that has let us down”. He denied theft but accepted that he
had been covering up the shortfall. The defence statement accepted false
accounting but denied theft. It repeated that he believed Horizon was at fault
and had created the shortfall. He also complained about the adequacy of the
investigation. He raised a complaint about the training provided when Horizon
was introduced.
228. The prosecution relied upon three receipts for cash deposits, a transaction
log, the branch trading statements, cash declarations and “variance checks” —
all produced by Horizon.
229. POL accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case and that evidence
from Horizon was essential to Mr Holmes’ case. ARQ data was obtained but it
is not clear whether it was disclosed. It appears there was no evidence to
corroborate the Horizon evidence. There was no investigation into the integrity
of the Horizon figures. There was no proof of an actual loss as opposed to a
Horizon-generated shortfall. There was possible evidence of dishonesty
relating to cash declaration. POL accepts, however, that that did not obviate
the need for proving an actual loss.
230. POL concedes only that Mr Holmes’ prosecution was unfair (Ground 1) but
we are bound to conclude that his prosecution was in addition an affront to
justice (Ground 2). The public interest requires us to mark this latter conclusion.
We do so by allowing his appeal both on Ground 1 and on Ground 2. His
convictions are unsafe. Notwithstanding his guilty pleas, we quash his
convictions on all four counts. We repeat the condolences that we expressed at
the hearing to Mrs Holmes.
4. It will be seen that the matters the Court relied upon to quashed Peter’s conviction
were the same, or strikingly similar to the matters raised by Peter in his letter to the
Post Office on 13 June 1999.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
Dated:8 March 2022
Page 2 of 2