WITNO09610104
WITNO9610104
REGINA
-v-
SEEMA MISRA
Response to s.8 Disclosure Application
1. Prosecution Counsel has viewed the papers held by the Royal Mail
legal departments which relate to the “case studies” which are set
out in the Computer Weekly article (SM1).
2. In deciding whether any material should be disclosed Prosecution
Counsel has kept the following test in mind: is there any material
that is capable of casting an objective doubt on the reliability of
Horizon? Prosecution Counsel discussed the suitability of this test
with the Defendant’s legal representatives at the visit to the West
Byfleet office on 6/11/09. It was agreed then that a mere assertion
by a sub-postmaster, that a loss should be attributed to computer
error, would not be not capable of amounting to the sort of objective
material that ought to be disclosed.
3. Prosecution Counsel has advised that the only material that should
be disclosed from the material he has viewed is the Judgment in the
Castleton case. A copy was sent to Mrs Hogg in the DX on 28/1/10.
4. The other material consists of nothing more than unsubstantiated
claims by sub-postmasters who have been confronted with
deficiencies for which they do not want to accept responsibility.
When those claims have been investigated no supporting evidence
has been found.
WITNO09610104
WITNO9610104
5. In the case of Alan Bates, the loss was written off because it was a
small figure and because some of the paper exhibits required to
support a civil action had not been preserved.
6. Further enquiries are being made about the “problem” at Callender
Square, Falkirk, which is discussed at paragraph 23 of the Castleton
Judgment. Further more general enquiries are being made with
Fujitsu.