WITNO09890207
WITNO9890207
Second Witness Statement of Simon Recaldin — Appendix I - Differences in the parameters of the responses to information requests
Response
Date range
Case types within
scope
Offence types
within scope
Individuals within
scope
Prosecuting authority
FOI20160825092
1
(29 September
2016)'
2010/2011 to
2016/2017
Likely prosecutions
including convictions and
non-convictions
Likely all offences
committed by
SPMs
Likely SPMs only (and
unknown job types
excluded)
Likely POL (or RMG pre-
separation) only (and
cases where the
prosecutor was
unknown/unclear likely
excluded)
FO12020/00186
(22 May 2020)
1991 to 20207
Confirmed convictions
only?
(Cases where the
conviction date was
unknown were included
within a separate row
entitled ‘unknown’*)
All offence types
SPMs, assistants, Post
Office workers (e.g.
those in Crown Post
Offices), and cases
where the job title was
‘unknown’?
POL or (RMG pre-
separation)
Cases where the
prosecutor was
unknown/unclear were
excluded
Hamilton &
Others
(23 March 2021)
1996 to 2013
Recorded convictions
pre-1999, and cases
treated as convictions for
the purposes of the
PCDE post-1999
(including ‘unconfirmed
All offence types
for pre-1999
cases’ but only
Horizon-related
cases® for post-
1999 cases
Any individual
POL or (for RMG pre-
separation), and any case
where it was
unknown/unclear who the
prosecutor was.
1N.b. It has not been possible to confirm the parameters of this response.
2 Although the request was for data from 1990 to 2020, the response was confined to 1991 to 2020.
3 This figure excluded cases where it was not possible to confirm whether there had been a conviction.
4 As the data was further reconciled and analysed, the conviction dates for some of these cases were subsequently identified.
5 This is because it was thought that unknown individuals might fall within the parameters of the request, but non-POL employees and individuals with job
titles such as ‘engineer’ or ‘cleaner’ were not included as they were understood not to fall within the request.
7 Including cases treated as not involving a shortfall in branch accounts such as robbery and burglary, and ‘other’ cases. The note provided to the CACD on
25 March 2021 also contained a breakdown excluding robbery and burglary cases but still including ‘other’ cases.
8 ‘Horizon-related’ refers to cases which relied on Horizon evidence in whole or in part.
WITNO09890207
WITNO9890207
convictions’) as at
(in respect of
from 1990 to 1999,
23.3.2021%
FOI2021/00353 2015 to 2019 Prosecutions (whether or I All offences in Any individual POL
(20 May 2021) not they resulted in respect of first
conviction) question® and
shortfall cases in
respect of second
question"?
R9(6) 2000 to 2015 In respect of convictions, I Cases presumed _ I Any individual POL or (for cases pre-
cases treated as to be Horizon- separation) RMG, and any
(15 December convictions for the related cases for case where it was
2021) purposes of the PCDE the purposes of unknown/unclear who the
(including ‘unconfirmed the PCDE prosecutor was.
convictions’) as at
15.12.2021
Prosecution numbers for
2000 onwards also
provided
FOI2022/00304 1989 to 1999 Cases recorded (but not I Shortfall cases" I All individuals POL or (for cases pre-
verified) as convictions separation) RMG, and any
25 May 2022 case where it was
unknown/unclear who the
prosecutor was.
FOI2023/00096 1990 and 1999 In respect of convictions I All offence types I SPMs only POL or (for cases pre-
separation) RMG, and any
6 Pre-2000 figures based on early casework spreadsheets, post-1999 figures based on casework spreadsheets and further verification.
° The last time POL prosecuted an individual (2019).
1° The last time POL prosecuted in respect of a shortfall in branch accounts (2015).
" Excluding cases in the ‘other’ category where it was considered unlikely to be a case involving a shortfall in branch accounts.
WITNO09890207
WITN09890207
24 March 2023
convictions), and
2000 and 2009 in
respect of
prosecutions
cases recorded (but not
verified) as convictions
Prosecution numbers for
2000 onwards also
provided
case where it was
unknown/unclear who the
prosecutor was.