WITN10550100
WITN10550100
Witness Name: David Sutherland
Teale Statement No. WITN10550100
Dated 3 January 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID SUTHERLAND TEALE
I, David Sutherland Teale, will say as follows:-
Introduction
1. 1am a former employee of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and
held the position of Procurator Fiscal at Lochmaddy.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry with
the matters set out in Rule 9 Request dated 8 December 2023, which relates
to matters falling within Phase 4 of the Inquiry.
3. I have been asked to set out my involvement as Procurator Fiscal in the
prosecution of William Quarm.
Background
Page 1 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
4. I have been asked to summarise my educational and _ professional
qualifications. My full name is David Sutherland Teale. I am aged 74 years. I
am a practicing solicitor in Scotland. I hold the qualifications Bachelor of Arts,
Bachelor of Laws, Diploma in Forensic Medicine, Notary Public.
5. I have been asked to summarise my career. I qualified as a Scottish solicitor in
1980 and, following a short spell in private practice, joined the Crown Office and
Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) as a Procurator Fiscal Depute in 1982. In
March 2000, I was appointed Procurator Fiscal for the jurisdiction of the
Western Isles which included the Sheriff Court District of Lochmaddy. I retired
from COPFS in June 2015 and have since been a Director in the Maciver Teale
Law Practice, Stornoway.
6. I have been asked to provide details of my experience working with the Post
Office and prior to this prosecution of William Quarm whether I was involved in
any prosecutions reliant on data from the Horizon IT system. Over the years as
a Procurator Fiscal Depute working in busy offices such as Glasgow and
Greenock, I would have received and considered many reports from the Post
Office regarding criminality by their workforce. I found as a Reporting Agency
that their reports were straightforward and I cannot recall any instances at all
where there was any suggestion that the information provided was misleading.
I cannot recall any other Post Office case considered by me which relied on
data from the Horizon IT system.
Involvement in criminal prosecution case studies being examined by the Inquiry
Page 2 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
Prosecution of William Quarm
7. I have been asked to provide a full account of my involvement in and
recollection of the prosecution of this case, including but not limited to
answering the questions as follows.
8. The circumstances in which I first became involved in this case are as follows.
In Scotland, COPFS is the sole prosecuting authority and accordingly, the
police and certain other agencies such as the DWP or the Scottish Society for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) or, as in this case, the Post Office
would, where they have identified, in their view, sufficient evidence of criminality,
submit reports for the consideration of prosecution to the Procurator Fiscal in
whose jurisdiction the crime is alleged to have been committed. It is entirely
within the discretion of the Procurator Fiscal in his or her jurisdiction (which is
based on geographical location), to decide whether to take no proceedings, or,
if proceedings are considered appropriate, the level at which to prosecute.
Options range from warning, limited fine to prosecution at the appropriate level
of court, ie District Court, Sheriff Court (whether before a Sheriff sitting alone or
with a jury) or High Court.
9. I have been asked to describe my role in relation to this case. The Report from
the Post Office was received at the Procurator Fiscal’s office in Lochmaddy in
early 2009. As Procurator Fiscal there, I read and considered it. The reports
submitted to the Procurator Fiscal follow a standard form. They provide details
of the accused and his or her previous convictions. There follows a summary of
the evidence against the accused prepared by the reporting officer (who, in this
Page 3 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
case, I would expect to have been Raymond Grant given the contents of the
document, (Post Office Ltd Confidential: Investigation Legal: Theft,
embezzlement and Money Laundering for William John Quarm
[POL00166596)), a list of witnesses, a list of productions and a draft charge.
The draft charge submitted with the report is what the reporting officer considers
to be appropriate to the circumstances. However, it is for the Procurator Fiscal
to decide for himself what charge is appropriate and the precise wording of it.
The summary of evidence submitted at this stage would not usually include full
witness statements. These would only be submitted at the request of the
Procurator Fiscal following a plea of Not Guilty.
10. The Procurator Fiscal will consider carefully the report, always with a view to
ascertaining whether it discloses that a crime has been committed and then, if
he is satisfied on that aspect, whether there is corroborated evidence (ie from
two sources) that the accused committed the crime. If the report fails to disclose
a crime or if there is no corroborated evidence of the accused's guilt, then the
Procurator Fiscal will mark the case “No Proceedings” and provide his reasons
for doing so for future audit purposes. This process is called, “case marking”.
1
a
.It goes almost without saying that the Procurator Fiscal will inevitably rely on
the accuracy of any such report on which to base his decision and it is well
accepted that he is entitled to rely entirely and absolutely on its accuracy for
justification of any consequent actions taken by him. If there were ever any
concern by a reporting officer in any agency whether Police, DWP, SSPCA or
Post Office that any part of their report was open to doubt then that should be
brought to the attention of the Procurator Fiscal in the body of the report. If, in
Page 4 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
this case, had there been any doubt as to the accuracy of the data produced
by Horizon known to the reporting officer, then, of course, that should have been
made very clear indeed since it would have seriously affected the decision
made by the Procurator Fiscal.
12.If a case is to be prosecuted, the Procurator Fiscal will draft the appropriate
charge, consider what witnesses he intends to lead to prove his case and list
any previous convictions. These will be typed and put together to form what is
called the Complaint (since it is the Complaint of the Procurator Fiscal) and
served by post on the accused with a date for it to call in court at a Pleading
Diet.
13.Because I do not have access to the original case papers, I can only surmise
that the evidence provided to me would have been a summary such as that
contained in (Post Office Confidential: Investigation [POL00166596]). From this
it is clear enough that there is a sufficiency of evidence to proceed. This was
evidence that the crime of embezzlement had been committed.
14. The interviews appear fair and not oppressive. I note that Mr Quarm was given
an appropriate caution at the beginning of the first interview.
15. Being satisfied that there was indeed a sufficiency allowing me to proceed, my
next decision would have been to decide the nature of proceedings. Given the
large sum involved, I would have been in no doubt that the public interest
required that I prosecute. As to forum, the sum involved suggested that
prosecution in the Sheriff Court would have been appropriate. Mr Quarm had
no previous convictions, was elderly and in poor health. Against that, he had
not repaid any of the embezzled funds. I would have thought it unlikely that, at
Page 5 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
most, he would have received a sentence of imprisonment not in excess of 12
months and, accordingly, I opted for prosecution at Sheriff Summary level
(before a Sheriff sitting alone). Because I do not have access to the original
case papers, I cannot say what the Reporting Officer provided as a draft charge
or charges but I see that the charge on the complaint, for which, as I have said,
I would have drafted, is one of embezzlement.
16.Having made these decisions, I marked it for prosecution and arranged for the
Complaint to be served on Mr Quarm for a first calling in court on 2 June 2009.
As Procurator Fiscal, I had the authority to proceed without reference to others
in COPFS.
17.The case proceeded through various callings in court. I see from the court
minutes (Court Papers from Lochmaddy Sheriff court re William John Quarm
[COPF0000001]) that the accused's solicitor tendered a plea of Not Guilty to
the charge and challenged the fairness of the interviews on the basis that the
accused had been denied legal representation at them. That argument was
rejected by the Sheriff and the case was continued for a trial to take place.
Before the date set for trial, the accused's solicitor offered me a plea of guilty to
a reduced sum, namely £24,000. Although I did not have to, I did contact Robert
Daily, Post Office Investigator, and discussed it with him (Email from Zoe
Topham to Robert Daily and cc Mandy Talbot, re: Paible —- Branch code 147869
-William John Quarm [POL00166833]). Following that, I returned to the
accused's solicitor and suggested that a plea of guilty to embezzlement of
£27,000 (reduced from £40,277) would be acceptable. This was accepted by
the accused's solicitor and was duly tendered at court. Mr Quarm was
Page 6 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
sentenced to 150 hours Community Service (reduced from 2000 hours for a
plea of guilty). I do think that it was reasonable to accept the offer to plead guilty
to that reduced sum. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to prove the
actual amount embezzled given that the Horizon audit depended largely on the
bogus figures input by the accused. If the case had gone to trial, I would have
had to rely on evidence from the accused’s admissions as to how much he
considered he had embezzled and the period over which he considered he had
been operating falsely and other evidence such as average takings over
previous years. The figure offered was significant and would have allowed the
court to treat the crime seriously and, of course, would have meant a certain
conviction. I expect that in my discussions with Robert Daily, Investigation
Officer, (referred to later) this would have been my argument for accepting the
offer.
18.1 have been asked whether I was aware of any allegations made by William
Quarm relating to the reliability of the Horizon IT system and, if so, what I
thought the significance of this was. I see from the transcript of his interviews
(Record of Tape Recorded Interview of William John Quarm [POL00166599])
that he considered that there was an error of around £600 or £700 in January
or February 2008 in the data relating to the ATM in his branch. He thought that
the total shortfall (of £40,277) should be reduced by that. In another section of
his interview (Record of Tape Recorded Interview [POL00166599]), he was
adamant that a remittance sent to his branch of £32,000 was wrong and that
other remittances to his branch of £9,000 were also wrong because, he
maintained, the largest remittance ever paid to his branch was £7,000. The
Page 7 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
interviewer, Raymond Grant, Investigation Manager, responded to the latter
suggestion, “It’s automatic. It's a Horizon produced figure. People don’t make
decisions I’m going to send you 5. It’s an automatic cash management system.”
When Mr Quarm protested, “But why if they were wanting £7,000 did they send
me £7,000?” Raymond Grant replied, “It’s the system. I don’t know, I can’t
explain”.
19.While these do seem to have been alerts as to the accuracy of Horizon
produced data, it is difficult to treat them as serious challenges given that Mr
Quarm admitted taking cash coming into his Post Office branch, equivalent of
around £4,200 every week for an unknown period but conservatively estimated
to be 10 or 11 months, and without putting it through his till. He further admitted
inputting fictitious figures to Horizon to disguise the shortfall.
20.At the time of taking my decision to prosecute, I think that I can safely say that
I would not have had any doubts as to the reliability of the evidence provided in
the Post Office report. Certainly there was no suggestion at all that the Horizon
IT system had produced or was producing unreliable data. If there had been
any such suggestion, then I would have seriously considered proceeding further
against the accused.
21.1 have been asked who made the charging decision. As I have explained, as
Procurator Fiscal it was my decision alone to prosecute him. In Scotland, the
police will “charge” an accused. In this case, the police were not involved and
the Post Office Investigators did not have authority to charge. In Scotland, an
accused person receiving a Complaint amounts to having been “charged”
Page 8 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
22.1 have been asked who authorized the prosecution in this case. As I have
explained, as Procurator Fiscal I alone took the decision to prosecute.
23.1 have been asked to provide details of any advice I provided in respect of the
evidence and the merits of prosecution. I do not recall providing advice about
this case to anyone.
24.1 have been asked whether any Horizon data (and in particular ARQ logs) was
requested from Fujitsu in this case. No Horizon data was requested from
Fujitsu.
25.1 have been asked who the disclosure officer was in this case. The Investigating
officer who supplied the documentary productions to the Procurator Fiscal’s
office at Lochmaddy was Robert Daily.
26.1 have been asked to explain my role in relation to disclosure in these
proceedings. After receiving the documentary productions from Robert Daily, it
was my responsibility to ensure that they were sent to the defence solicitor.
27.1 have been asked to provide an account of the disclosure requests made by
the Defence in this case, what advice I provided in relation to any such requests
and how the Post Office responded to them. In respect of disclosure, the
documentary evidence detailed in (List of Productions submitted to Procurator
Fiscal Office by Robert Daily, re: William John Quarm [POL00166753]), would
have been provided as a matter of course to the defence solicitor following the
accused's plea of Not Guilty. In summary cases (such as this one) the
procedure for disclosure to the defence is that, following a plea of Not Guilty (or
earlier, if particularly requested by the defence) the defence solicitor will write
to the Procurator Fiscal’s office stating that they act for the accused and
Page 9 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
requesting disclosure of the productions. This is done electronically via a secure
link. I see from (Letter from David Teale to Raymond Grant re Case against
William John Quarm [POL00166755]) that on 1 July 2009 my office requested
that the Investigating officer provide all the documentary productions. I have no
doubt that these would have been produced to the defence although I do not
see the usual covering letter to the solicitor in the bundle of documents
supplied.
28.1 have been asked to describe the nature of any discussions I had with counsel
and the Post Office’s legal representatives during the course of these
proceedings. I had no discussions with counsel or any legal representatives of
the Post Office.
29.1 have been asked to reflect on the way that the investigation and prosecution
was conducted by the Post Office and the outcome of the case. As I have made
clear, in Scotland the Post Office investigators will carry out the investigation
(and may be directed in their enquiries by the Procurator Fiscal at any stage)
but the prosecution is entirely in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal. I have
nothing adverse to say about the Post Office’s handling of the investigation in
this case. It seems to me to have been investigated thoroughly and fairly and
any requirements from the Procurator Fiscal’s office for, say, delivery of
productions or discussion of the reduced plea offered were met promptly and
properly. I have assumed that none of the Post Office witnesses in this case
were aware of challenges to the integrity of Horizon data. The outcome of a
plea of guilty was appropriate given the accused's admissions.
Page 10 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
30.1 confirm that I have reviewed all the documents listed in the Rule 9 request and
there are none on which I wish to make specific comment.
31.In my paragraph 13 above, I have stated that I do not have access to the original
case papers. Missing from the bundle provided by the Inquiry is a copy of the
original case report which would have been submitted by the Post Office
Investigator to the Procurator Fiscal at Lochmaddy. This document is important
because it contains the summary of evidence and without it, I do not know the
precise information I had on which I based my prosecution. At this stage, I can
only surmise that the summary of evidence would have been roughly similar to
[POL00166596]. [POL00166596] is clearly a Post Office Internal document
since its final sentence reads, “It is recommended that a report should be
prepared and submitted to the Procurator Fiscal’s Department for its
consideration as to what further action should be taken”. It is that report referred
to in that sentence which is missing from the bundle supplied to me by the
Inquiry.
32.1 am not sure when I was first made aware of issues relating to the Horizon IT
system. Since I received the Rule 9 request, I have read the Scottish Criminal
Case Review Commissions report on these Post Office cases and see that
COPFS paused prosecutions on them, following on information which they had
received. I do not now recall whether COPFS issued any directions or guidance
to Procurator Fiscals on this matter or whether I learned about the issues
through the media.
33.In relation to my paragraphs 29 and 30 above, I confirm that, at the time of
being involved in the prosecution of William Quarm, I was not told by anyone at
Page 11 of 13
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
the Post Office or within COPFS about other cases in which the integrity of the
Horizon system was being challenged.
General
34.1 have been asked to what extent (if any) I considered a challenge to the
integrity of Horizon in one case to be relevant to other ongoing or future cases.
As I have said, I have not dealt with any other Horizon case and so did not have
to consider the challenges to the integrity of Horizon.
35.1 have been asked if there are any other matters which I consider of relevance
to phase 4 of the Inquiry. I have no other matters to draw to the attention of the
Inquiry.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 3 January 2024
Page 12 of 13
Index to First Witness Statement of DAVID SUTHERLAND TEALE
WITN10550100
WITN10550100
Grant re: Case against William John
Quarm
No I URN Document Description Control
Number
1 POL00166596 Post Office Ltd Confidential: POL-0162041
Investigation Legal: Theft,
Embezzlement and Money Laundering
for William John Quarm
2 COPF0000001 I Court papers from Lochmaddy Sheriff I N/A
Court re William John Quarm
3 POL00166833 Email from Zoe Topham to Robert POL-0162278
Daily and cc Mandy Talbot, re: Paible -
Branch code 147869 - William John
Quarm
4 POL00166599 Record of Tape Recorded Interview of I POL-0162044
William John Quarm
5 POL00166753 I List of Productions submitted to POL-0162198
Procurator Fiscal Office by Robert
Daily, re: William John Quarm
6 POL00166755__I Letter from David Teale to Raymond POL-0162200
Page 13 of 13