WITN10580100
WITN10580100
Witness Name: Kevin Shiels
Statement No.: WITN10580100
Dated: 18th January 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF KEVIN SHIELS
1, Kevin Shiels, will say as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. lama Senior Public Prosecutor in the Western & Southern Region of the
Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland (hereafter ‘PPSNI’).
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(the “Inquiry”) with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request dated 8'"
December 2023 (the “Request’).
BACKGROUND
3. [hold an LLB degree from Manchester Polytechnic in Law and French. 1
completed my professional training and was admitted to the Roll as a
solicitor by the Law Society of Northern Ireland in 1991.
Page 1 of 11
4.
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
I was in private practice in criminal law before joining the Department of the
Director of Public Prosecutions as a Senior Public Prosecutor in 2003. The
Office was reconstituted as the Public Prosecution Service for Northern
Ireland in 2005.
I do not recall being involved in any prosecutions which relied on Horizon IT
data prior to Mrs McKelvey’'s case discussed below or indeed in any
subsequent prosecutions. This is the only prosecution case involving these
issues that I was involved in.
At the outset I wish to offer my sincere apologies to Mrs McKelvey for my
part in the prosecution of her on foot of the allegations raised by Post Office
Limited.
PROSECUTION OF MAUREEN McKELVEY
7.
I first became involved in this case on 19" February 2004 when it was
allocated to me with the task of taking a prosecution decision. I had no
involvement in the investigation of the alleged offences.
A file in relation to this matter was received from Police Service of Northern
lreland on 28'" January 2004. The file contained a covering letter from
Detective Superintendent P McAuley stating that there was sufficient
evidence for a prosecution [PNI00000001_082].The file contained a further
report prepared by Suzanne Winter, Investigations Manager with Post Office
Limited detailing that “the discrepancies summarised on the pension
schedule indicate it is due to deliberate action and not error and McKelvey is
Page 2 of 11
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
the only person with the appropriate access and opportunity”
[PNI00000001_082].
9. The file was allocated to me on the 19" February 2004. My role was that of
‘Directing Officer’ which is the PPS (then DPP) lawyer with responsibility for
considering the file and applying the PPS Test for Prosecution. The Test for
Prosecution is set out at section 4 of The PPS Code for Prosecutors. It is
met if:
(i) the evidence which can be presented in court is sufficient to provide a
reasonable prospect of conviction ~ the Evidential Test; and
(ii) prosecution is required in the public interest — the Public Interest Test.
10. Having considered the evidence on the file, I decided that the Test for
Prosecution was met in relation to the offence of theft and issued a direction
to Case Preparation late February 2004 to prepare papers in anticipation of
trial.
11.Committal papers were prepared and I signed same on the 22 March 2004
detailing that the amount of errors in a relative short period of time would
indicate more than simple incompetence [PNI00000001_081].
12.A Preliminary Inquiry was held at Omagh Magistrates’ Court on the 20" April
2004 when the defence conceded a prima facie case and the matter was
returned for trial to Omagh Crown Court. Primary disclosure was handed to
defence solicitors at committal on 20" April 2004 as is normal practice
{[PNI00000001__081].
Page 3 of 11
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
13. The primary disclosure would have included the Non-Sensitive Disclosure
Schedule which to my recollection was provided by Police
[PNI00000001_ 080}. I would also have been in receipt of the Sensitive
Schedule [PNI00000001_044] which was a nil return. My understanding at
the time was Detective Constable Coyle was the Disclosure Officer.
14. There was nothing in the Non-Sensitive Disclosure Schedule or the Sensitive
Disclosure Schedule which alerted me to any issue with the Horizon IT
system. If any such material existed and was brought to my attention I would
have disclosed it as primary disclosure. I would also have reviewed whether
the Test for Prosecution remained met.
15.Mrs McKelvey was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on the 17" May 2004
when a trial date of the 13" September 2004 was fixed for hearing of the
matter.
16. The case was listed for mention on the 24" June 2004 when the trial judge
requested defence to inform the court of any disclosure issues by the
following Monday (28" June 2004). The case was not re-listed prior to trial.
17.An important part of the Directing Officer's role is to discharge the disclosure
duties placed on the DPP / PPS. Those obligations are set out at paragraphs
4.54 — 4.59 of the PPS Code for Prosecutors. By virtue of section 7A of the
Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 (as amended) disclosure
duties are continuing and are kept under review by the Directing Officer
throughout a prosecution.
Page 4 of 12
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
18. A Defence Statement was received by PPSNI on 10" May 2004. At
paragraph 4 it cited four possible causes of the branch shortfalls identified:
(i) Human error;
(ii) Pressure of running the shop;
(iii) Operating a credit account through the Post Office;
(iv) Failure of the Post Office to provide a sufficient cash float.
19.Regardless of the contents of the Defence Statement, had any matter been
drawn to my attention suggesting that there was a question mark over the
reliability of the Horizon IT system this would have been disclosed as primary
disclosure as it would clearly have undermined the prosecution case.
20.A letter was sent to the PSNI Investigating Officer D/Con Coyle enclosing a
copy of the defence case statement by a Crown Court clerk. I have a copy of
the original letter which is signed on my behalf by the clerk. He was asked to
review the unused material on the schedule and any other material in his
possession and let me know whether there was anything that may meet the
test for disclosure [PNI00000001_ 076].
21.1 have reviewed a letter from D/Con Coyle to a D/Inspector in Omagh dated
218! May 2004 in which he responds to this correspondence and the defence
case statement [PNI00000001_ 078].
22.1 sent a letter to the defence solicitors dated 15" June 2004 in reference to
the defence case statement received enclosing a schedule of unused
material and six further specified documents as per my on-going duty of
disclosure [PNI00000001_037].
Page 5 of 11
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
23.Having completed secondary disclosure I had no further involvement in this
case until I was requested to review the prosecution on public interest
grounds due to the ill-health of Mrs. McKelvey on the 10" September 2004
[PNI00000001_ 038}.
24. In this particular region the DPP office was situated in Omagh Courthouse
and was staffed at that time by two Senior Public Prosecutors who would
have dealt with disclosure and other issues that would have arisen during the
lifetime of any case in the Crown Court.
25.A letter [PNI00000001_071] dated 22"¢ July 2004 was sent by defence
solicitors directly to D/Con Coyle requesting four specified items of
secondary disclosure to assist Forensic Accountants Goldblatt McGuigan
instructed on behalf of Mrs McKelvey.
26. My late colleague Brian Curran, a Senior Public Prosecutor then based at
Omagh Courthouse, wrote to the defence solicitors by letter dated 27" July
2004 indicating that their letter to D/Con Coyle had been passed to him for
reply. He advised the defence solicitors that the PSNI Investigating Officer
would liaise with the Post Office Investigator Suzanne Winters and a
response would issue in due course [PNI00000001_ 079].
27.Within the materials provided to me by the Inquiry is a letter from Ms Winters
to D/Con Coyle dated 30" July 2004 responding to points 2 and 3 of the
secondary disclosure requests. I had not seen this document before
compiling this statement [PNIO0000001_ 069].
Page 6 of 11
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
28.D/Inspector McCleery wrote to DPP in a letter dated 16" August 2004
enclosing the letter from defence solicitors dated 22"? July 2004 along with a
note from D/Con Coyle in which he responds to points 1-3. I understand that
point 4, a request for interview tapes, was dealt with separately. Also
enclosed is the material in response to the request for further disclosure
[PNI00000001_71].
29.On 23% August 2004 my colleague Paul Dale, a Senior Public Prosecutor
then based at Omagh Courthouse, wrote to the defence solicitors responding
to their requests for further disclosure contained in their letter of 229° July
2004 [PNI00000001_070).
30.Paul Dale provided the information to defence that had been supplied to him
31.
from Post Office via Police. Having viewed Paul Dale’s letter of the 23
August 2004, I note that he indicates that he was informed that further
material had been requested and any documents received would have been
reviewed for disclosure. I have no independent recollection of whether any
further material was received and/or reviewed.
A letter was sent by the defence solicitor to DPP staff based at Omagh
Courthouse enclosing correspondence from Goldblatt McGuigan to the Post
Office Investigator Suzanne Winters dated 28" July 2004. The letter asks Ms
Winters to provide the Forensic Accountants with nine itemized pieces of
information. Item six is a request to Ms Winters for information on the
Horizon computer system procedures for inputting cash received from Royal
Mail.
Page 7 of 11
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
32.Also enclosed is a ‘note of discussions with Suzanne Winters and Rosemary
Curran of Post Office regarding accounting systems at Post Office counters.
Held 23"¢ June 2004. Updated following discussions with Suzanne Winters
on 1 July 2004.’ Further material is enclosed with Appendix A and B to the
note. The letter dated 28" July 2004 was sent to DPP for information
purposes only.
33. All of this correspondence was forwarded by a DPP clerk to prosecution
counsel Philip Mateer BL. He was asked to forward it to Charles McKay BL if
the brief was to be passed to him [PNI00000001_ 072].
34.On 7th September 2004 the defence solicitors wrote to DPP staff based at
Omagh Courthouse asking the DPP to consider whether the public interest
limb of the test for prosecution was still met in light of an enclosed medical
report on Mrs McKelvey. Within the Inquiry materials is a handwritten note
from a DPP clerk passing the correspondence to me for urgent reply.
35. There is a handwritten file note created by me dated 10th September 2004 in
respect of a telephone call to Mrs McKelvey’s solicitor Stephen Atherton in
which I expressed sympathy for his client's health problems but concluded
that there was nothing in the report that would influence me to alter my
original decision to prosecute.
36. The trial in this matter was listed to commence on the 13" September 2004
when a jury was empanelled. The trial ran for 3 days until the 16'" September
2004 when the jury returned a not guilty verdict. During the currency of the
trial I am not aware if any issues whether disclosure or otherwise were
Page 8 of 11
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
brought to my attention. Such issues, if any, would normally have been dealt
with by those prosecutors situated in the DPP office in Omagh Courthouse.
37.Almost twenty years after this prosecution I do not now recall the specifics of
the case. I do not recall anything being brought to my attention by the Post
Office to suggest that they were aware of systematic deficiencies in the
Horizon IT platform that could produce unexplained shortfalls. If any such
matter was brought to my attention I would have viewed it as disclosable and
taken the appropriate steps.
38.There are no other matters of relevance to Phase 4 of the Inquiry that I wish
to draw to the attention of the Chair.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Page 9 of 11
Index to First Witness Statement of Kevin Shiels
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
URN
Document Description
Control Number
PNIO0000001_082
Letter from PSNI re R V - Maureen
McKelvey re alleged theft
VIS00013112_082
PNI00000001_081
Department of the director of public
prosecutions
VIS00013112_081
PNI00000001_ 80
Particulars of service and Schedule of
non sensitive Material R v Maureen
McKelvey
VIS00013112_080
PNI00000001_44
R v Maureen McKelvey Additional
Statements, SOLS LTR Additional
Police Papers to Kevin Shiels PSNI
(reference number 258267) re: Theft
at Omagh from dates unknown until
4.4.02 R v McKelvey
VIS00013112_044
PNIO0000001_76
Letters, incl from K Shiels to PSNI
enclosing copy of Defence Statement,
R - V - Maureen McKelvey defence
statement
VIS00013112_076
PNi00000001_78
Bundle of evidence for R. Maureen
McKelvey
VIS00013112_078
PNI00000001_37
Letter re: R v Maureen McKelvey,
Department of the Director of Public
Prosecutions, Schedule of unused
material (Post Office) (Issued stamp
14.10.04)
VIS00013112_037
Page 10 of 11
WITN10580100
WITN10580100
PNI00000001_38
Correspondence R v Maureen
McKelvey
VIS00013112_038
PNI00000001_74
Letter from J McCleery to PPS Belfast
chambers regarding further
documentation disclosure on R V
Maureen McKelvey
ViS00013112_071
10
PNI00000001_79
Letter from Brian Curran, Western
Circuit for Director of Public
Prosecutions to John J.McNally & Co
Solicitors. Re: R v Maureen McKelvey
VIS00013112_079
1
PNI00000001_69
Letter regarding disclosure statement
from S Winter to C Coyle re Maureen
McKelvey.
VIS00013112_069
12
PNIO00000001_70
Letter from Paul Dale for the director
of Public Prosecutions to John J
McNally & Co Solicitors re; R v
Maureen McKelvey
VIS00013112_070
13
PNI00000001_72
Letter Re Case listing for the 13th of
September 2004 - corrs to
Prosecution Counsel from D of Public
Prosecutions R - v - Maureen
VIS00013112_072
Page 11 of 11