This is the unperfected transcript of third day of the Common Issues trial in the Bates and others v Post Office group litigation. The hearing below took place on Mon 12 November 2018 in court 26 of the High Court Rolls Building. The claimants' QC is Mr Patrick Green and the defendant's QC is Mr David Cavender. The managing judge is Mr Justice Fraser.
Witnesses
Lead Claimant 2: Pam Stubbs - former Subpostmaster, Barkham branch (near Wokingham, Berkshire) - finishing the evidence she started giving on Day 2 of the trial.
Lead Claimant 3: Mohammad Sabir - former Subpostmaster of Cottingley and Crossflatts branches in West Yorkshire.
Pam Stubbs' witness statement.
Mohammad Sabir's witness statment.
Witnesses
Lead Claimant 2: Pam Stubbs - former Subpostmaster, Barkham branch (near Wokingham, Berkshire) - finishing the evidence she started giving on Day 2 of the trial.
Lead Claimant 3: Mohammad Sabir - former Subpostmaster of Cottingley and Crossflatts branches in West Yorkshire.
Pam Stubbs' witness statement.
Mohammad Sabir's witness statment.
For my write-up of the day, click here.
Day 1 transcript - Wed 7 November - Opening arguments
Day 2 transcript - Thu 8 November - Claimants: Alan Bates, Pam Stubbs part 1
Day 3 transcript - Mon 12 November - Pam Stubbs part 2, Mohammad Sabir
Day 4 transcript - Tue 13 November - Naushad Abdulla, Liz Stockdale
Day 5 transcript - Wed 14 November - Louise Dar
Day 6 transcript - Thu 15 November - Post Office: Nick Beal, Paul Williams
Day 7 transcript - Mon 19 November - Sarah Rimmer, John Breeden, AvdB part 1
Day 8 transcript - Tue 20 November - AvdB part 2
Day 9 transcript - Wed 21 November - AvdB part 3, Timothy Dance, Helen Dickinson, Michael Shields part 1
Day 10 transcript - Thu 22 November - Michael Shields part 2, Elaine Ridge, David Longbottom, Michael Webb
Day 11 transcript - Mon 26 November - Michael Haworth, Andrew Carpenter, Brian Trotter
Day 12 transcript - Mon 3 December - Claimants' closing argument: Patrick Green QC - part 1
Day 13 transcript - Tue 4 December - Claimants' closing argument: Patrick Green QC - part 2
Day 14 transcript - Wed 5 December - Post Office closing argument: David Cavender QC - part 1
Day 15 transcript - Thu 6 December - Post Office closing argument: David Cavender QC - part 2
Day 2 transcript - Thu 8 November - Claimants: Alan Bates, Pam Stubbs part 1
Day 3 transcript - Mon 12 November - Pam Stubbs part 2, Mohammad Sabir
Day 4 transcript - Tue 13 November - Naushad Abdulla, Liz Stockdale
Day 5 transcript - Wed 14 November - Louise Dar
Day 6 transcript - Thu 15 November - Post Office: Nick Beal, Paul Williams
Day 7 transcript - Mon 19 November - Sarah Rimmer, John Breeden, AvdB part 1
Day 8 transcript - Tue 20 November - AvdB part 2
Day 9 transcript - Wed 21 November - AvdB part 3, Timothy Dance, Helen Dickinson, Michael Shields part 1
Day 10 transcript - Thu 22 November - Michael Shields part 2, Elaine Ridge, David Longbottom, Michael Webb
Day 11 transcript - Mon 26 November - Michael Haworth, Andrew Carpenter, Brian Trotter
Day 12 transcript - Mon 3 December - Claimants' closing argument: Patrick Green QC - part 1
Day 13 transcript - Tue 4 December - Claimants' closing argument: Patrick Green QC - part 2
Day 14 transcript - Wed 5 December - Post Office closing argument: David Cavender QC - part 1
Day 15 transcript - Thu 6 December - Post Office closing argument: David Cavender QC - part 2
Day 3 full transcript:
Monday, 12 November 2018
(10.30 am)
MS PAMELA JOAN STUBBS (continued)
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER (continued)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just two very quick points before you
start.
Last week I asked if a custom bundle could be
created, if I did it internally with Opus for documents
per day. Has that -- on my Opus as of very early this
morning it hadn't appeared. It might be that it is in
hand. It doesn't matter just yet.
MR GREEN: We will check and make sure it is done.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. Then the other point is just
a reminder which I am sure you know about anyway. On
Wednesday of this week is when we have to stop at
3 o'clock.
Right, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Good morning, Ms Stubbs.
A. Good morning.
Q. We are about to move on to deficits operation of your
branch more generally. Before I do, can I ask you a few
questions about errors in branches generally and
supervision.
Would it be fair to say, in the years you were
a subpostmistress, that the Post Office staff were very
rarely physically present in your branch during normal
operations?
A. Could you say that again.
Q. That during all the years you were a postmistress,
Post Office staff were very rarely physically in your
branch during the time of your operations?
A. No, I wouldn't say that at all.
Q. On a day-to-day basis, when you open up at 9 o'clock and
go through to 4 or 5, generally you and your assistants
are the people in the branch doing the transactions?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And the Post Office staff are not there, they are
not able to see what you are doing in terms of selling
stamps, in terms of taking cash, in terms of remming out
cash?
A. That depends at what times that was happening. Because
for the majority of the time that I was in charge of the
branch we were a two position Post Office, which meant
there were usually somebody else in the Post Office
branch with me.
Q. But it wasn't a member of Post Office staff, was it?
A. You mean Post Office as in the wider range of
Post Office?
Q. Exactly. In terms of supervisory, in terms of the audit
people, the Post Office management?
A. We didn't have any Post Office management with us at
all.
Q. Exactly. I am just --
A. I wasn't sure what you meant by Post Office staff, that
was all.
Q. Okay. What I am talking about is supervisory staff,
audit people, other people from the management aren't
there. You're running the branch on your own with your
assistants. That is the obvious point I'm --
A. Yes, I understand you now.
Q. Okay. So when you count cash or hand cash to customers,
Post Office doesn't know how much you are handing to
those customers, does it?
A. I presume not since they are many, many miles away.
Q. And if you handed the wrong amount of money to them, or
took the wrong amount of money in, Post Office has no
way of knowing that?
A. No, I presume not.
Q. If you enter the wrong figure into Horizon, higher or
lower, again Post Office has no way of knowing that is
what you have done?
A. No, they wouldn't.
Q. If one of your assistants was dishonest and took
a couple of hundred pounds out of the till, Post Office
would have no way of knowing that?
A. Post Office itself would have no way of knowing but
I would.
Q. You may or may not, depending on whether you were in the
branch at the time.
A. Or even at the end of the day because I always, except
on the rare occasions when I wasn't in the branch at
all, I was always aware of the overnight cash and
roughly how much money had come in, if you like, in
bulk, and £200 is a bulk amount.
Q. But obviously if assistants take money, put it in their
bag or pocket and leave, you don't search them, do you?
You have no way --
A. No, no.
Q. So just with those quite basic, obvious things out of
the way, at paragraph 88 and following of your witness
statement you deal with what I am going to refer to as
the portacabin losses, ie those that commence really
when you moved into the portacabin.
Do you have a hard copy of your witness statement?
A. No, I prefer the screen. I find the hard copy quite
hard to turn over.
Q. Yes. It's {C1/2/21}.
A. Thank you.
Q. Paragraph 88 is, as I read it, where you start dealing
with the portacabin losses.
If we go to the page before that {C1/2/20},
paragraph 87, we see from that that you had run the
branch for some eight years, I make it, with Horizon,
without any particular problems with Horizon, is that
right?
A. Apart from the period when I had power outages, when
certainly the balance issues were quite spectacular. It
was pretty much like being on a choppy sea. It would be
up one week, down the next, and I was having, I think
the maximum, up to 36 power outages in one day.
Q. So leaving that this one side, the electricity supply
thing which magically -- or you say magically seemed to
sort itself out, or maybe an electrician sorted it out.
Leaving that aside, up to this point of the portacabin
losses you had no particular problems with Horizon, is
that right --
A. Not really, no.
Q. What I am saying is fair, that you didn't have any
particular problems with it?
A. No.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: As in you agree?
A. Sorry --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is just if counsel is saying you
didn't have any particular problems, and you say no,
I assume --
A. No, I didn't have -- I agree with what you're saying.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You are agreeing.
MR CAVENDER: I am obliged.
In terms of -- before we go to the specifics, you
employed up to about six assistants, is that right?
A. Over that nine-year period.
Q. Yes. Do they change over time regularly?
A. Not really.
Q. You had some people --
A. I had a couple of staff when I first took over who
stayed a long time until they decided to emigrate, and
obviously couldn't work. From then on, I think staff
lasted perhaps two or three years at a time.
Q. There were errors in the branch over the years, I could
point you to various examples, where you did have
difficulties in terms of money going missing,
deficiencies, things of that kind.
A. Yes, I had some shortages and I had some surpluses, and
I dealt with those by and large by the means that we
have heard about before where you have an envelope in
the safe and you keep a note of surpluses and put the
money in. If there was a shortage then you made a note
of that on the outside of the envelope, removed the
money, and put it into the Post Office cash.
Q. In terms of these deficiencies we are talking about at
the moment, this was due to error of you or your staff,
were they?
A. I think the largest of them was actually my own error.
Q. Can we look at a few of them so we see what we are
talking about. {E2/6/1} please.
A. I have no idea what this one is, I am sorry, I don't
recollect. It is there, and I know it is there because
I have signed it. I actually can't remember what that
was.
Q. You have a shortage of £393 and then a surplus of £529,
it seems.
A. Yes.
Q. But was that typical of the kind of problems you had on
an ongoing basis?
A. No, not on an ongoing basis. This was typical of
the sort of shortage and surplus that I had around the
time I was experiencing the power outages.
Q. Go to {E2/9/1}, another such example of the £578.02
shortage.
A. Is this not the same one as the previous one?
Q. I'm not sure it is. We haven't gone into huge detail
and analysed them. You may be right but I don't think
so unless you can point to something which --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we go back to the other one.
MR CAVENDER: {E2/6/1} --
A. The £529.23, this was --
Q. The £529 is a surplus, remember and this is a deficit.
So seems to be a different number, but I'm happy for you
to tell me --
A. One is November, one is July.
Q. Exactly.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Are these both pre-Horizon?
A. I cannot exactly remember when Horizon came in. It was
about the time that Horizon would have been put in the
branch.
MR CAVENDER: On the same theme, I don't want to spend too
much time on this. If you go in the same bundle
{E2/14/1}, this is 5 April now 2001, a letter from you
outlining the number of three separate cash shortages.
367, the robbery --
A. These were definitely -- this letter was written after
the power outages, so I would assume that those, the
shortages and surpluses, were due to the power problem
I had.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Why don't you just read it first.
A. I have read the last paragraph which reminded me what
I said. (Pause)
MR CAVENDER: I think you can see from {E2/14/1} that this
was during the time of your electric problems.
A. Yes, it was.
Q. That is also supported by a document my learned friend
asked me to take you to at {E2/10/1}, power failures.
I don't think I need to ask you more questions about
that.
In terms of {E2/24/1}, this lists a whole number of
transaction corrections over a significant period. So
{E2/24/1}, again I'm not going to take you through all
of these, but if you go to the first page, I'm not
sure -- in mine they are not actually paginated, I'm not
sure if they are on the electronic bundle?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We are not there yet, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: {E2/24/1}, please, which should be a table.
(Pause)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We will just pause for a second.
How are we getting on? (Pause)
I'll tell you what I am going to do, rather than put
people under pressure with everyone waiting expectantly,
I will rise for five minutes. So if you can get the
equipment sorted out I will come back down at ten to.
(10.44 am)
(A short break)
(10.52 am)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We have an issue.
MR CAVENDER: Apparently somebody from Opus is on their way,
we are told.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Someone is on their way? All right.
I'll tell you what we will do. Mrs Stubbs, you may
as well leave the witness box. I will rise, and if
someone comes and gets me when it is sorted out.
I don't want whoever it is to feel under ridiculous
pressure and then crash it again in 10 minutes, so take
enough time to set it up properly for the day, and then
we will see how much time we have lost and we will catch
up somewhere.
All right, Mr Cavender?
MR CAVENDER: Thank you.
(10.56 am)
(A short break)
(11.07 am)
MR CAVENDER: Mrs Stubbs, we were looking at {E2/14/1}, and
some of transcript seems not to have -- the system went
down during that discussion.
So if we go back to {E2/14/1} briefly, do you
remember that was the letter I think you were reading?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. The last paragraph talks about magical skills and
electrical problems.
These were the type of problems that you had in
April 2001, is that fair?
A. Yes, that is probably fair to say, yes.
Q. Then going on in time to {E2/24/1}. This is later in
time now. This is a document of transaction corrections
from 2006 onwards. So this is much later. Your
electricity supply has been sorted out by now, that was
2001, so some years later.
If you go to the third page of that, the top of the
it, left-hand column, the date is 14 March 2008.
Row number? I don't have row numbers on mine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Where do you want us to look?
MR CAVENDER: It's the 14 March entry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: On the left-hand side, 2008. Yes, row
17.
MR CAVENDER: If you look at that page, we can see
a transaction to the right, batch control voucher,
12 January. It shows one cheque of £74.88. This amount
has not been claimed through Horizon and remmed out,
therefore £74.88 is allowed. Evidence sent by post.
And then on the 31st of that month we see on
25 February remmed out is a total of £1,470 by your
office but amount sent and received was £1,900, so £488
wasn't remmed out.
Then going down to 2 June 2008, we have value
£12,500 booked out through Horizon but not collected.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which was the date of the third entry?
MR CAVENDER: 2 June 2008.
There are many others, I could go through them all.
My question is simply: is this typical of the kind of
errors that you had in branch caused by you or your
assistants at this time?
A. These I believe were -- at least the first two were
batch control vouchers which were cheques which had to
be remmed out after ... After being totalled at the end
of the day, they were then remmed out as batch control
vouchers and went out in the red and white striped
envelopes to batch control centre.
I did I believe at that time have one assistant who
seemed to have a mental block. She would rem them out
possibly once and then rem them out again and again,
and I found out from the Helpline how I could reverse
these to bring them back to normal, and it is possible
that I didn't actually bring them completely back.
The third one -- I don't know if I would say they
were normal, we are --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you tell me what "remmed out" is
shorthand for.
A. Remitted out.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Remitted out.
A. So you can remit out money and -- you can remit out
cash, but at the end of each day you totalled cheques,
added them up in branch, totalled them, and then in
order to clear them off the system you had to remit
them. I'm not quite sure where they were remitted to
but it was a requirement that you remit them. And she
seemed to have a mental block with this one, which was
why I took to standing over her quite often to make sure
they were correct.
MR CAVENDER: So leaving the errors behind. Obviously there
are many others -- I'm not taking you to all of them,
I am just giving examples to you. In your witness
statement, paragraph 88 and following {C1/2/21}, is
where you start at 11 November 2009 with what I have
called the portacabin losses. I am going to that area
now.
A. We seem to have jumped again. I have a witness
statement of ...
Q. Can we go please to {C1/2/21}. What you do in
the paragraphs following paragraph 88 is summarise your
shortfalls during the period from December 2009 through
to May 2010. I am going to summarise just so you
understand the context of my question.
So you have shortfalls of various amounts: in
December of £2,500-odd, in January of £9,000-odd,
February £8,400, April 2010 £7,900. You then give
notice in May of 2010 --
A. I am taking your word for that because that is not what
I have on screen.
Q. On 15 May you have a shortfall of £5,000-odd, on 25 May
a shortfall of £3,200. I'm just going through order of
magnitude --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think, Mr Cavender, the witness thinks
you are taking her through her witness statement.
What Mr Cavender is doing, he is just reading out to
you the figures and the dates over that eight-month
period.
Is that --
MR CAVENDER: That is exactly right.
What you get to is, from December 2009 to May 2010,
a shortfall of some £28,000-odd during the portacabin
period.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Does that sound about right?
A. That sounds about right.
MR CAVENDER: In relation to losses, before we go into those
particular losses, in terms of procedure for losses, you
knew the procedure was to settle centrally and dispute
it?
A. No, at that time I didn't. When it started I didn't.
Because the first two, the one on 11 November was
an apparent shortage of £388.88, and I was told that
I ought to pay it because it was probably a piece of
paperwork that had got lost in that move and it would
turn up as a transaction correction. So I paid that in
cash.
Q. Shall we look at what happened in relation to
the £9,000-odd one, the January one. That is when we
get a bit more light shed on this. So it's {E2/40/1},
this is the £9,033 one and this is 27 January 2010.
It says at the bottom, I think my learned friend put
this in opening:
"This statement excludes any items currently in
dispute ..."
Or it is meant to.
We then have your response which is at tab {E2/42/1}
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We are going to have to increase the
size of that, please.
A. It's okay, I can read it. Unless you can't, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I can't actually.
MR CAVENDER: Fifth paragraph down:
"When I received the last reminder I rang the
accounts office and was told that unless the matter had
been reported as in dispute they could do nothing.
I was unaware that this had not been reported as a
dispute ..."
In relation to that conversation you had, is it
possible that when you first raised the matter with the
Helpline you raised it as a query and asked about it and
didn't formally say "I want to raise a formal dispute
about this amount", is that possible?
A. That is entirely possible. I wrongly assumed that if
I rang the Helpline and said "I have got this shortage,
I don't think it is right, what can I do about it",
I thought that automatically meant that I was disputing
it, because I didn't understand it, I didn't believe it
was right. But it wasn't until the £9,033 one came up
that the words: you have to actually declare it in
dispute. If you don't say those words it doesn't count,
and that is when I discovered what to do.
Q. At tab 42 we have that letter. If we go to {E2/44/1} we
have at the top of that page the response from
Post Office where they say:
"I confirm this matter is being investigated so we
have put the request for payment on hold until
a conclusion is reached."
So effectively you agree with me they take on board
that you intended to dispute it and then went into the
dispute mechanism, effectively. Is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Thenceforth you are aware of that procedure and you
followed that procedure for the subsequent deficits?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And there was no problem with following that
procedure for you?
A. No. I -- I could only investigate as far as I could do,
and I expected that if I declared them in dispute that
Post Office would actually investigate at their end and
between us we might find out what had happened.
Q. And you didn't have to manipulate your accounts to
affect the system?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. You honestly declared what you needed to declare and
were open about it and settled it centrally with
the dispute. That is what you did?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And when you settled it centrally with
the dispute, what was the outcome?
A. Nothing. It just sat there. That is why it grew to
£28,000.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You just agreed with Mr -- I must
misunderstood then. You just agreed with Mr Cavender --
he said you settled it centrally with the dispute ...
A. Yes, if you settle it centrally but declare it in
dispute, it -- I'm not entirely sure what happens but
I think -- I think my cash account reverted to zero.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Let's just call it X, the X thousand
stays in dispute.
A. It stays in dispute. And I assume that Post Office is
investigating at their end as I was investigating at my
end and checking along with all the data transactions,
the data logs I had, that there were no outrageous
entries on the computer.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. But so far as your
accounting, that reverts to zero for the next period?
A. Yes. Although I would say that because I -- I believed
that my trading statement wasn't accurate from the time
this -- in January I did not sign a set of accounts
because they weren't correct, as far as I was concerned.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Going into this period of basically early
2010, the portacabin period, what assistants did you
have working for you?
A. What assistants?
Q. Yes.
A. I had a lady who had been with me for some considerable
time. You want names?
Q. Yes.
A. Anne Watts. I had one other assistant who had come to
me I think just before we moved into the portacabin, her
name was Philippa Gilham. I think that ... and I had
one lady who literally worked on a Saturday morning
because it was busy.
Q. Was there a stage when suspicion fell on any one of
those individuals in relation to the portacabin losses?
Did you at any stage have any concerns or worries that
possibly they may have been involved?
A. No, not with those. With Anne Watts, yes, I will say
that I -- she was not a methodical mathematician, put it
that way, and I had a little booklet in which we kept
overnight cash figures, and she was the one person that
never took on board the idea of putting all the single
figures at that side, then the tens, then the hundreds,
then the thousands, to make it easier to add up before
you entered the overnight cash figures. Which meant
that it was fine because if they were wrong, I could see
that -- that it was her mathematics that was wrong, and
I knew exactly who had done it and I was able to go back
and put it right. And check.
Q. What investigations did you do into any of those members
of staff in relation to any part of the £28,000 loss?
Did you ever sit them down and try and interview them
and get to the bottom of whether they might have been
involved?
A. They knew what was going on. In fact, everyone who came
into the portacabin knew what was going on. They were
as worried as I was. They knew that I was -- if you
like, I had an overview for the entire time, and that
I was watching everybody. And I had -- with those
particular people I had absolutely no doubts that they
were honest, if you like, as honest as I felt I was.
Q. Did you ever sit them down and ask them questions about
particular days or particular transactions to try and --
A. How could I? Because I couldn't pick out particular
days or particular transactions. This was the point
that I always made with -- whenever I dealt with my
contracts manager, that I could sit and look at my
transaction logs, and I did do this, I went through them
for hours looking at one week's transactions. And you
can look at one side of the problem for as long as you
like and you might, if you are very lucky, pick out one
figure that looks out of place because somebody -- it
never happened, but in theory I did what the Helpline
told me to do which was look for extra noughts. So it
would be a £9,000 pay out instead of a £900 pay out.
It never happened, I never found it, and I never saw
anything that looked in the least bit suspicious. And
to pay out £9,000 too much in a matter of two and a half
weeks I think would have involved every single customer
being given too much money.
Q. Let's have a look at that as an example. Go to
{E2/43/1}, please. This is an intervention request form
from Post Office. There is some narrative on it I want
you to look at. So {E2/43/5}, this is after a visit on
16 February.
A. Yes.
Q. The bit I want you to concentrate on is the second to
last paragraph where he says:
"I also explained to Pamela that as her office deals
with few regular Alliance & Leicester business customers
who regularly deposit large amounts on automated process
(bar coded) or card based deposits to check their books
or paper work as wrong amounts can be fed through, ie
£900 as £9000 ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't that kind of a problem a distinct possibility in
your case if a particular assistant had a blind spot --
A. If this --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Wait for the question.
Q. -- and repeatedly made the same error, that is
a possibility on a transaction like that, isn't it?
A. The very large Alliance & Leicester automated
transactions were one specific customer, and I was the
only person that dealt with him because he actually came
in before 9 o'clock on his way -- he ran a garage
forecourt business and he handed his money in in sealed
bags, I checked them in sealed bags and checked that
each bag was correct, and I then entered his amount in.
And I think in about six to eight months I made one
mistake and I discovered that mistake almost within
about an hour. I then telephoned him and we were able
to correct the mistake. And there were one or two
occasions when he had miscounted on his side and a bag
of £1,000 would be £20 short, and then he would correct
that as far as I was concerned. So by the time they
were sealed in the Post Office, with that one exception
which was one of my mistakes, they were correct.
Q. But getting away from that particular gentleman to this
kind of example more generally, it is the sort of thing
that could easily happen, isn't it, putting in the wrong
number of noughts?
A. It probably could, yes.
Q. In relation to Post Office investigations, you said
I think on Thursday how upset and angry you were at
times because you felt as if the Post Office didn't
really do anything in terms of investigating portacabin
losses, do you remember?
A. I do.
Q. I want to test that with you. In terms of chronology,
you moved into the portacabin in October 2009 and before
then I think we have agreed there were no major
shortfalls, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. So for ten years or so you balanced the branch well with
Horizon.
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Early on in December 2009, as we have discussed, you
thought that calling in to discuss a problem was
sufficient but you subsequently learned you had to say
the word "dispute" or make it clear that you were
engaged in a dispute.
From early on in the process, Post Office was
investigating the problems at your branch and you were
told about that. If you go to {E2/44/1} to remind
yourself of what you were told at the time, I think this
is a document I showed you earlier but in a slightly
different context, the £9,000-odd demand was being put
on hold subject to an investigation.
If you look at the other said of the fence, you
wouldn't have known this at the time, but if you go to
{E2/33/1} there is a log here. In line 20, column H
there is text in capitals. Do you see that:
"Had call from Judith at Horizon saying this ref and
problem had been investigated four times. Is not
a software issue."
Do you see that?
A. That is alright, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mrs Stubbs, I need to read it as well.
A. Sorry. I assume I am the only one with really bad eyes.
I beg your pardon.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR CAVENDER: Then there was a visit to your branch on
16 February by Mr Tanveer, do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. He took papers and records away to consider and reported
on 19 February, I think, that he couldn't identify any
problems. Do you remember that?
A. I think he couldn't identify any problems from the
trading statement that he took away and any other papers
that he took away. He looked at the, if you like, the
mathematics that I was producing from my transaction
logs and said that I -- he told me I was doing right
thing by doing that. He also I believe said that there
weren't enough stamp sales to actually -- or sales from
the branch to account for the losses that were there.
But he did admit that as I was only looking at Horizon
figures, which were the trading statements, he didn't
expect to find anything.
Q. I think he also confirmed, didn't he, that he wasn't
able to find any evidence of suspicious activity at that
time?
A. That is right.
Q. What else did you consider as possible causes for these
losses?
A. I couldn't consider anything else at all, except that as
far as I was concerned, Horizon was a hidden partner in
our accounts. I had no idea what Horizon was doing.
I discovered some considerable time later in 2014 that
things happened when you remitted out or prepared bags
to remit out, and also that there are entries on the
Horizon server side of the accounts which it was
admitted that a subpostmaster would never know about and
never see. And I am sorry, that was what I had always
believed to happen.
I knew we hadn't done anything as wrong as this --
we had some small losses, but certainly nothing of this
magnitude, and I firmly believed that this had come from
the Horizon side of the accounting procedure because
nobody could see that. I wasn't allowed to see it.
I asked on many, many occasions that somebody from
Fujitsu, Horizon would come and sit with me to compare
even one day or one month of their logs with mine to say
that they were exactly same. And there was nothing --
Q. You mentioned Fujitsu. Can we go to what they were
doing in the background. You didn't know this at this
time, but you seem to be suggesting Post Office and
Fujitsu weren't doing anything.
Go to {E2/53/1}, I want to show you some emails from
March 2010. Page {E2/53/5}, please. The bottom email:
"Morning, Christine."
And you will see:
"Please see attached copy of intervention visit to
the above branch regarding large losses. Branch was
moved into a portacabin in October last ..."
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Sorry, I can't see that at all.
MR CAVENDER: {E2/53/5} at the bottom:
"I have spoken to the contracts manager ..."
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR CAVENDER: So it's bottom part of that:
"Please see attached copy of intervention visit ...
"Spmr has experienced losses since that time which
she is attributing to Horizon software issues and not
human error. Also states this has been reported to the
Horizon technical team - is there any evidence of this?
The current loss stands at £17,670.65 made up of the
following ...
"These discrepancies are causing the subpostmistress
a great deal of anxiety. Could you urgently investigate
them and report your findings back to me ..."
So it seems Post Office weren't just sitting on
their hands, were they, they were trying to engage
Fujitsu in addressing their minds to the problem, is
that fair?
A. They were engaging Fujitsu. But as I did point out to
Mr Allen when he came back to me within 24 hours after
I had again asked for something to be done, it seemed to
me that his investigation was to telephone Fujitsu and
say "Is there a problem?", they would say "No", and that
was the answer.
Q. Pausing there, if you go to the email at the top of the
page {E2/53/5} you had the Fujitsu answer:
"We have sent this call to SSC several times now and
they are insistent there are no software issues with
this branch ... conclusion they have to ..."
Et cetera.
"... there isn't really any further investigations
that we can carry out.
"However, if you are able to detail what checks have
been carried out ... to rule out user error we can
clarify ..."
Et cetera.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What does SSC stand for?
MR CAVENDER: I'm not sure, my Lord.
Fujitsu support centre, I am told, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: SSC, Fujitsu support centre.
MR CAVENDER: I am not claiming I know each word but that is
the net effect of -- service support centre.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is a Fujitsu department?
MR CAVENDER: Indeed. So they are saying they have done
everything, et cetera.
Then we see at the bottom page of page {E2/53/4}
that Post Office again aren't really accepting that:
"Chris. The reason for attaching the intervention
report was to give you precisely the information SSC
might require. Please get them to investigate further
based on Junaid's report. It is not satisfactory for FS
to just 'shrug your shoulders', so to speak. This is a
serious issue for the branch and Post Office ..."
So they weren't just sitting on their hands and
taking the first answer, were they?
A. It appears not. But then they do say if they "can't
progress it, I shall have to escalate". But it never
escalated and I would have expected that in order to at
least -- how can I put it -- stop me from bombarding
them with telephone calls, letters, that they might have
actually said, "Okay, we will go out and we will compare
the ARQ", which is the Horizon server logs, "with this
subpostmaster's transaction logs". But there was
an absolute refusal to do it until I believe I saw
an email in autumn of 2010 when somebody at Post Office
said "We might actually have to get this ARQ and do
a comparison even though it is time-consuming and quite
hard work".
Q. When you say "transaction logs", are you talking about
the printed out ones from Horizon?
A. No, the ARQ are the Horizon server logs. I don't know
what that means but they are the Horizon logs. My
transaction logs were the ones that I printed out which
actually recorded just the transactions which had been
acted out on my own terminal in the Post Office.
Q. As I understand it, it's your case that -- I think it is
accepted that prior to the portacabin period Horizon was
fine. We know that after you left and another
postmaster got involved there were no further problems
with Horizon.
A. So --
Q. If you go to {E2/104/2}, an email from Nigel Allen of
13 September 2010 referring to:
"She [ie yourself] is alleging her losses of £28,000
are due to problems with the Horizon system after it was
relocated into a portacabin ...
"Can you advise whether a case is being raised on
this? Given the fact we have not experienced similar
losses with the temporary subpostmaster who was
appointed after Mrs Stubbs was suspended and the same
Horizon kit is being used ..."
So it seems after your period of you and your staff
using the same Horizon kit there weren't any
difficulties?
A. I will accept that. I never said that there was any
problem with the hardware, but it was -- and I have to
say it was common knowledge that Horizon, Fujitsu were
able to remotely access the computer system, which is
why I wanted this done before I was moved out of the
portacabin. In June we were due to move into the new
building, and I had consistently asked that any
investigation, any examination, was done before it was
moved out. And in the end I was suspended, terminated,
the Post Office was empty for I think almost two weeks
and didn't re-open, and in my cynical frame of mind
I would say that gave Fujitsu, Horizon nearly two weeks
of ample time to reconfigure, which they can do
remotely, before the new subpostmaster came in and took
over.
Q. Pausing there, if you would. You said a moment ago it
was common knowledge that Horizon, Fujitsu were able to
remotely access the computer system. From when do you
say it was such common knowledge?
A. Amongst the postmasters I had spoken to from quite early
on.
Q. When would you say?
A. Probably before I moved into the portacabin.
Q. I see. The document I have just shown you involving
bundle {E2/104/1} is one of the ones you refer to. Go
to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just before we go off that, I think just
out of fairness to the witness, you put it to her that
after she was removed, everything worked -- I can't
remember the exact phrase you used --
MR CAVENDER: It balanced accurately.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It balanced accurately. Is that what is
being said in the middle email? Because the two
substantive passages in the middle email seem -- I say
two substantive, actually it's the second and third
substantive passages, don't necessarily sit with that
question.
Would you like to just read them carefully,
Mr Cavender, and decide how you want to proceed with the
witness. (Pause)
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, I don't think I can proceed any
further than I have really.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But you put it positively to her, and
yet those two passages say that after she left
an auditor went in and sat with the subpostmaster who
must be her replacement for half a day. That made
matters worse. And then the next sentence, the second
sentence of the next paragraph says:
"The auditor supposedly witnessed all transactions
for half a day and witnessed Horizon being short,
thereby corroborating her account and also now
a potential witness for her when in fact clearly he
cannot have witnessed everything."
That is rather different from the way you put the
question.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, it is. I think, my Lord, this is
dealing with the time when an auditor sat with
Mrs Stubbs. I think.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is one possibility in which case
you have to put that to her. Because that I understood
from an answer three answers ago is what she said she
was asking and didn't happen so, if that did happen you
need to explore that with her.
MR CAVENDER: So was there a time when the auditor came and
sat with you for half a day, while you were doing
transactions, to look over your shoulder and identify
any problems?
A. There was. I have to say that my Post Office counter
was probably that big (indicates), he sat there,
I sat -- stood here. I only had one stool. He did
a cash balance at 9 o'clock when we opened. He
literally sat, watched each transaction I did. He did
a cash balance at 1 o'clock when we closed. And the
Post Office had lost £190 in that time.
Q. This was Mr Tanveer?
A. No, this was Rajinder Gihir who also came to do an audit
in my Post Office. And when the auditors come, they do
all the audit figures on their own laptops. They don't
use the Horizon terminal, they have their own laptop.
And he spent I think the better part of the morning and
he did the audit, found that it was short, and said,
"Okay, all we have to do now is transfer these figures,
everything I have entered, on to your Horizon terminal.
It will come up with the same figures".
When he did that it came up short another £376. And
he and I then spent the next -- it was a very hot day,
and I think we spent about three hours re-entering all
the figures, checking that we had re-entered them
correctly, and in the end he just said "I am sorry, I am
going to have to accept the Horizon figures", and added
another £376 loss to my audit.
Q. I am going to return to the £190 in a moment in
a separate piece. But just drawing those questions
together, it is fair to say, isn't it, contrary to the
impression given in your witness statement, that
Post Office was doing some investigations behind the
scenes, it was engaging Fujitsu to try and get people to
get to the bottom of whether there was a software
problem in your branch?
A. I ... To all intents and purposes, yes, they were, until
you read the top email on 17 September where it says:
"I think in a nutshell we need to decide if the
investigators who have the knowledge to sit and sift
through what has been provided along with the ARQ and go
and see what the subpostmaster is holding. I think it
is going to be an onerous task but I don't see how we
can let it go considering she is questioning the
integrity of Horizon."
Q. Pause there, Mrs Stubbs. You are right about that, but
that was with a view to starting a criminal
investigation, do you realise that? That was in
connection with a further investigation, as you can see
from the context of the emails, talking about asking
some pointed questions under caution. That was a very
different thing. You can't infer, can you, from that,
that there was no investigation advanced, I suggest to
you?
A. I was investigated, I was interviewed but not under
caution. I don't know why they didn't. I have no idea
why they didn't. I spent the following four years
waiting for somebody to knock at my front door. I did
at one point on the telephone say to Mr Allen that if he
actually thought I had stolen this money, would he
please send somebody to arrest me, and I would quite
gladly go to court with the evidence that I had. I was
advised to do this by one of my customers who was
actually a local chief inspector at the time. He said
"Just tell them to arrest you".
Q. Can we move on from this to two examples that you give
in your witness statement where you I think infer that
Horizon is the issue or Post Office somehow has behaved
in a way they shouldn't. And just go through them with
you to see whether in fact, on an analysis of the
evidence, that is true.
The first is the £7,000-odd, that you deal with at
paragraph 117 of your witness statement.
A. Yes.
Q. The so-called missing cash, do you see that? It's at
{C1/2/27}. I think start at 116 to be fair {C1/2/26}.
Just read paragraph 116 and 117 to yourself to
remind yourself of the subject matter.
A. Could we start with 115?
Q. Of course. Just remind yourself of the context.
(Pause)
So middle of 117 {C1/2/27}, what it comes to is
that:
"... Post Office was still trying to pursue me for
[the £7,000] four years after the cash centre had
confirmed it had been received."
That is the main thrust of the complaint, isn't it?
What happened in fact, correct me if I am wrong, is that
on 25 May 2010 you sent a cash remittance
to Post Office, didn't you, and you entered into the
system that you were remitting £22,000?
A. Yes.
Q. You agree with that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. In fact £7,000 of that didn't go into the envelope,
did it? It was left in the branch?
A. That is explained in the previous paragraph. Mr Gihir
arrived as I was part-way through preparing my
remittance, and in order to prepare a remittance you put
cash in a plastic bag, you then have to print a little
chitty, if you like, that says what is in that bag and
it records the bar code of that bag. I had completed
one and sealed it.
Had I completed the second one and sealed that in
the same way before Mr Gihir had arrived he would have
accepted it as a sealed bag. He arrived as I was in the
middle of putting the cash in that bag. I had printed
the little slip that goes inside -- you have one that
goes in the bag and one that stays outside which the
Cashco men take. Because I hadn't sealed it, he said
that it was -- he was quite happy for it to go but he
needed to double-check that the cash was right because
it wasn't sealed at the time.
Cashco then arrived while he was doing it --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: When you say "doing it", you mean
counting the money?
A. Counting the bags of money. I think there were some --
obviously there was £7,000 in there. So they would have
been either £1,000 cash bags or £500. I didn't do it,
I had nothing to do with that because he had taken over
effectively at that point. So he did the cash
remittance, he sealed it up, he sent it out with Cashco.
And then afterwards we discovered -- he discovered,
whoever -- that there was £7,000 worth of notes still
sitting in the cash drawer. I didn't because I, apart
from preparing the slips for the remittance, had no
input on the terminal at all.
So I think Mr Gihir rang cash centre and said,
"Right, is there anything we can do?" They said no,
that it had to be entered as a shortage, which it was,
and there would later be a transaction correction, but
that I would be able to send the £7,000 to get rid of it
from the branch with the next cash remittance that
I did. And that I did ... I can't, I think it was --
the 25th would have been possibly a Tuesday so it went
on the Friday of that week.
MR CAVENDER: Can we follow some stages because what you are
saying is absolutely right, I think. But let's follow
it in stages and see what happened in terms of the
accounting of the extra £7,000.
{E2/66/1} is a letter of 27 May from Post Office to
you.
A. Yes.
Q. Notifying you that it has found the remittances £7,000
short. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. You say in your witness statement, we have just seen it,
paragraph 117 at the end, that Post Office's story or
account of the £7,000 is nonsensical. Do you remember
that? You said that in your witness statement. Yes?
A. Where do I say it is nonsensical?
Q. The last words of 117. {C1/2/27}
A. Yes.
Q. So do I understand this right, that you think you have
been wrongly pursued for £7,000? Is that your complaint
here?
A. Yes, I believe so. And I think rightly so in that I --
I didn't not put the money in. I didn't account for it.
The money was sent away. I believe a transaction
correction came through after I had been suspended, so
I would have had absolutely no knowledge of it at all.
I believed that Mr Gihir had done all that was
necessary, because he is an auditor after all, he knows
the system, and he spoke to the cash centre in Bristol
and he dealt with that at the time.
All I know is that that £7,000 was still in my debt
list, as it were, in April 2011. I believe it was still
in amongst the debt that I had in 2014, in August. And
I think there is an email at some point when the £7,000
was discovered in an account at Post Office and was then
taken off, but I -- I'm not absolutely sure when.
Because I think it was accounted for at some point when
they did the closing audit, which is why my closing
audit was a surplus, not a loss. But it was still on
the debt list and on the debt letters that came out,
certainly the one in April 2011.
Q. Sorry to interrupt. Can we be clear, then. You are
saying the Post Office did in fact receive the missing
£7,000 after all but it failed to record that receipt
and it has wrongly chased you for that amount. Is that
what you are saying?
A. I'm not saying anything, because I didn't do the
transaction to record that it was -- that it had been
left behind. I knew it was short because we had it
physically there. I don't know what Mr Gihir did to
counteract that. I know that I sent the £7,000 a week
later but that would have been a separate transaction.
Q. Pause there for a moment. The remittance you made
later, let's say it was £20,000. Let's assume you had
to remit a week later £20,000, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. The £7,000 was -- well, pause there. So you remit on
this basis £20,000 a week later?
A. Yes.
Q. And you tell Horizon you are actually remitting £20,000,
don't you?
A. Yes, it is entered on system.
Q. You don't in fact send £27,000 and only tell Horizon you
are remitting £20,000, do you?
A. No, because that is what happened when the audit was in
process. He said that there was -- I don't know how
much in the envelope, but there was £7,000 short in
the envelope. Which is why we got the letter coming
through saying that my remittance was short by £7,000.
Q. No --
A. At that point I could only ignore it, and the next
remittance that went out included that £7,000 plus what
would have been remitted out anyway as a natural course
of things.
Q. What I suggest happened is you remitted accurately and
said you remitted that which you did remit a week later.
So although physically it might have been the £7,000 you
had in your safe, yes? And you took that with whatever
else you were going to remit at the end of that week,
and put it together, and told Horizon you were remitting
£20,000?
A. Yes, if we are talking hypothetically.
Q. So what that would have done, you would have remitted
the £7,000 once, ie the week later, but you have
recorded remitting it twice. Once when it wasn't taken,
and once when it was taken as part of the remittance
that you remit out of the system. That is what
happened?
A. Yes. But the first time the cash centre recorded that
there was £7,000 short. They sent a letter to my office
saying that it was £7,000 short and saying that there
would be a transaction correction coming through at some
point. So that, as far as they were concerned, meant
that they had actually accounted for it so there was
nothing for me to do at that point.
The £7,000 went back into the safe and it was then
treated as any other cash that I had in the office. It
didn't have red lines on it that said, you know, this
is -- this is suspect money and you must not touch it or
you have to account for it separately. It was there.
And the next remittance I did, that £7,000 went in and
joined the rest of the money --
Q. Pausing there. And it did so accurately. So if you
have £15,000 for the rest of the money, plus the £7,000
of the old money, you remit on Horizon £22,000?
A. Right.
Q. Right, so --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have we finally stumbled on
paragraph 34(i) of the Defence, which is exactly the 15
plus the 7?
MR CAVENDER: Exactly.
So what happened, I don't want to spend much more
time on this. At {E2/85.1/1} is an internal Post Office
document. It's the left-hand column, "TP6"?
A. Yes.
Q. Which has the effect of relating to the cash rem of the
25th of the 5th, 2010?
A. Yes.
Q. A notional receipt -- and it is notional -- on the 11th
of the 6th. So it's not a real receipt. This is
a correction, as you call it a transaction correction.
It's not called that, it is done by -- it was called
a TP6. But what it's doing is recording a correction to
the account of £7,000 on 11 June. Not because anything
happened on 11 June, £7,000 more was not received, that
was just when they did the correction. Do you see?
A. Yes. Yes. But I had already -- sorry, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You answer the question and then ...
A. I had already been suspended at that point. I was
locked out of my office, I would have known nothing
about it, and Post Office obviously didn't write to me
as a normal member of the public or a human being, they
only sent it as a transaction correction, which somebody
somewhere should have noted would never have received --
would never have been received or seen by me because
I had already been suspended and locked out.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just to clear up this one point, I see
you have a file in front of you. Is it your witness
statement?
A. It is, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Will you turn, please, within that to
page 27 which is paragraph 117 {C1/2/27}. The one that
Mr Cavender did have on the screen.
A. Yes, 117.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: On the screen I would like, please, the
individual Defence which is {B5.2/3/19}. If that could
be scrolled down so it begins -- you can see
"Termination"?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: This is the passage that you are being
asked about because this is the passage which in your
witness statement you say is nonsensical. All right?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If we can go to the next page, please
{B5.2/3/20}, you see at (i), just read what it says at
(i). (Pause)
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is the point Mr Cavender was
putting to you, I think.
Is that right, Mr Cavender?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord it was, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So that point is being put to you, that
that is what happened. Do you see that?
A. That is the day -- it's exactly what happened. But
25 May was the day of the audit. So it is not the
claimant or an assistant, it was actually I began the
process --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I understand.
A. -- and the auditor completed it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I understand. So it's 25 May that you
accept only £15,000 went in cash but it should have been
£22,000.
A. I agree, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Back you to, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: So what I have just described happening was
explained to you was happening by Mr Gihir at the time.
If you go to {E2/120/1}. I shouldn't say "at the time",
actually. This is retrospective, looking back.
A. Yes.
Q. This is what Mr Gihir says and it is really the last
paragraph:
"When I got in touch with the cash centre they said
that a TC will be issued to resolve the money left
behind. That was the last I heard about that matter
..."
A. Yes.
Q. What I have described to you with the TP6 transaction
correction on 11 June is what happened. So Post Office
weren't chasing you for £7,000 that somehow you paid
again or was found on 11 June, all that happened was
a transaction correction that was necessary because of
the mistake was effected on that date. Did you see?
A. I can see that it is there and I can see that it was
done on that date. However, when I received I think
possibly the last debt letter that I ever received
in April of 2011, the £7,000 was still listed on the
reverse of that letter as part of my debt and it hadn't
been removed from there. Whether they were ever
actually going to chase me for that particular bit
I don't know, but it was still there at the time, and
they didn't always total everything that was part of the
debt on the back of the letter, but this particular one
had everything listed there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mrs Stubbs, if you look at the document
in front of you, the email at the bottom which is dated
12 April 2011, do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just read the first two lines of that to
yourself, please. (Pause)
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have you read that?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Does that help you?
A. Not really, because the next sentence says:
"The rem shortage forms part of her debt but it
looks like she thinks the £7,000 was sent in the next
remittance."
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: But the thing is it wasn't, you see. With the
greatest of respect, I think you are confusing the
physical sending of the £7,000 on one hand and its being
accounted for on the other. So yes, in the subsequent
rem the £7,000 was sent but it was remmed out on Horizon
for the second time. The first time that 7,000 was
remmed out was the day it was mistakenly not taken, and
the second time it was remmed out was when it was
included in the subsequent week. So from an accounting
point of view you have remmed out £14,000, but you have
only actually sent £7,000 in cash once. That is what
I am suggesting these documents show and why there had
to be a TC.
A. I agree. But the TC was sent, I had no knowledge of it,
I knew nothing about it. All right, if I hadn't been
terminated I had at least been locked out of the office.
I had no access to any transaction correction which
might have come through. As far as I was concerned
I didn't deal with that shortage in the rem,
Rajinder Gihir did. And when I discovered in 2011 that
it was still forming part of my debt I think I am
justifiable in perhaps feeling that it had never really
been removed from my own debt. Because I didn't know
that it had been reversed with a transaction correction,
I had no idea. That was done by the person that came in
after me.
Q. Go to {E2/85.1/1} and look at that again and I will put
a final question to you. This is the reference to the
TP6. What someone seems to have done on your side is
say, "Oh, right, here is a document here. Here's
Post Office saying they received the £7,000 on 11 June,
therefore this is something else to complain about and
what Post Office says is nonsense". When the truth is,
I think you have accepted, that this was just a method
of transaction correction effected on the 11th of the
6th to deal with an earlier mistake. So it is not that
they were chasing you for £7,000 twice, it was just
a recognition of a transaction correction. Isn't that
right?
A. This might very well be. I didn't see this until fairly
recently. I was going by the letter, the debt letter
I received from Paul Kellett, and by an email
subsequently, an internal Post Office email. I think
the gist -- I can't remember exactly where it is in
here, but the gist of it was, oh, by the way, there is
£7,000 which is in some Post Office account which had
never been taken out. It was still sitting in that
Post Office account despite the fact that the
transaction correction had been sent.
Q. Can we move on then because I think we have had exchange
on that.
So that was one example. The other example is £190
when Mr Gihir was in the office and you deal with this
at paragraph 112. You touched on this earlier and
I said I would come back to it {C1/2/25}.
Your position is that a loss of £190 occurred when
the Post Office auditor was there, yes? That is
essentially what you are saying?
A. Yes. Could we go down beyond 112. {C1/2/26}
Q. Read as much as you like to familiarise yourself with
what you have said.
A. Yes.
Q. I am going to focus on the £190 though, if I may. It is
right to say whilst Mr Gihir was there you continued
trading and serving customers, is that right?
A. Yes, that was the whole reason he was there. He was
there to observe me in the Post Office serving.
Q. So this was an intervention, if you like, as opposed to
an audit. In an audit all transactions stop, am
I right?
A. Yes.
Q. You had been trading before 09.00 that day, is that
right?
A. I would have to check dates and times on transaction
logs.
Q. Go to {E2/107/1}, at the bottom there, an email from
Mike Wilcox:
"Nigel. A couple of points which may help in
the meantime."
This is 25 October, so after the event:
"When she says that the auditor did a cash check at
09:00 and 13:00 on the 10th May there is no Horizon
record of this so cannot say either way, however she had
been serving customers before 09:00 and the last
customer at 09:00 was a withdrawal of £190.71. (£190 is
the shortage she is disputing)."
So pausing there, is it not possible that Mr Gihir
counted the cash in the relevant till before you carried
out that transaction and, more importantly, before you
passed the cash for the customer for that withdrawal?
A. Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
Q. Given that you were serving at the time --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and Mr Gihir, to make his calculations, has to do it
at a certain stage, doesn't he, on a certain basis?
Isn't it possible that in doing that he counted the cash
in the relevant till he was checking before you carried
out the transaction, ie the giving of the £190.71 for
your withdrawal, and before you passed the cash to the
customer? Because that would mean the declared cash at
the start of trading would be 190 too high relative to
what it should be. It is a question of timing,
isn't it?
A. I am actually not willing to swear to any timings
because there are -- if Post Office is referring to the
information they have from the ARQ, that did not change
to British summertime whenever it should have done. So
unless I see a document that has the date -- the times
on it, I can't confirm at that time of year whether the
Post Office is running one hour behind or not.
Q. Ignore that point for a moment and just --
A. But --
Q. What I am saying to you is a possibility, based on your
timing point. Subject to that, given the close
similarity between £190 that was withdrawn at 09.00, and
given that is when the auditor did his cash count, it is
perfectly possible the discrepancy arose in the manner
I described. That is a possibility, isn't it?
A. Anything is a possibility, yes.
Q. I would say it's a high likelihood --
A. No, it's a possibility.
Q. Would you agree it is a likelihood given it's the same
number?
A. I wouldn't, I am sorry. It's like I was serving
customers before 9 o'clock and the last customer at
9 o'clock was a withdrawal. At 9 o'clock.
I am only aware that he came in. I believe he did
the cash declaration at the time when we started serving
because I knew he was coming. I wouldn't have --
I wouldn't have done it before then, and we had to start
at a particular time, and --
Q. Because he did another cash count at 1 pm, didn't he?
A. He did.
Q. And if what I am saying is right, it would look as if
there had been a discrepancy or £190 had disappeared
between his 9 o'clock count and his 1 o'clock count.
That is how it would look, isn't it? Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. But my point is you immediately blame it on Horizon
without really casting your mind as to other
possibilities. And this seems to be a theme of people
saying, "Well, it's Horizon", and I have identified two
examples with you where in fact there are other
explanations here if you look a bit more carefully. Is
that fair?
A. Which was the other example?
Q. You blame Post Office more generally for the £7,000.
A. But that's --
Q. And in relation to the 190, you are saying it is Horizon
generating a loss while the auditor was there.
A. All I can say is that the auditor couldn't explain it.
And had he arrived in the middle of the morning I would
say there was no point in doing the cash declaration, it
wouldn't have made any difference. But he arrived early
in the morning. I knew he was coming. He did all the
cash declarations at the beginning and at the end. And
that is all I can say. He couldn't explain it, and
I haven't been able to explain any of the shortages that
I have had.
It's -- yes, I mean you could make up any fairy
story about anything if you really wanted to. It is not
difficult to do.
Q. Can we move away from fairy stories. I've put forward
at the very least a plausible explanation of the timing
based on the evidence we have and you are not willing to
open your mind to it at all and you are calling it
a fairy story. Is that what you are doing?
A. No, I am not calling that a fairy story. I seem to
recall somewhere, because I didn't get this email
obviously until -- I didn't see it until it came up in
disclosure, but I believe that there is a letter
somewhere where Post Office said that my last
transaction was after 1 o'clock. Or it was on
an alternative screen at the end of that morning. You
can, I gather, switch screens and go into what is
effectively a reserve screen, which I don't use, and
apparently, according to Post Office, that is where it
went. That is what it was.
Q. You said a moment ago I think that when the auditor came
in on this day he did cash declarations at various
times.
A. Yes.
Q. You mean cash counts, don't you? Didn't he just count
the cash? He didn't declare it on Horizon, did he, he
just counted the cash?
A. I believe he entered it on Horizon because that is where
you get the -- they don't -- they don't -- or didn't
always show up. Because you could, when you were
closing at the end of a day, do several cash
declarations. If you had made an error, you then had to
go back in and re-enter your cash declaration for the
end of that day. And they don't always show up as lots
of different ones.
Q. Moving on in time --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you are going to move on,
Mr Cavender, we will give the shorthand writers a quick
break. I owe you 20 minutes from this morning.
We will come back at 12.25 pm.
(12.19 pm)
(A short break)
(12.25 pm)
MR CAVENDER: Mrs Stubbs, we've been dealing with what
I call the portacabin losses, we've been dealing with
those. The end of that story was that you were
suspended on 8 June 2010. And we know that Newrose took
over. I have shown you one email on that subject,
I will show you another.
Go to {E2/89/9}, please. An email from Nigel Allen
of 18 June, so a few days later:
"To clarify the situation at this branch.
Mrs Stubbs has sustained a series of large losses which
she attributes to the Horizon system since it was moved
into the portacabin - current amount owed by her is
around £25k. She has sent in some information to the
Horizon live service team but due to the losses
escalating she was precautionarily suspended on 8 June.
Branch subsequently reopened on Mon 14 Jun with a temp
spmr (Newrose Personnel) and I understand that the
branch is balancing OK!"
So we have that along with the earlier email
I showed you to the same effect. And we know that in
advance of going to the portacabin you accept that
Horizon also was okay.
So what I suggest to you is that in fact, and this
would be the case of Post Office in a breach trial,
there was nothing wrong with Horizon, it was operation
by the branch, by you and your staff during
the portacabin period, that caused the losses. Do you
have any comment on that?
A. I dispute that completely.
Q. Moving on then to a different subject leaving that one
behind. Training, briefly. Training on Horizon. You
say at paragraph 61 I think of your witness statement
and following {C1/2/14} that the training wasn't
sufficient. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. But it did cover how to balance cash and stock, I think
you say at paragraph 64, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And it is right that Horizon had a training function on
it you could have used outside office hours to brush up
on your skills, is that also true?
A. If there had been time to do that, yes, that could have
been used. We did try --
Q. You say "time". Outside office hours is all your own
time, you can use as much time as you like.
A. Subpostmasters and people that have businesses don't
have as much time as we like. I did try to use this.
It wasn't easy to transfer in and out of training mode.
Q. But the example I gave to you is not training during
working hours but outside of working hours. You've got
rid of all your customers, you have done all you need to
do, you want to spend half an hour/an hour doing
training. I think Mr Bates said he thought the training
system was useful. Would you agree with that, it was
a useful system?
A. Yes, it was a useful system. It just took too long to
get in and out of. And I believed that the way
I trained my staff was -- it was pretty much the way
Post Office used to train new subpostmasters. Certainly
when my husband started you had somebody who sat with
you whilst you did transactions, prompted, corrected,
and praised when you did it right so that you could
follow, if you like, an established pattern of serving.
Q. In terms of manuals et cetera, when Horizon came in I am
assuming you were given various training documents and
manuals, is that right?
A. At this moment I really couldn't say.
Q. So if I showed you some you wouldn't be able to say
whether you had seen them or not? If you go
for instance to {F4/5/1}, I suggest this is a document
you would have been provided with called "Balancing with
Horizon"?
A. Yes, it looks like a booklet that I would have had, yes.
Q. Then as manuals were issued, so if you go to bundle
{F4/21/1}, the index page of a balancing part of
a manual issued subsequently, in 2006 I think. Do you
see that?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Is that the sort of document you would have been
provided with?
A. Possibly, yes. It looks -- it looks familiar is all
I can say.
Q. And behind tab 22 similarly the same thing, but dealing
with branch trading reports outlining what reports you
could file. Does that look familiar? {F4/22/1}
A. That particular page doesn't look particularly familiar,
but the overall look of those booklets, yes, they look
familiar.
Q. Because the other thing, isn't the fact that you didn't
have any problems with Horizon, balancing or whatever,
for some eight years, leave the portacabin thing to one
side, you balanced it and operated it successfully,
doesn't that rather indicate the training you were given
was such as was necessary for you to operate the system?
Because you did in fact operate it successfully. Is
that fair -- is that a fair thing for me to say to you?
A. I'm not saying that it was not sufficient to operate the
system, it wasn't sufficient for a member of staff who
had never worked a computer before. I had run our
retail business and done all the computer work on that
so I was -- I was, if you like, at least conversant with
computers. One of my staff did the half day training,
and at the end of it she just held up her hands and said
"I can't do this, I don't understand what they are
talking about", and never set foot in the Post Office
again. The other knew what Post Office and Post Office
balancing was about so she was able to transfer that
knowledge to the computer use of it.
Q. But you accept it was for you, if you are going to use
assistants, for you to train them sufficiently?
A. Yes.
Q. And depending on the quality of the people you recruit,
they may be either whizzes with computers or a
point-of-sale system like this or they might not, and
you would have to judge whether to employ them and you'd
have to judge what training was necessary for them to do
the jobs you allocated to them?
A. And the training had to be sufficient and suitable for
them to become efficient at working at it.
Q. That is a judgment for you?
A. Yes. And if it meant that I had to stand beside them
every day for a week or every day for two weeks, then
that was what it took. If at that stage they still
didn't understand it, then obviously it was time to say
go and work in a shop and forget the Post Office.
Q. Moving on to the Helpline, then. Your evidence is that
the Helpline was generally a useful one?
A. When I first took over, yes, it was useful. When
Horizon came in, I found it less helpful. I found that
particularly as things might have changed on Horizon,
I could ring up with the same query three, four,
possibly five times, speak to somebody different and
actually get a different answer.
Q. Mrs Stubbs, I recall an answer you gave it me on
Thursday saying you didn't recall having any manuals in
the branch and you used the Helpline almost as your
manual. Are you going back on that now?
A. No, I am not saying that the Helpline was never less
than useful. Every so often you would get somebody who
actually knew what they were talking about. But what
I am saying is you could ring several times with the
same question, the same query, and get a different
answer. And there are an awful lot of Post Office
queries where there is an answer. You can't have
a selection where you have a tick box and you can sort
of tick four boxes and say that is all right, try any
one of those.
And certainly it became less useful at the time
when -- I think a lot of subpostmasters needed help on
a Wednesday when we were doing a balance, particularly
a trading balance. And that was the time where the
Helpline really wasn't helpful at all because you could
ring, as I used to when I was in the portacabin, and say
"Oh my God, what am I going to do? I have this
shortage, I have searched, I have sat in there until
10 o'clock at night and got absolutely nowhere". So
I rang the Helpline during that time, and in the end all
we got, or all I got, was a message saying "Leave your
office code and number. We will get back to you within
48 hours". Which is less than useful.
Q. The other thing, there is an NBSC Helpline as well. In
terms of the second tier of that, can I ask you to go to
{E2/83/1} where you think you found the second tier of
the Helpline useful?
A. Yes, I believe I was upgraded to the second tier.
Q. Go to {E2/83/2}, please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is NBSC the second tier?
MR CAVENDER: No, NBSC is actually -- I'm saying Helpline,
the NBSC Helpline has various tiers, and what the
witness says in this document is she found the second
tier particularly helpful. I was investigating that.
A. Yes, I actually was -- I am loathe to say it in case the
lady had done something wrong. But one particular
member of the investigative team on tier 2 was
particularly helpful, and she on many occasions said,
"Yes, I have checked this. Yes, I have been promised
that there will be an investigation". And I think by
the end even she was becoming disillusioned by the fact
that nothing happened at all.
Q. Mrs Stubbs, it is often the case with Helplines that you
have an initial response, which is quite vanilla, and
then you can go through as you say to the second tier,
and if you have a complicated problem it is not
a surprise that you have to go to the second tier, as
you call it, to deal with it, is it?
A. Yes, we were actually on first name terms by the time
I'd finished.
Q. That is not a great surprise. You accept from me that
most Helplines have that feature?
A. Yes. But I did actually once manage to get through to
Horizon about the balance shortage, and I think that was
actually because Horizon themselves had come to the
Helpline with a message saying I had a serious shortage
in my branch in January, some 20 something
thousand pounds. I managed to get through to Horizon
and the young lady I spoke to just said: we've checked
our nodes, it is your problem if you are short. Then
I managed to get through to a supervisor and I got his
name and his reference number and he added very little
to the conversation, except that he brought up this
shortage on 5 January.
Q. But you knew, because I have shown you the emails this
morning, that Post Office behind the scenes was doing
all sorts of investigations and reporting to you about
them?
A. No, they weren't reporting to me. All they said was
they had investigated and there was nothing wrong.
Q. No, quite but --
A. But this proves that there was something wrong, because
Horizon were reporting a shortage of £26,000, they had
no knowledge of it at the end of January --
Q. January what year are you talking about?
A. January 2010. And they were also unaware that I had
remmed out £26,000 on 5 January. They had no record of
it and were saying that I was short. This came from
Horizon. This didn't come from me. I didn't bring this
up. I was blissfully ignorant and it was only after
I had got this that I then had to make sure that that
rem had actually arrived.
Q. We don't have all the accounting records for all these
transactions, so I can't go into every one. I have been
into a couple with you.
A. No, that's fine.
Q. I was dealing with the Helpline, if I can. So I put to
you really as a final question is that the Helpline did
provide you with a reasonable level of help and
assistance. Isn't that fair?
A. Not as far as I was concerned. The only thing that
would have been of any help to me would have been for
somebody to have said: right, you've got your
transaction logs. You choose three days. I wasn't
prepared to give them up to Post Office. They wanted me
to hand them all over. I said but I am perfectly happy
for you or Horizon to come to my house, to come to
a neutral venue, put your logs down beside my logs and
we will check them.
Q. Picking up on that point, you did refuse to send your
information to Post Office. Couldn't you have copied it
and sent it to them, your transaction logs?
A. I think, if you look on here, you will find one day of
transaction logs. I photocopied one day at the
mediation.
Q. But didn't Post Office at the time ask --
A. In January, and that was 22 pages. So we are talking
about 22 feet per day on a quiet day and, yes, I could
have -- I could have photocopied all of them. But it
seemed -- in the end I think I reprinted as many as
I could. Because you can go back 42 days from where you
are --
Q. But I am also talking about your own transaction logs
you are talking about. You said, I think, that you
weren't willing to hand them over?
A. No.
Q. All I am saying is couldn't you, when asked by
Post Office for all evidence, have copied them? Copied
all of them, not just a couple of pages.
A. I could have done, yes. 22 pages minimum per day for
eight months.
Q. You could have produced -- here's a month of them. This
is what it shows. If you want others, you could have
them. Rather than flatly refusing, couldn't you?
Wouldn't it have been more co-operative --
A. I didn't -- I flatly refused to send them because they
were the only copy in existence. I did, however,
reprint some and had Post Office wanted copies, they
could have asked me to reprint them. I think to ask me
to photocopy -- I still can't do the instant maths -- at
least 22 to 25 pages per day of transaction logs,
I think is a little bit too much.
Q. Go to {E2/67/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It would be about 5,500 pages.
MR CAVENDER: But you could have done it for a short
period -- for a month or for some period to allow
an investigator to get the flavour, couldn't you?
A. And equally Post Office could have sent out a Fujitsu
engineer with theirs, which take up considerably less,
and they could have sat on either side of my dining room
table and we could have compared them.
Q. Go to {E2/67/1} for me --
A. I am there, yes.
Q. 28 May. It is really the bottom paragraph there.
A. Right.
Q. "In the meantime ... Horizon data you have ...
transaction logs and details of calls made ..."
Et cetera. If you thought that was too much in
terms of copying all of them, couldn't you have at least
provided some of them? Because your response is -- we
see at tab 72 {E2/72/1} on 3 June -- if we go to
{E2/72/2}, the penultimate paragraph on that page --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we start at the front page, please.
{E2/72/1}.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed. This is your response.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just increase the size a bit, please, so
I can read it. (Pause). Thank you.
MR CAVENDER: If you look to the penultimate paragraph is
point I am making. You are saying:
"I am afraid I must refuse your request to send all
documentation ..."
The simple point is, isn't it, that although you
agree to send certain information, an investigator
looking at it needs really all the evidence. Doesn't he
really? Not just such bits of it as you send him?
Isn't that fair?
A. If they are going to investigate, yes. Which is why
since, from my perspective, I was the only person who
was investigating my shortages, I wasn't about to give
the whole lot away to somebody who patently did not
believe that Horizon could ever be the cause of any of
these incidents, as it said in my letter.
Q. Pausing there, you now know that is not true that you
were only one investigating, you knew that Post Office
had and was investigating through Fujitsu and the emails
I have shown you? You now know that to be true?
A. Here we differ, because I know that I was told and my
local MP was told that we would get reports when the
investigation was complete. I discovered from emails
that have come to light that no investigation actually
took place at all. We were being humoured the entire
way through. There was no investigation. Because
I don't think it was in anybody's interests for Horizon
to be found wanting is all I can say.
MR CAVENDER: I don't accept that. I have shown you the
emails when Fujitsu was being engaged.
I have no further questions, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. Mr Green.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mrs Stubbs, please could you be shown {E2/42/1}.
This is the email that my learned friend took you to on
page 14, line 18 of today's transcript {Day3/16:14}.
You were asked about this letter.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's just take it in stages, if we may. Sorry, let's
just go to {E2/44/1}. You were asked about this letter
on page 14 of the transcript at line 18, and the words
were put to you:
"I can confirm that this matter is being
investigated, so we have put the request for payment on
hold until a conclusion is reached."
That email is dated 11 February. Do you see that at
the top?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: 11 February ...
MR GREEN: 2010. If you go forward to {E2/45/1}, having
been told on 11 February that the request for payment
would be put on hold, on 15 February 2010, top right,
you have a statement of outstanding debt dated the 12th,
which is the day after the email.
A. Yes.
Q. And there is a subtotal of £9,033.79 which is a balance
brought forward, which is the sum that you have just
been told was being put on hold, and a total account
balance of 17,670 and you are told at the bottom:
"Please settle this account by 25 February 2010 in
one of the following ways ..."
What did you think when you received that? Was that
what you were expecting?
A. I don't know. No, it wasn't. But I assumed that
I would continue to get these every month, or a version
of them each month. I didn't think that I would
be -- having put that amount in dispute and declared it
in dispute, no, I didn't think that I would be asked,
without having received any result of any investigation,
that it would just be sort of, if you like, lumped with
everything else and I would have to repay it within two
weeks or a week or ...
Q. Let's go forward to {E2/46/1}. You have been told on
11 February that the request for payment was on hold
until a conclusion was reached. About three weeks
later, 3 March, there is a letter:
"I am writing to you in respect of the recovery of
outstanding debts in the accounts at the above
Post Office. According to our records, the sum of
£17,670.65 is overdue for payment. Since you are
contractually obliged to make good any losses incurred
during your term of office, please call the Debt
Recovery Team on the number quoted above to settle
this amount ..."
Was that what you expected?
A. No, and I believed that until -- obviously until I had
started reading these letters, that I was contractually
obliged to make good any losses caused by my error, my
carelessness, any of the other things that were listed,
or any carelessness or anything on behalf of my staff,
and it suddenly disappeared and now I am obliged to make
good any losses during my term of office. The playing
field has moved somewhat -- the goalposts have moved.
Q. Go back to {E2/44/1}. Do you see that email is from
Mr Kellett?
A. Yes.
Q. Go forward now, please, to {E2/47/1}. A letter to you.
Who is that from?
A. Paul Kellett.
Q. It is dated 11 March, so precisely a month after his
email. Had you had a conclusion of investigation
promised by then or not?
A. No, I had nothing.
Q. This letter has outstanding amount £17,670.65 underlined
in bold:
"Please see the attached 'Request for Payment' for
the specific amount shown which has been 'settled
centrally' at your Post Office and, despite previous
reminders, is still outstanding."
Then in bold:
"Failure to meet repayment terms by 21 March 2010
will lead us (with approval from your contract
manager) to deduct this outstanding debt from your
future remuneration payment."
What did you think when you saw that letter now
signed by Paul Kellett?
A. He obviously had no intention of ever coming back to me
with any sort of conclusion of the investigation.
Because it was meant to be repaid when I had some sort
of a conclusion of any investigation at all. And I have
to say some -- how many years later, eight/nine years
later, I have never had any conclusion or any report
from any investigation that the Post Office has
apparently carried out. Neither has my Member of
Parliament, because he has chased it up several times.
Q. Who is your Member of Parliament?
A. John Redwood. He, I think, wrote two or three times and
was promised a full investigation and that he would be
told what the result was, and he had nothing.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think you have probably made your
point.
MR GREEN: My Lord, yes. I was just about to say I would
deal with the balance of that in submissions.
Could you now be shown, please, {E2/33/1}. The
spreadsheet. Is it not working? If you download that,
I will move to a different point, with your Lordship's
leave.
Okay, look at row 20, please. If you go across to
the right in row 20, if you just stop there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: This is the Horizon box, is it?
MR GREEN: It is column I.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The one next to it.
MR GREEN: Yes. And you see there:
"Priority: low."
Did anyone tell you that the treatment internally of
the investigation into this was being treated as a low
priority?
A. Nobody ever told me anything about anything, I am sorry.
Q. Moving on to the next point. You were challenged about
two of your complaints about the accuracy of Horizon.
I will deal with each one in turn very briefly.
Please look at tab {E2/114/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think we are there yet. (Pause)
{E2/114/1} The system is down again. All right.
MR GREEN: I could probably do it --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you can do it without requiring the
document.
MR GREEN: When you were answering questions about the
£7,000 figure, that was explained as if it had all been
dealt with, and you repeatedly referred to it being
sought later on?
A. Yes.
Q. You referred to understanding that to be the case from
various documents.
May I just show you those in closing, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, I have them already. By all means
show me them in closing.
MR GREEN: I think examples included 114 --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, let's not spend time. Just
give me the references at the end of the day.
MR GREEN: I am most grateful.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I found some of them whilst Mr Cavender
was asking questions about them.
MR GREEN: I am most grateful. Could we look, please, at
the email, if it is working again at {E2/65.1/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think the common screen is
bringing up anything.
MR GREEN: My Lord, I will deal with that by way of
submissions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
MR GREEN: Yes. No further questions, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. I have one question,
although actually that was going to require the document
as well, or a document, so I'm not going to ask you it.
But there is a point I want to mention to counsel which
I will do now.
That is the end of your evidence. Thank you very
much for coming and you are now free to leave the
witness box.
A. Thank you very much.
(The witness withdrew)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have three screens, as you can see,
and from time to time when each of you are asking
questions I scroll through and have a look at different
things.
Mr Cavender, you put a document to the witness which
was an email of 18 June 2010 at {E2/89/9}. It is
actually part of a twelve-page document which refers to
the fact that the replacement for Mrs Stubbs was I think
appointed on 14 June and the email says that everything
seems to be working okay.
MR CAVENDER: In the immediate days following, indeed, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is right. When I first looked at
it and you were asking the witness questions, it seemed
to me it was dated 13 April 2011, but I think that is
the date it is printed.
MR CAVENDER: Yes. If you go to {E2/89/8} --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is 18 June.
MR CAVENDER: Yes, 18 June.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: 18 June 2010. I then looked through the
rest of that email, and I am sure you can all see what's
coming, I think it is 95 per cent redacted. I would --
it doesn't have to be done by today but by the end of
tomorrow, please, I would like counsel, and it doesn't
have to be you, it can be one of your juniors, just to
individually review the redactions that have been made
and then just confirm the basis of the redactions, and
if some have been made by mistake we can deal with them
then.
So do you want -- you have Mr Sabir to do this
afternoon. Do you want to start before 2 o'clock? Or
shall we start at 2 o'clock and see how we go, because
I can sit past 4.30 pm if you want to.
MR CAVENDER: I think, with a fair wind, between 2 o'clock
and 4.30 pm we should be fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay, we will come back at 2 o'clock.
(1.00 pm)
(The short adjournment)
(2.00 pm)
MR GREEN: My Lord, I call Mr Sabir. Your Lordship will see
there are a few minor typos in accordance with the
directions.
MR MOHAMMAD SABIR (sworn)
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do have a seat, Mr Sabir.
MR GREEN: Mr Sabir, in front of you should be a document
with "Witness Statement of Mohammad Sabir". Do you see
that? {C1/3/1}
A. Yes.
Q. And you have identified a few corrections which you have
put on these sheets?
A. Yes, please.
Q. We will just pass those to you now. Subject to those
corrections, do you believe the contents of your witness
statement to be true?
A. Yes.
MR GREEN: Thank you. Wait there, please.
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER
MR CAVENDER: Good afternoon, Mr Sabir.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. You started working for Post Office on 9 September 2006,
is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. At that stage I think we can agree Horizon was the
computer system you were using?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were doing monthly accounting?
A. Yes.
Q. You started work on 9 September as I say at the
Cottingley branch, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And your contract on Cottingley and Crossflatts, the
separate Crossflatts branch, were both terminated on
2 October 2009, some three years later, does that sound
right?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. The questions I am going to ask you today, Mr Sabir, are
about the events occurring in 2006 mainly when you
contracted with Post Office, you first dealt with them.
Yes? That is some twelve years ago now. Yes, do you
agree?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you also agree that, understandably perhaps, your
memory of those events isn't going to be particularly
good?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Given it is twelve years ago, the events I am going to
ask you about, back in 2006, your memory of them is not
going to be particularly good?
A. Some should be good but I can't remember everything.
Q. Okay. In terms of background, can I deal with that
first. You say prior to applying to Post Office in 2006
you had worked as an accounts assistant, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. We can pick that up I think in {E3/31.1/5}. Just cast
your eye down that. This is your previous employment.
Ignore number 1 for these purposes and go to
paragraph 2, Charterfields UK Limited in Bradford, and
you worked there as a part-time supervisor/payroll
assistant accountant from April 2003 onwards. Is that
right?
A. It's in Huddersfield, not in Bradford.
Q. Bradford Road, Huddersfield. Quite right. Your role
there was dealing with all payroll of the client's
companies and other accountancy work?
A. Yes.
Q. So at the date of applying in 2006 you had been in this
role for some three years or so?
A. Yes.
Q. And then item 3 on the same list, Apex Accountants, you
worked from April 2004 to date, ie to the time of the
application, as assistant accountant dealing with
preparation of accounts, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had these two jobs simultaneously, is that
right? Were they part-time?
A. Both part-time.
Q. Those roles involved you being good on detail, would
that be fair?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Performing those roles would involve you being good on
detail, detailed points?
A. I didn't understand.
Q. As an assistant accountant you have to be careful, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have to look carefully at the figures you are
given?
A. Yes.
Q. And insert them into accounts?
A. Yes.
Q. And be very careful you do that properly and not in some
careless general way?
A. We have to prepare what information is provided by the
clients.
Q. Do you accept from me that being involved over a period
of years as an assistant accountant means that I can
consider you as not commercially naive? You are not
commercially naive, are you, Mr Sabir, at the time when
you applied to Post Office in 2006. Do you accept that?
A. I did not understand your question, please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Rephrase it.
MR CAVENDER: As at the time you applied to Post Office in
2006, at that time, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not commercially naive, were you?
A. Can you explain?
Q. You weren't -- you had experience of commercial things?
You weren't -- it's put me on the spot trying to
rephrase this.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: To take it in stages, did you have
experience of commercial matters?
A. Not fully. I was working as assistant in both of the
places. I was not dealing fully with the clients, I was
just dealing as the assistant accountant in both of the
places.
MR CAVENDER: But you did have experience of commercial
matters in those roles?
A. Not full commercial matters, some which I was dealing.
Q. It's fair to say that the financial commitment you were
making in buying Mr Rooney's business at Cottingley and
Mr Taylor's business at Crossflatts were significant
investments for you?
A. That was an investment for my future career.
Q. So they were things that were important to you, those
investments?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. And it is something about which you were going to take
care when considering whether to invest in them?
A. Yes, obviously.
Q. And you were going to use all your professional skill
and diligence when deciding whether to enter into those
transactions, is that right?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. And the same would apply also, would it not, to entering
into the contract with Post Office to operate those two
premises?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. You would have used your professional skill and
diligence in deciding whether to enter into a contract
with Post Office to operate at those two premises?
A. I didn't understand first part of your question, please,
the first part of the question.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It's the professional skill and
diligence. You might just rephrase it, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: You were going to use your skills you had
acquired as an assistant accountant over a number of
years in deciding whether or not to enter into
a contract with Post Office?
A. I still didn't understand your question, please.
Q. You had to decide whether or not to enter into
a contract with Post Office?
A. I decided myself to enter the contract with the
Post Office.
Q. You did. What I am suggesting is in doing that, in
deciding whether to or not, you had an option whether to
enter into the contract or not, didn't you, with the
Post Office?
A. I did the contract myself.
Q. Yes, but you had a choice whether to or not? You didn't
have to enter a contract with Post Office, did you?
A. I entered into the contract with the Post Office.
Q. Yes, but you didn't have to. You had a choice,
an option, whether to or not to?
A. When I applied for the Post Office I put all of my
stake, so I obviously I intend to do this, both of these
businesses.
Q. But you'd developed certain skills as an assistant
accountant, hadn't you, for the three years prior to
applying to the Post Office?
A. Not everything is same as we are doing in the
accountancy office when you go in the Post Office.
Q. What I suggest to you is you used your skills you had
developed as an assistant accountant when looking at the
detail of what is being offered to you by Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. And you used that skill to decide whether or not to
agree to the contract from Post Office, am I right?
A. I did -- I did use my skills where those were applicable
with the Post Office contract.
Q. Thank you. You did that to consider whether it was
acceptable to you, this contract with Post Office, and
to Mr Ahmed who was your business partner, am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. How did that work? Did you go through the various
contracts and proposals together or did you both go
through them separately?
A. We both went together.
Q. So you both looked through any of the business papers
for the purchase or the Post Office contract, you looked
together?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you used professional transfer agents to assist
with the identification of the post office premises, did
you not? Did you use transfer agents to find the
premises?
A. Yes, Ernest Wilson.
Q. That was their name, Ernest Wilson. And were they
available to give you any advice you required about that
process?
A. They did.
Q. They were able to tell you where, if you wanted to get
any legal advice, you could get it if you thought you
needed it?
A. They did not tell anything like this.
Q. No, but if you had wanted -- did you want to take legal
advice?
A. I did not -- I did not.
Q. But if you wanted to you could have done?
A. Yes, I could have done but I did not.
Q. Before you enquired about a particular Post Office --
and I'm going to your witness statement now if I can --
you did your own investigations, didn't you, into
Post Office and what it would be like to be
a postmaster, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you touch on this at paragraph 9 and 10 of your
witness statement {C1/3/2}. You had spoken to other
subpostmasters, had you, to get an idea of what it was
like to run a Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think it is right to say, isn't it, that you had
also prepared accounts in your role as an assistant
accountant for subpostmasters, is that true?
A. I did initial works for them but I was not in a
position, those -- both posts, to finalise the accounts
in both places.
Q. I don't understand. Say that again, please.
A. I did help my senior accountants, I was working with
them as assistant accountant, and I have to do whatever
I have been advised by them.
Q. And you did that in relation to accounts for certain
subpostmasters who were clients of the accountancy firm,
am I right?
A. I was helping my senior accountants, not finalising
those accounts.
Q. But in doing that you got, did you not, a good idea of
what it was like in terms of the financial side of
running a Post Office, or what it might be like. Is
that fair?
A. Can you repeat your question again, please.
Q. By doing that, and helping your seniors finalise
accounts for subpostmasters, it gave you a good insight
into the financial side of being a subpostmaster?
A. Yes, I changed my career from accountancy to running
a Post Office after I have consulted with one of my
friends, Mr Mohammed Zubair, who was running
a Post Office and had a good profitable business from
there, and that is why we both decided to buy the
Post Office.
Q. During the course of preparing the accounts for these
other subpostmasters, did you come across the idea of
unders and overs, where there was a shortage or
a deficit sometimes, and sometimes a credit, is that
something you came across?
A. They were showing little bit, very little bit losses.
Nothing more than this.
Q. So the answer is yes, you did come across that concept
but you only think it was a little bit?
A. Little bit. You can say 100/150, not more than this.
Q. So you were aware of the concept then of postmasters
being liable for shortfalls in terms of money leaking
from the branch, is that fair?
A. Can you repeat your question, please?
Q. You were aware of the possibility of postmasters being
responsible for deficits in their branch --
A. Yes.
Q. What I called leakage?
A. Yes, I was expecting very little bit.
Q. But whether or not in any given case there is a little
bit or a lot just depends, does it not, on how competent
firstly the postmaster is, would you agree with that?
A. Can you repeat your question again?
Q. Whether it's a little or a lot of deficit is simply
dependent on how good or bad the postmaster is in
running his Post Office?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. And also depends on for what period that bad or
potentially negligent behaviour continues?
A. I did not understand this question.
Q. The extent of how much a given deficit might be is
dependent, I think you have accepted, on the skill of
the postmaster, firstly. And I'm putting to you another
point: it depends on the period over which that lack of
skill has been allowed to operate, for how long it has
gone on, is that fair?
A. I didn't understand this one again.
Q. And the same point applies to the honesty, doesn't it?
That a deficit caused by honesty, the limit on the
amount just depends on how dishonest the person is and
over what period it is operated, do you agree with that?
A. I didn't understand this question as well.
Q. You said in answer to me a moment ago that you thought
the deficits were only small, they were minor, a few
hundred pounds. That is your answer?
A. Yes.
Q. What I am putting to you is whether that is right or
wrong, the amount of any deficit is dependent on how bad
the behaviour is, how good or bad the postmaster is, and
over what period it operates. They are the two factors
that generate the amount of the deficit, do you agree
with that?
A. I used to do accounts for one of Post Office in
Huddersfield. For three years he hardly had £150/£100,
not more than this, loss. And I have not been -- gone
through with any postmaster who has been terminated or
suspended. So I don't think this question is relevant
to this.
Q. Another point is if you are a little bit over or
a little bit under for these purposes each week, over
the course of a year that could mount up to quite a lot?
A couple of hundred pounds here or there, if it's every
week then that can amount at the end of the year to
quite a large sum. Do you agree with that?
A. Yes, if it's prolonged it goes over ...
Q. The reason that you wanted to apply to Post Office was
because you wanted to run your own business, is that
fair?
A. Yes.
Q. We see that in your business plan. There is an express
reason. I think you said in that business plan too you
saw your main competitors as the banks, is that right?
A. We can't compete with the banks, but banks are the
competitors with the Post Office.
Q. If it helps you, go to {E3/27/1}. That is where I am
getting some of these comments from, your business plan,
at {E3/27/3}. In the second box you say:
"Interested in running own business."
If you go to page 7 of the same document {E3/27/7},
you say under "Market":
"... there is good scope to increase banking
services, insurance services and travel money
facilities."
Do you see that?
A. It means that I was able to increase the banking
services we do in the Post Office and I was expecting to
have an ATM machine there.
Q. This represents, I suggest to you, a sophisticated
commercial approach to your -- the background to your
contract with Post Office. What do you say to that?
A. Yes, I bought the Post Office to make profits.
Q. And you knew that you would be asked to enter into
a written contract between yourself and the Post Office
to regulate your arrangement? You knew that was going
to happen, didn't you, from the very beginning, there
would be a contract?
A. Is there any letter you can refer to me?
Q. No, I am just saying your expectations at the moment --
I will show you lots of letters, don't worry. But your
expectations at the time of the business plan and at the
time of going into this situation, you always expected
your relationship with Post Office to be governed by
a written contract, is that right?
A. Yes, we have to sign the contract when we are elected
the Post Office.
Q. Going back to your witness statement and to your
expectations again, it is really paragraph 9 {C1/3/2},
you say in the third sentence:
"I expected that if appointed as subpostmaster,
Post Office would not terminate my position unless there
was very serious wrongdoing on my part, such as theft."
Do you see that?
A. Which paragraph?
Q. Paragraph 9 in the middle, the third sentence. Fourth
line to sixth line:
"I expected that ..."
Do you have that, Mr Sabir?
A. Yes.
Can we check the paragraph from the beginning? What
is the background of this?
Q. Paragraph 9.
A. Yes:
"Deciding to change from my established career in
accountancy to running a Post Office was a major change
for me but I understood that the role was stable and
secure and I expected my investments to be worthwhile.
Post Office was a well-respected name in the community
and I trusted that they would be a good company to work
with."
Q. It's the next bit I want you to --
A. "I expected that if appointed as subpostmaster,
Post Office would not terminate my position unless there
was very serious wrongdoing on my part ..."
Q. Pausing there. Where do you say you got that
understanding from, that your contract would only be
terminated in that circumstance?
A. These were my own.
Q. Say again?
A. These were my own thinkings.
Q. Your own thinking. Where did your own thinking come
from, do you say?
A. Because I have put all of my stake on my house, I got
(inaudible) on that one and I invested so much money on
that one, and that -- that is why I was expecting that
the Post Office will also know this, that I have
invested so much money in the business.
Q. You surely would accept, wouldn't you, at the very
least, that if you were seriously incompetent that also
the arrangement would be terminated, wouldn't that be
fair? If you were just no good at it, surely that would
be an eventuality where you wouldn't expect to be held
in position?
A. I did not understand your question again.
Q. You say serious wrongdoing, such as theft, was in your
expectation a reason why Post Office could terminate the
contract, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. What I am saying to you is surely at the very least you
must have expected that serious incompetence, ie if you
weren't any good at the job, would also be a ground for
terminating you. Do you agree with that or do you
disagree with that?
A. Disagree.
Q. So you think you could be as incompetent as you like for
as long as you like and Post Office wouldn't be able to
terminate the contract. Was that your understanding,
you say?
A. No, when they select you, you have to go very long
procedure, you know. If you are not competent, how
Post Office can select you?
Q. You must have also been aware, must you not, as
an assistant accountant with commercial experience, that
it is quite standard in any commercial arrangement for
the contract to be terminable on notice, on both sides?
So a period of notice, normally measured in months, you
can give and it terminates it.
First question: do you agree that you were aware at
this time that most business contracts contain such
a clause?
A. I am not sure. I can't remember it.
Q. What about your role as assistant accountant with these
two companies? Was that terminable on notice? Could
they give you notice to end the contract?
A. Yes.
Q. So wouldn't it be the same, you would expect, such
a provision, in relation to your contract you would
enter into with Post Office?
A. How can this be the same? I was employed by them
and I have not invested a penny in that business, and in
Post Office I invested £82,000. How both things can be
the same?
Q. But what you invested, you bought two businesses, didn't
you? You had retail offerings at both those premises,
didn't you?
A. There was not much on Crossflatts side. But still
I have invested on one side £82,000, and on other side
I just did interview and they selected me. And if they
kick me out I can find some other job somewhere else.
But there was not any of my stake, my financial stake,
on those -- both jobs.
Q. Because you say also in paragraph 9 you believed it was
going to be a long-term relationship. That would depend
whether or not it was terminated or not, wouldn't it?
Whether it turned out to be long-term would depend on
whether or not it was terminated before it became
long-term, is that fair?
A. I did buy these both post offices to run long-term
business, long-term business, to establish my business
and to establish my family life.
Q. In terms of your due diligence, you obtained the trading
accounts, is this right --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for both Crossflatts and Cottingley?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did that in order to determine whether they were
going to be profitable enough, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. And whether the business enterprise you were going to
engage in was going to be commercially sensible for you?
A. Yes.
Q. As part of using those, and thinking about your future,
you produced the business plan, and we see it at
{E3/27/1}. We have looked at a couple of pages of this,
haven't we? I don't want to go through it all, but as
a result of looking at those accounts and talking to
your business partner, you produced the figures and the
approach set out in the business plan at {E3/27/1}
am I right?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. Yes. Do you have {E3/27/1} in front of you, the
business plan?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the first page of a document that you created
and submitted to Post Office in support of your
application to become a subpostmaster, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And the contents of this include various projections and
indications as to how you were going to go about, if you
were appointed, running the Post Office, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What this suggests -- I am going to put to you -- is not
someone who is commercially naive, but someone who has
thought about the business and put forward a perfectly
sensible business plan. Is that fair?
A. My Lord, English is not my first language. Can you
please ask counsel to ask the question in a simple
language, please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
I think it was the phrase "commercially naive" that
we had problems with about ten minutes ago. So would
you like to rephrase it.
MR CAVENDER: This business plan is a sensible commercial
business plan, do you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. It was produced by you?
A. Yes.
Q. With your skills?
A. I get help from Apex Accountants' main accountant.
Q. Did you draft your witness statement? Because I read
that and it is in very good English and very articulate,
but when I ask you questions you seem almost not to be
the person who authored that.
A. I did read it, there is no problem of reading. But as
I requested, English is not my first language. Because
in the business plan the accounts which I prepared,
those were finalised by the Apex Accountants, and on
that aspect I took final advice from Mr Abdul Rashid,
and I think we should have mentioned in the witness
statement as well.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: They helped you fill in the business
plan.
A. No, accounts. That is also part of the business plan.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: They helped you fill in the accounts
part of the business plan.
A. Yes.
MR CAVENDER: Go forward then to the application stage. So
go to {E3/23/1}, please. This is a letter to you of
18 May 2006 in response to your initial enquiry, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. If you look at the fourth paragraph on that page, it
says:
"Subpostmasters hold a contract for service with
Post Office; consequently they are agents, not employees
of the company."
Question: you would have understood from the receipt
of this letter that you were going to enter into
a contract and you were going to be an agent, is that
fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Then if we turn the page we see various things mentioned
there. At the bottom of {E3/23/3} we see "Proposed
Conditions of Appointment":
"In order that you may complete your business plan
accurately, the contract and service manager would like
you to consider the proposed conditions of appointment
appended to this letter."
Do you see that?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think we do. We have
a different page, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Go to {E3/23/3}, at the bottom, read to
yourselves under "Proposed Conditions of Appointment".
(Pause)
A. Proposed conditions of appointment?
Q. Yes. I am just drawing your attention to it. They were
saying what they were going to deal with you if your
application leads to an interview, et cetera.
Question: you were told you were going, if you were
going to take this job up, to be an agent, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You understood that to mean that you were going to
represent Post Office, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understood you were going to be given
Post Office's cash and stock to run the Post Office,
didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And as an agent you have to account to Post Office for
what happened to that cash and stock in your branch, you
understood that?
A. Yes.
Q. So we then invite an -- you're invited to an interview
on 30 June which is {E3/27/1} -- sorry, that is your
business plan. We have seen that.
If we go to {E3/53/1}, please. This is the letter
setting up your interview. 30 June. This is the
letter, and it says at the bottom of that page:
"I also attach a brief summary of the conditions of
the subpostmasters contract for your attention. Please
note that the summary does not represent the complete
terms and conditions of the subpostmasters contract and
may not be relied upon for any purpose by
a subpostmaster."
Then over page {E3/53/2}, at the top:
"... and should not be used in place of a thorough
review of the contract. You will receive a full copy of
the contract if you are successful in your application
as part of the appointment process."
So that represented your knowledge before you went
to interview, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. What it attaches then is the brief summary of certain
sections of the subpostmasters contract, do you see that
at the top of page {E3/53/3}?
A. I can't remember this one.
Q. You can't what, sorry?
A. I can't remember this one.
Q. This was an attachment, {E3/53/3} was an attachment to
the letter at {E3/53/1}, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got the letter of 30 June, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was an attachment to it. What it does, if you
cast your eye down {E3/53/3}, is it summarises briefly
certain sections of something called the subpostmasters
contract. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. We see under the "Contract" heading things you have seen
before, that subpostmasters are agents, not employees.
So that wasn't new to you, was it? You had seen that
before? We have seen that in an earlier document, yes?
A. Earlier document I can remember, but I can't remember
this one.
Q. I suggest you did get it and it was an attachment to
this letter. Go back to the letter {E3/53/1} --
A. That I can remember.
Q. -- and look at the last paragraph for me. It says:
"I also attach a brief summary of conditions of the
subpostmasters contract for your attention."
Question: if in fact the letter had not included the
brief summary, you would have said something or phoned
someone, wouldn't you, to ask where it was?
A. I can't remember, as far as I know.
Q. If it hadn't been there, Mr Sabir, you would have asked
for it, wouldn't you? This was a big investment, you
say.
A. Yes.
Q. You have attention to detail, you are an accountants
assistant. And the only document it says it is
including is an important one. The conditions of
contract are important, aren't they?
A. Yes, but I can't remember it. This is the thing I am
telling you, I can't remember it.
Q. But if they hadn't been there you would have asked for
them, wouldn't you?
A. How can I remember twelve years things? I can't
remember everything.
Q. But if you get a letter saying "I enclose a brief
summary of conditions of contract ..." and this is for
an interview you are about to go to, then you would ask
for it, "What are you talking about, you have included
this document? You haven't included it". You would
have asked that question, wouldn't you?
A. When we go for interview they don't let us to speak
anything. We have to answer the questions.
Q. Look at paragraph 41 of your written statement. You
don't there say that you didn't receive it. {C1/3/7}.
You say:
"I do not recall whether I considered these terms
... in any detail ..."
A. Yes, that is why I'm -- I can't remember. This is
twelve year old things. I can't remember, I can't --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which paragraph?
MR CAVENDER: Paragraph 41, my Lord.
What you say at paragraph 41, Mr Sabir, is you don't
recall whether you studied them in any detail prior to
attending. You are now saying for the first time, as
I understand it, that you don't recall whether you
received them prior to the interview. Do you see they
are two different things?
A. I did not say I did not receive. I did say I can't
remember it.
Q. But you don't say that in your witness statement either.
A. Same thing I have told in ...
Q. You don't say in your witness statement anywhere that
you don't recall whether or not you received the summary
of conditions. Are you saying your memory is improving
as you are in the witness box there to the time when you
produced your witness statement?
A. Can you ask the question again, please.
Q. Is your memory improving now you are in the witness box
compared to when you drafted paragraph 41 of your
witness statement?
A. I did not understand your question again.
Q. Paragraph 41 of your witness statement says you don't
recall whether or not you considered them in any detail
prior to attending the interview:
"The letter did not indicate any contractual terms
would be discussed at interview ..."
{C1/3/8}
That is what you say in your witness statement.
What I understand you to be saying now in the witness
box is you don't in fact recall whether -- and you are
putting in doubt whether -- you actually received the
brief summary of sections of the contract.
A. I did not say I did not receive it. I said I can't
remember it. This is my simple answer.
Q. My question to you is: just following up that premise,
if you are going to run with that, if you had
received -- put yourself back in the position in 2006
receiving {E3/53/1} that says it is enclosing something
called a summary of terms and conditions, and it wasn't
there, you would have asked for it, wouldn't you?
A. If I can't remember how can I answer the question? If
it is a thing which I can't remember how can I answer?
Q. Doing the best you can at that time, given the degree of
experience you had --
A. At that time I was just thinking to buy the business,
run it, make my life better and serve the community.
This was my main ambition. And the Post Office was the
social (inaudible) and I liked since the date I started
until I was terminated.
Q. I suggest it was with this letter, you did receive it,
and let's look at the conditions you have then seen
{E3/53/3}. You would have seen "Assistants" halfway
down. You must provide at your expense any assistants
which you need to carry out the works. Assistants are
employees of the subpostmaster. And the subpostmaster
will be liable for any failure of the assistants.
That represents your understanding of assistants
that you might employ at your branch, doesn't it? That
you would be responsible for them?
A. Yes, obviously every postmaster is responsible for the
assistants.
Q. And whether you employ assistants or not is totally up
to you?
A. You can't run the Post Office without employing the
assistants.
Q. Well, you could if you run it on your own, potentially,
you and your partner?
A. We wanted to take over two Post Offices, so can we run
them without assistants? Plus there are Post Office
conditions: if some employee is already working there,
you can't terminate them, you have to take them on.
Q. And "Losses" at the bottom of this page {E3/53/3} says:
"The subpostmaster is responsible for all losses
caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error
and also for all losses caused by his assistants.
Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good
without delay."
That is something that would have caught your eye
and you would have read before interview, isn't it,
Mr Sabir?
A. I can't remember, that's why there is no point to insist
on that question. I know I -- we -- postmasters are
responsible for any losses and their assistants' losses.
Q. What happens after this in terms of the chronology, on
10 July you had an interview for Cottingley branch, do
you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. You were interviewed by Mr Haworth and
Caroline Richards, is that right? Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. How long do you say the interview lasted, Mr Sabir?
A. Yes.
Q. How long do you say this interview lasted?
A. As far as I can remember, I think it was an hour and
a half.
Q. An hour and a half?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read the witness statement of Mr Haworth about
what he says happened at this interview?
A. I did.
Q. Have you read Mr Haworth's witness statement?
A. I have read a little bit, not all of it.
Q. Can we go to {C2/14/2}. Do you have that there?
Paragraph 10.1. What he is saying is the things he says
in paragraph 10 are things that would have been
contained in your interview. I want to see if you agree
or not.
A. Yes, he did my interview.
Q. Did he -- 10.2 -- run through the "brief summary of
certain sections of the subpostmaster's contract"? Did
he run through that with you?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Is it possible that he did? He says he did. Are you
saying --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, he doesn't say he did,
actually.
MR CAVENDER: Well, he --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, Mr Cavender, this has now happened
on two or three occasions and we have to have a degree
of precision.
He says in line 2 of paragraph 8:
"... I can no longer recall interviewing Mr Sabir."
What he then does is he goes on to deal with what he
says would have happened based on his standard. So it's
wrong to put to the witness that he says he in fact did
that.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
What he says, Mr Sabir, is this is his standard
practice, and that he would have adopt adopted the
standard practice with you, do you see? What I am
asking you is whether you can disagree, because he is
going to come along and say what he is saying here is
true, that (a) this was his standard practice, and (b)
that he would have followed it with you.
So in relation to that, in 10.2, are you able to say
he didn't run through the "brief summary of certain
sections of the subpostmaster's contract"?
A. I told you I can't remember it. If he can't remember
it, how can I remember it after --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Sabir, you might be able to remember
it. It doesn't matter what he can remember --
A. What I can remember --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Sabir, just wait for me to finish,
please. Mr Cavender is putting to you what Mr Haworth
says he would have done. Your memory is not affected by
whether Mr Haworth can remember in fact doing it.
Because Mr Haworth says he did this in all his
interviews, right? So it is no answer to say: if he
can't remember it how can I be expected to?
Mr Cavender, ask it again, please.
MR CAVENDER: The "summary of certain sections of the
subpostmaster's contract" is a document I showed you
a moment ago, do you remember?
A. Yes.
Q. The one attached to the letter. What Mr Haworth says
his general practice was to run through that with
interviewees. He therefore says that, as you were
an interviewee, he would have done that with you. Are
you able to say that he didn't do that with you?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. Is it possible he did do that with you?
A. I can't say yes. What I can remember, I can tell you
whatever I -- what I told you on the interview. He
asked me some questions and then he went through the
business plan. Both things I can remember. I can't
remember anything else.
Q. In terms of paragraph 13 of this witness statement
{C2/14/3}, he sets out what he would ordinarily explain
to an applicant. And so therefore he says the
likelihood is he would have explained these things to
you. Can I check you have a memory of this. At 13.1 he
says he would have explained in the situation that it
was a contract for services and not of employment. Do
you remember him saying anything about that?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. Is it possible he did say that?
A. I can't say yes or not.
Q. So far as personal service is concerned, he would have
made clear that you didn't personally have to run the
Post Office but you could employ assistants if you
wanted to. Do you remember him saying anything about
that?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. Is it possible he did?
A. I can't say yes or no.
Q. 13.2, he says it was his practice to, and would with
you, have said the subpostmaster is responsible for the
operation of the branch and the operation of assistants.
Is that something that you recall him discussing or
saying to you?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Is it possible that he did?
A. I can't ...
Q. 13.3, that he would have said to you that you were
responsible for the staffing of the branch and for their
training. Do you remember him saying anything like
that?
A. I can't remember all these things, you know.
Q. Is it possible he did?
A. I can't -- I don't know.
Q. 13.4 {C2/14/4}, that the subpostmaster would be
responsible for any losses and gains identified in the
accounts. Do you remember him discussing that topic
with you, losses and gains?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Do you remember him putting forward a scenario with you
about a subpostmaster taking a bank deposit and
miskeying £90 for £900, do you remember an example of
that type being discussed?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. Do you remember, 13.7 here, that there was a notice
period under the contract, and there was a three-month
notice period either way. Do you remember any
discussion about notice periods?
A. I can't remember this one.
Q. What can you remember?
A. I went for the interview, he asked me: can you give me
example of previously you have been in -- dealing with
a person and you have sorted that matter out? And
I gave example for that one. And I also can remember
I said the customer is always right. The words which --
I can't remember if those are the words. And then he
asked: how you are going to run this when everything --
I told that first six months we will look into the
business and then we will do. There was much space for
expansion and we will increase the retail side, and that
is why other sales will be increased.
These are the things I can remember. Apart from
that, these are too old things. So I can't remember
what we discussed, and I can't lie in front of you,
my Lord.
Q. You have just told me what you were saying, and
presumably he must have been saying something to you,
giving you some information during this hour and a half?
A. I can't remember. I can't lie, my Lord. I can't
make -- judgments, I have to -- if something I can't
remember, I can't say anything.
Q. So all the identified points I have put to you
separately, you are not in a position to say those
weren't said to you, are you? You can't say to me or to
his Lordship that those points were not made clear to
you?
A. I can't remember, that is why I can't say yes or no.
Q. In terms of your working at the branch, we can see from
{E3/61/1} that you must have told Post Office -- go to
that, please. It's an internal Post Office document
following the interview. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Paragraph 3 says:
"The incoming subpostmaster will provide on average
not less than 18 hours personal service ..."
So am I right that they have said that because you
have indicated that it is your intention to work in the
branch?
A. I can't remember.
Q. And it is your intention to work in the branch for not
less than 18 hours per week?
A. Yes, I was planning to work full-time in the branch.
Q. No one told you that you had to work 18 hours per week
in the branch, did they?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Could you go, please, to {C2/14/6}. This is the witness
statement of Michael Haworth, the other person who
interviewed you.
At paragraph 19 on that page:
"In paragraph 20, Mr Sabir alleges that he was not
advised to seek independent legal advice."
That isn't right, is it? You weren't advised --
A. I can't remember.
Q. -- not to seek independent legal advice, were you?
A. I can't remember. And I did not take any legal advice
before taking over the Post Offices. I just used the
solicitors to transfer the lease.
Q. In paragraph 16 of the same witness statement {C2/14/5},
it is not right to say, is it, at the end of the
interview, it was indicated that you were going to be
appointed subject to a couple of factors. That isn't
right, is it? You weren't told you were successful or
unsuccessful at the end of the interview. The interview
ends and you will be told in the normal way.
You seem to be saying here, as I understand, in
paragraph 10 of your IPOC you were told during the
interview that you were successful, but it would be
conditional on a number of factors.
A. As far as I can remember, there were two things -- two
or three things which were asked when the Post Office
was surveyed by one of the Post Office person to
repaint, change the outside, repainting, and doing some
work inside. As far as I can remember, he told that if
you are selected you have to do these three things.
These are the three things I can remember, two or three
things.
Q. You engaged solicitors, didn't you, to advise you in
relation to the purchase of the two businesses, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were those solicitors?
A. One was SD Solicitors on Carlisle Road. And the other,
for Crossflatts, we used Rahman & Co(?) from London,
just to transfer the deeds and transfer the money to
the ...
Q. Sorry, can you speak up? The last bit?
A. Rahman & Co solicitors in London. The first one was
SD Solicitors on Carlisle Road.
Q. And they advised you on the purchase of the two
businesses?
A. They advised towards the lease. And also when I put the
charge on my house, they signed -- countersigned the
charge of the house.
Q. And they could have given you advice, could they, on
your relationship with Post Office if you required that?
A. I don't know about this.
Q. You could have asked them that. As solicitors, you
could have asked them if you wanted advice on the
relationship with Post Office, am I right?
A. I did not take any advice. This is simple --
Q. But as a businessman that was your choice?
A. I don't have any sort of doubt with the Post Office so
I did not take any advice.
Q. You had at this stage the summary of terms of the
subpostmasters contract, didn't you? It was attached to
the letter inviting you to interview.
A. But that was nothing to do with the solicitors. That
was coming to me, and then I was dealing with those
paperworks. I did not take any of these sorts of
paperwork to the solicitors.
Q. But if you had wanted to, you could have sent it to them
and asked for advice, then or subsequently during any
part of the things we are now going to go through, any
of the documents you were given?
A. I don't know about this. But they did not speak any
time that they give advice in this regard. They just --
I spoke with them to transfer the lease, that is all.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, is that a convenient moment?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am sure it is.
Just before we break, we are going to have
a ten-minute break, Mr Sabir. You are in the middle of
giving your evidence, please don't talk to anyone about
the case but you don't have to sit in the witness box.
At pages 102 and 103 of the transcript {Day3/106:1},
which was the period when Mr Cavender made certain
observations on a document, and how you were putting
questions, and then also the witness, I spoke to the
witness as well. The transcript, and I know it is going
to be refined, but it hasn't necessarily caught all of
the exchanges. So in open court I would just like to
ask you both if you could, not in the break but at some
point before you release the finalised transcript, if
you could just go back and listen to the tape. I know
you do that anyway, but particularly those two pages.
Thank you very much. Ten minutes.
(3.00 pm)
(A short break)
(3.10 pm)
MR CAVENDER: Mr Sabir, we're going forward in time now to
13 July when you received a letter from Post Office
saying you had been successful in your application.
That is {E3/64/1}.
Do you see that:
"... delighted to inform you that your application
for the position ... has been successful ... Your
appointment will be subject to:
"Your written acceptance of the subpostmasters
contract and other terms and conditions set out in
appendix 1 to this letter."
A. Yes.
Q. Pausing there, presumably you were quite interested in
the terms upon which the Post Office was proposing to
appoint you? That was a matter of interest to you, is
that fair?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. You have just been told you have been successful in
a process you have put a lot of effort in, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've been told that that appointment is subject to
acceptance of the subpostmasters contract. Do you see
that?
A. Yes.
Q. Paragraph 1 at the top?
A. Yes.
Q. Presumably you must have been very interested in
the terms of the subpostmasters contract?
A. As far as I can remember, I can remember that I thought
the conditions which they said I have to do three or
four things, these are the terms and conditions, I need
to accept it.
Q. That is not really answering the question. You have
just gone through a process and put a business plan
together and had an interview, and you have been told
you are successful, and you've told that subject to --
your appointment will be subject to your acceptance of
the subpostmasters contract.
Now, whether you are really happy or not really
happy at all will depend a bit, won't it, on what the
terms are, good terms or bad terms. Do you see the
point I am putting?
A. As far as I can remember, these are the conditions which
they told me that I have to do in one month, three
months and six months. As far as I can remember.
Q. That is not quite right, is it? If we go on in
the letter then it attaches a number of things.
Appendix 1, in bold, which is attached to this letter,
sets out the Conditions of Appointment, capital C,
capital A, that will apply to you. And it says one copy
of appendix 1 should be signed by you and returned. Do
you see?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the first thing. And we see that if you go to
page {E3/64/5}.
A. Yes.
Q. We see that set out there.
A. Yes.
Q. About the specific things, about tier payments, things
of that kind. Paragraph 5, about painting the exterior,
things of that kind?
A. Yes.
Q. So you are right, it was subject to that. But it was
also subject to -- looking at appendix 2 now -- the
document, something called the appointment pack. It
says:
"In particular, the appointment pack contains
[something called] the subpostmasters contract setting
out the contractual relationship with Post Office ..."
It goes on at {E3/64/2} to say:
"Please give these documents your utmost attention."
Do you see that?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. But you can read it on the page --
A. Yes, I did read the first page.
Q. And you would have realised this was an important letter
from a business point of view, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would have realised it was important that you
read the appendix 1 and appendix 2 documents, is that
also right?
A. I can't remember it. I did read or not I can't remember
it.
Q. But it is likely you did read it, isn't it?
A. I can't remember, that is why I can't tell you yes or
not.
Q. But given the sort of person you are and were back
in July 2006, and given that this was an important
matter for you and Mr Ahmed, your partner, it is
incredible beyond belief, isn't it, that you wouldn't
have read this letter?
A. I did read the letter, the first two pages you are
showing, but I can't remember the full -- going through
the full contract.
Q. Because if it wasn't there, surely you or Mr Ahmed would
say "It says it is subject to these various things",
including the SPMC as we call it, "but it is not
included. I must ask them for a copy". Isn't that what
you would have expected yourself to have said at that
time?
A. If I am going through now, then I will, because I have
suffered a lot. But at that time I was happy I am
selected for the postmaster. And I can't remember I did
read all the terms and conditions or not, I can't
remember.
Q. Did you show this letter to Mr Ahmed, your partner, your
business partner?
A. I was mostly dealing with this sort of paperwork.
Q. Did you show this letter to Mr Ahmed, your partner?
A. I can't remember.
Q. But were you -- you said earlier I think you did share
documents with him and you went through them together.
Does that apply in relation to this document?
A. We went through for business plan, not for these
letters.
Q. So even though Mr Ahmed was your business partner, you
wouldn't have shown him the letter and the attachments
informing you that the application was successful, is
that what you are saying?
A. As far as I can remember, I told him that I have been
selected as a subpostmaster.
Q. I suggest to you that you did receive appendix 1 and
appendix 2, and you did receive the subpostmasters
contract at that time.
A. I can't remember it. I can't say no but I can't
remember it.
Q. You also would have received appendix 1 to this letter,
we see at {E3/64/5}. If you read paragraph 1 of that,
it says:
"You will be bound by the terms of the standard
subpostmasters contract for services at scale ..."
You would have read that at the time, wouldn't you?
A. As I explained before, I was thinking that these are the
conditions which have been put on us to do within one
month, three months or six months.
Q. But if you read clause 1, which says you will be bound
by the terms of the standard subpostmasters contract for
services at scale, yes? And you didn't have that
document at the time, you would have asked for it,
wouldn't you?
A. I can't remember did I ask or not. I even don't
remember that I have received or not. This is very old
things so I can't tell you exact yes or no.
Q. Because the terms of the contract you were being
offered, and those terms, wouldn't that be your final
stage of your due diligence? All your efforts, your
talking to other subpostmasters, your business plan and
everything else, and this is them accepting it subject
to certain terms. Unless you see those terms then all
your other due diligence to that date has been wasted,
hasn't it?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. Yes. The terms, knowing the terms on which they were
going to appoint you was the final stage of your
due diligence, before deciding whether to take the
appointment or not. It was the final stage?
A. I was happy I am selected, and I signed the contracts
and sent them back.
Q. It would have been clear to you, wouldn't it, on reading
{E3/64/5} at the top, paragraph 1, that what they were
binding you to was something other than included in
the five clauses on that page?
A. I explained before that -- I was thinking these
conditions, which is on paragraph 5, that I have to do
this two or three, these are the things which I can
remember so far. Other than that, I can't remember.
Q. So pausing there. You thought, did you, that when in
paragraph 1 it talks about:
"You will be bound by the standard subpostmasters
contract ..."
That what it was talking about was be bound by
paragraph 5 of this page, is that what you are saying?
A. More or less. But my English was not so high standard
I can go in these sorts of things. I was very, very
positive towards the Post Office, I was keen to take the
business. So when you are so much interested you don't
go in these sort of things. I never thought that I will
lose some (inaudible) thing when I will be working in
the Post Office. So if I am clear, honest, so I don't
be afraid of signing any contract with anybody.
Q. Mr Sabir, you are familiar -- were familiar at the time
with the concept of standard terms of contract, weren't
you? You understand about that as a concept, is that
right?
A. I explained before --
Q. No --
A. -- as far as I can remember, I understood that these two
or three things which they explained in paragraph 5,
these are the things I need -- these are only things
I can --
Q. I am testing that, though. You were aware at this time
of the concept of standard terms and conditions. You
get it if you buy almost any item. If you buy a ticket
for the theatre there will be standard terms and
conditions on the back, yes, that apply to everyone.
Can we agree about that?
A. As I explained before, these are the things -- I am
telling you the truth which I understood at that period
of time. I can't remember -- I can't remember that
I have keenly gone through with all the paperwork and
neither any of my other Post Office friends advised me
to read the contract and everything properly and then
you sign it. Whoever was running to whom, I know they
were running the business successfully, and I also
expecting the same thing.
Q. Mr Sabir, the accountancy firms you worked for, did they
have standard terms they would send out to new clients
when you had new clients?
A. I have not dealing with that part of the business.
Q. But you are aware that your accounting firm had standard
terms of trading, are you not?
A. They don't -- there are specialist accountants to deal
with these sorts of things.
Q. But you were aware the accounting firms must have had
standard terms of trading, weren't you?
A. They are doing -- I know they are doing because now I am
running my own business. But at that stage I was not
dealing with this part of the business.
Q. Are you aware of the concept of something called
standard terms, yes, as opposed to -- that apply to
everyone, yes, as opposed to individual terms that might
apply to an individual? Do you agree with that basic --
just in theory? At this time you were aware of that
distinction?
A. I can't tell you -- I explained before, you know, what
I understood at that period of time.
Q. Because I suggest you well understood at that time the
concept of standard terms, and you furthermore well
understood that what appears at paragraph 5 on page 5
{E3/64/5} of this document are on no view standard
terms. They are the terms applicable to you about
painting and clearing away stickers and posters.
A. These are the things which I understand at that time,
which I am telling you. Other than things, I did not go
through with all the contract and with everything. As
far as I understood, I am telling you right now.
Q. What you were expecting was what you were told on
30 June, if you go back to {E3/53/1}, was the complete
terms and conditions for the subpostmasters contract.
You were told that back in June. That is what you were
expecting. And you knew at the time of 13 July that
that, on your case, is what you hadn't got and what you
must have been looking for.
A. I think I gave the same answer at that time as well,
that I was thinking that the Post Office officer which
have been in the Post Office, whatever he has, pointed
I have to do that thing. And still I am on the same
answer, you know. As far as I understood I am telling
you the truth.
Q. Moving forward then in terms of your reasonable
expectations when entering into the contract in
July 2006. Firstly, the background would be the
documents we have been discussing now. I suggest you
got them all but you suggest you are not sure. That
would be part of background, do you agree?
A. Which documents you are ...
Q. The ones you received with your letter in advance of the
interview and the documents we have just been looking at
behind tab 64, the appendix 1, appendix 2 letter at
{E3/64/5}. They form the background to you deciding to
sign the contract, yes?
A. I can remember these two papers here. Appendix 1, I can
remember this when I received it.
Q. As regards the issue of Horizon, you would have expected
that, in terms of your expectations at the time, to be
a reasonable reliable computer system, is that fair?
A. Yes. As advised by the Post Office I also believed that
this will be the good system.
Q. As regards training, you understood at that time you
would be provided with any training necessary for you to
operate the Post Office and operate the Horizon system,
is that fair?
A. I was given training, one-week training in Burnley.
Q. As regards the Helpline, your expectations were, or a
reasonable person in your position would have been that
it would provide such assistance as was necessary for
you to run the branch?
A. Yes.
Q. Classroom training then, which is the next thing that
happened in time. On 21 August 2006 you had five days
of classroom training.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was useful training, do you agree with that?
A. That was useful, yes.
Q. Do you think that training allowed you to operate as
a postmaster and to operate Horizon?
A. When I came in the branch that was not enough. When
I took -- when you are doing training in the classroom
that is a different thing, when you come on ground that
is a bit different. I have been facing a lot of
difficulties in the beginning.
Q. I think you had -- just joining those dots -- from
31 August I think you had six days' on site training as
well, does that sound right?
A. One week she came during the day.
Q. That was hands on practical training?
A. We have to work but she was standing behind.
Q. Was that helpful training as well, the on site training?
A. That is helpful but for the new person it is not enough.
Q. Going back to classroom training, for the moment, I have
various documents I can put to you, but I think you
would agree that during classroom training part of it
was introduction to Horizon and Helpline, do you
remember that?
A. Yes. There are some dummy type of Horizon system there
and some dummy paperwork as well, how you have to do.
Q. And they also covered a stock balancing. We can turn
some of these up, if you like. Go to {F3/48/1} and
{F3/49/1}, a document "Introduction to Horizon and
Helpline", do you see that? This comes from the course
you would have been on.
A. I can't remember this document.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am not sure Mr Cavender is suggesting
you have seen the document, but he will in a minute if
he wants to.
MR CAVENDER: This is what the trainer would have had. So
this just helps us with the scope. I am not suggesting
you would have seen this, but this would have been the
scope of what the trainer was trying to achieve in this
one hour 30 segment. Does that remind you of the sort
of things covered during the classroom training?
A. We did some training for four or five days. But as far
as I can remember, I think none of us balance was okay
when they did the final thing.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The classroom training.
A. Classroom training, yes. And when we come on -- in
the branch, the lady who came to train me, she helped to
do day to day transactions, but Wednesday and Thursday
we were opening late due to lottery, and she has to go
early, so I have to do the balance on my own.
MR CAVENDER: If we go to {F3/51/1}, I think the same
classroom training package for stock balancing this
time. I don't suggest you saw this but this indicates
another aspect of the training sessions.
MR GREEN: My Lord, there is a question about whether this
is the right document to be looking at. Because at
{F3/47/1} there is the timetable into which these pages
appear to fit, and it relates to a two-week not
a five-day one. So it may be fair to have that in mind.
MR CAVENDER: Thank you to my learned friend for that.
Looking at the content, though, of the five days you
had, we have dealt with introduction to Horizon and
Helpline, I think you said there was something about
that. What about stock balancing, would you have done
some balancing work, do you think?
A. Yes, we did, but we -- I explained that at the end of
five days, most of us were working, our balance was not
right. We did not understand 100 per cent how the
procedure works because there is a difference between
working on ground and getting training in the classroom.
Q. Of course. And didn't your six days on site training
build on that? Isn't that what that was about? And
that is what happened in your case, was it not?
A. As I explained before, on the balance day she was
leaving early because we were opening until late,
9 o'clock for the lottery. So she was leaving by
lunchtime and she said just follow the procedure and do
it.
Q. So leaving that training behind then, can we go on to
the transfer date which is 8 September 2006. Can
we take up Mr Webb's witness statement as to what he
said happened. So that's {C2/11/3}, please.
Firstly, what is your memory like of what happened
on 8 September 2006? Do you have a good memory, or is
it like your memory has been so far, not really
remembering very much?
A. I can't remember everything but I remember most of the
things.
Q. What Mr Webb says at paragraph 14, {C2/11/3} is that:
"I believe that the paperwork which we, as auditors,
were required to run through with the incoming and
outgoing subpostmasters included the documents which
have been listed in the witness statement."
I will take you to the documents, don't worry.
He says this:
"I would briefly explain the documents to the
incoming subpostmaster. I would also give him or her
time to read the documents carefully if they so wished."
Do you agree or disagree that that practice --
A. Disagree.
Q. You disagree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. Which bits do you disagree with? Are you disagreeing
that he didn't explain briefly the documents he was
asking you to sign? Do you disagree with that?
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. Are you disagreeing that he didn't explain to you
briefly the documents he was asking you to sign?
A. When the auditors come on site to transfer the branch
they only let the new subpostmaster do very little
things. They deal with the old postmaster, and they
assume that the new postmaster also think that these are
the people on my side and they also act like this, and
most leave balancing, and everything is done by the
auditors. They don't -- they just ask sometimes to
count a little bit of cash or some stamps, not more than
this. Everything is done by the auditors who come on
site.
I think this is the practice, I don't know about
now, but at that time they were -- because I had been
transferred to Cottingley Post Office, they did the same
thing. And when the Crossflatts Post Office was
transferred they also did the same thing.
Q. What Mr Webb says is his usual practice, which he says
he will follow here, was to give you time to read the
documents carefully if you wished. Do you recall being
given time to read them before you signed them?
A. No. Whenever they come they do their work. They don't
let you to do anything.
Q. If you had wanted more time you could have asked for
more time, couldn't you, presumably?
A. Because they assume that they are on your side and they
are working on your behalf.
Q. Do you remember -- do you recall asking for any more
time to look at any documents before you signed them?
A. When they are working like you, how can you ask them to
give you some more time? They assume they are on your
side, and they are working for yourself. When the audit
is finished they ask you to sign the paperwork and then
they say, "Yes, okay, open the branch tomorrow then".
Q. So I take it from your answers you didn't ask for any
more time, is that right?
A. I didn't ask because they were assuming that they are
doing everything for goodness of me and I had already
positive thinking about this.
Q. You wouldn't have signed them unless you understood
them, would you?
A. They don't take much time. When they finish the audit,
they ask you to sign it, but -- the new subpostmaster
see what is happening there but they don't know
everything because everything is new for the new
postmaster. Everything happens in front of the
subpostmaster but they don't let him do everything.
They do everything, counting, balancing and everything,
especially those stamps and those tickets and everything
you know.
Q. Let's go to some of the documents then. If you go to
bundle {D1.3/4/1}, please. This is something called the
"Acknowledgement of Appointment". You would have read
this before you signed it, yes? It's quite big, bold.
Not a lot of words on this page. Can we assume you read
this?
A. I remember this. I signed it.
Q. And you would have read it before you signed it?
A. Yes, I read it and then I signed it.
Q. If you didn't understand it, or anything in it, you
would ask questions about it before signing it?
Am I right?
A. As I explained before, I don't have any negative aspect
of my thinking about the Post Office. That is why, when
they completed the audit, they asked me to sign this
one, they witnessed it and then I did sign it. And
I was happy to start next day as a subpostmaster.
Q. It says you agree to be bound by "the terms of my
contract". Pausing there, what do you say you
understood your contract to be? On your case, you are
not sure whether you received the SPMC at this stage.
A. As I explained before, these were -- the conditions
which they put on me to do in one, three and six months,
I thought these are the things which I have to do about
this letter.
Q. You are saying, are you, at this stage you thought the
entirety of your relationship with the Post Office
involved painting within a certain time and taking down
posters, which is paragraphs 5 and 6 of the document we
were looking at before? Is that your evidence; you
thought that that was the entirety of your written
agreement with them?
A. No, every postmaster knows that he has to run the
business efficiently. He is responsible for his losses
and his assistants' losses. As far as I understand I am
telling you truth right now.
Q. But you must have realised -- I think you accepted
earlier and it will be in the transcript -- that you
expected your relationship with Post Office to be
governed by a written contract.
A. If you have some negativity about anything, then you can
ask these sorts of questions, and if I am 100 per cent
positive, I have put all of my assets and stake, so how
can I think any negative and I can go through all these
sorts of things? As I explained before, I never had any
negative aspect about -- all of the people I know who
were running the Post Offices, they still are running
and they are very, very well-established.
Q. But, Mr Sabir, it is not about negative or positive, it
is just knowing what the terms are. Because on your
case at this stage you don't have a contract, you have
some specific terms about when you have to paint
something and when you have to take posters down. So on
your case at this stage you don't have a contract. So
what are you signing this for, agreeing to be bound by?
That is my question?
A. As far as I understand I -- this is the question I think
the respected counsel is asking twenty times. As far as
I understood, I told you. Whatever I understood, I told
you. I have nothing more than that. I can't lie in
front of you, which I don't know.
Q. Go over the page to the appendix {D1.3/4/2}, you see
there -- no, I will leave that. We have dealt with that
before. Let's go then to {E3/102/1}. This is
a document, page 1, something called "Serv 135" we see
at the top. We can see this has been signed by you at
{E3/102/2}. Yes?
A. Yes, these are my signatures.
Q. You are familiar with this, yes?
A. No, familiar -- but I can remember this. I signed this
paperwork.
Q. And before you signed it, you would have read it?
A. Not really.
Q. Look at page {E3/102/2}. The declaration you made is:
"I Mr M Sabir acknowledge that I have read and
understood these extracts."
And you have signed it. Was that declaration you
made true or untrue?
A. No, I made -- whatever the auditors told me, I signed
it, and they did not speak about any sort of these --
they did not explain me anything about anything. They
completed the audit and then they asked me to sign it
and they witnessed it.
Q. Whether you signed this document was up to you. You
weren't told to sign it, saying: you must. You were
asked to sign it if you wanted to take up the
appointment. Yes?
A. I did not ... can you repeat the question, please?
Q. You said I think in answer to a question that you were
told you must sign it. It was up to you whether you
signed it and what you read before you signed it, wasn't
it?
A. When they complete the audit, every subpostmaster has to
sign it. He can't refuse that: I can't sign it.
Q. What you acknowledge by signing it is that you have read
and understood these extracts. And that is what you
would have done, isn't it? You would have had a look at
them to decide whether you understood and agreed to
them?
A. As far as I understood I explained to you before.
Q. When you looked over these items, you will see in the
first paragraph:
"Dear Subpostmaster.
"Recent findings by the audit teams have raised
doubts in my mind as to how conversant subpostmasters
are with very important Post Office regulations. As a
means of protecting the investment made by yourself
and Post Office in the business, I would like to draw
your attention to the following extracts from your
contract ..."
Pausing there. If you thought your contract was
simply about painting within a certain time and removing
posters, then why have you got in section 12, cash
balance, and all these other items here. Over the page
{E3/102/3} section 19, suspension. Why have you got all
these things as part of your contract?
A. Can repeat. I did not catch --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am sorry, we are jumping around on the
common screen. I think you were reading from a document
which wasn't in front of the witness, which is part of
the reason --
MR CAVENDER: The document I want to go to is {E3/102/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is what I thought. Have you got
that now, Mr Sabir?
A. Section 19?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, that is page 2. You want
{E3/102/1}.
MR CAVENDER: We see, if you read the top paragraph,
Mr Sabir, what they are doing is saying, by means of
protecting the investment, they want to draw your
attention to a number of extracts from your contract,
capital C. On your case you say you --
A. Excuse me, I did not find where you --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It's the top four lines just after "Dear
subpostmaster", Mr Sabir. Have you got that? It
starts:
"Recent findings ..."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just read the next few lines to yourself
and then Mr Cavender will ask you again. (Pause).
A. I can't remember.
MR CAVENDER: What can't you remember?
A. This one.
Q. We know you signed this one, don't we? If we go to
{E3/102/2}. You certainly had this in your hands and
signed it, yes?
A. Yes, I did sign it.
Q. What was being made clear to you was that certain
extracts were being highlighted.
A. But as I -- as far as I can remember I did not go
through with everything. Neither they explained who
did audit for -- took over the branch.
Q. When you looked at this, you would have seen
for instance section 12(12) "Losses":
"The subpostmaster is responsible for all losses
caused by his own negligence, carelessness or error and
also losses of all kinds caused by his assistants.
Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good
without delay."
You would have seen that passage, wouldn't you?
A. This I knew before; that I am responsible for all the
losses and for the assistants' losses. But 100 per cent
I can't remember everything I have gone through at that
time, no.
Q. How was it you say you knew that; that they were
responsible for losses by assistants and losses by
negligence? How do you say you had come to know that in
advance of this?
A. I knew that I am responsible for all the losses.
Q. How?
A. I may have spoken with Mr Zubair or the other
postmasters, but not in detail. But I know that I am
responsible for everything.
Q. The next document I think you were shown and signed is
at {E3/102/3}, something called ARS 110. Do you see
that document?
A. Yes.
Q. This is basically you accepting you have received
a whole range of documents there. Including, we can
see, as well as the operations manuals at the top, under
Horizon at the bottom, the Horizon User Guide, Balancing
Guide, et cetera and you have signed that. And you have
signed that because you were satisfied that those
documents had been handed over to you, is that fair?
A. Those were put in the (inaudible) and they show these
are the documents and you just sign it. They checked
with the old postmaster, not with me.
Q. But, as I understand it, you have signed this as
recognising that those things are present in
the Post Office and are now under your control?
A. The auditors who came, they always assume that they are
working on your behalf and you trust them.
Q. In terms of on your case, I think you say that the
contract may well have been formed on this day, the day
of appointment, rather than at an earlier time. Were
your expectations at this stage the same as the
expectations at the earlier stage I mentioned, namely,
Horizon would be reasonably reliable and that you would
obtain the training necessary for Horizon? Were they
still your expectations at this later time?
A. Yes, everybody expect this one, that ...
Q. And that the Helpline would provide you with any
necessary assistance? That was your expectation?
A. Everybody expect that the Helpline would provide ...
Q. In terms of the chronology, because you apply for
Crossflatts, the second business, don't you? So
meanwhile, while all that is going on, you have your
Crossflatts invitation to interview on 3 August.
A. Yes.
Q. We were just dealing a moment ago with 8 September, the
appointment, for Cottingley, and during this stage
obviously you are having also the Crossflatts
application. Do you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. Just following that story up and catching up, if we go
to {E3/78/1} we will see the start of the documentation
in relation to that appointment. So we see at {E3/78/1}
3 August 2006. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. The letter. In exactly the same form as the letter in
relation to Cottingley we looked at earlier, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would have read this letter presumably,
including the brief summary of conditions of
subpostmasters contract we see at the bottom of
{E3/78/1} being referred to?
A. I can't remember.
Q. If we go over the page to {E3/78/3} we see the summary
again, which is familiar because we looked at it
a moment ago.
A. Again I don't say I did not receive it, but I did not go
through it, all this paperwork.
Q. So on this occasion you are not saying you didn't
receive it, but you are saying that you are not sure you
went through it? Have I recalled that accurately?
A. The same thing I am telling before: I can't say I did
not receive it but I can't remember that I have gone
through with these all -- these letters.
Q. Because Post Office's case obviously is by this stage
you have actually got the full contract from your
Cottingley application. In terms of the chronology you
have got that at the time you receive this letter.
In terms of the interview on Crossflatts, that was
15 August 2006 I think, and without going through all
the same questions again, can I put it to you that the
interview on Crossflatts followed exactly the same
routine as was followed on Cottingley? It was the same
type of interview, you went through the same materials,
and information was given to you in the form that I have
suggested.
A. Then I went for the Crossflatts interview. That took
a very short while. And as they knew that I am already
selected they asked how you are going to run Crossflatts
Post Office? And I told the gentleman that Mr Munir
Ahmed would work as the manager in Crossflatts and
I will work full-time in Cottingley Post Office. And
that was not a very long -- it was a very, very short
interview.
Q. In terms of the Crossflatts process, taking that
forward. {E3/83/1}, please. This is the letter sent to
you, although it has the wrong date on it, it appears,
of 7 April, but this is the letter, the substance of the
letter sent to you, I suggest, on 16 August when you
were told you were successful. Yes? It's the same form
as we saw in relation to Cottingley.
A. Yes.
Q. "... delighted to inform you that your appointment will
be subject to ..."
Et cetera.
A. Yes.
Q. Same points on appendix 1 and 2. Same points when you
go to {E3/83/5}. This time it is paragraph 4 rather
than 5 of the conditions of appointment. This time at
paragraph 4, if you look over the page at {E3/83/6}, you
have various painting duties within certain time limits,
do you see that? And new flooring there as well.
A. Yes.
Q. And to provide a branch line, et cetera. This included,
as it suggests it does, a copy of the subpostmasters
contract.
A. I don't say I did not see it, but I can't remember --
Q. Is it possible you did receive a copy of the
subpostmasters contract?
A. I can't say.
Q. But it is possible you did?
A. I can't remember as I told you before.
Q. Then we go to {E3/107/1}, following the story through,
indicating you have been successful -- this is
20 September now -- and arranging a transfer. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. So dealing now with that transfer, I think it was on
11 October 2006, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That transfer mimicked, did it not, the transfer
unsurprisingly, some little time earlier, of Cottingley,
namely, you have the appointment document, you have the
Serv 135 document, and you have the ARS 110 in relation
to the documents. The same three documents that you
signed in relation to Cottingley, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Post appointment, if we move to that stage, the
businesses weren't as profitable as you had expected.
Is that broadly fair?
A. Yes.
Q. So you decided on 6 November to give three months'
notice to terminate the Crossflatts business because you
found a potential purchaser. Is that right?
A. There was no potential purchaser but Mr Ahmed was
expecting to go back in accountancy at that time. We
were not making enough profit in Crossflatts.
Q. I see. We see the letter recording your resignation, if
we go to {E3/120/1}, from Post Office to yourself
saying:
"Thank you for your resignation dated 6 November ...
giving notice ..."
Second paragraph:
"I note that you have a prospective purchaser for
your private retail business/premise who is also
interested in applying to be the new subpostmaster ..."
That is right, the understanding in this letter?
That was what was going on here?
A. I can't remember this letter but I don't have any
purchaser. If I had a purchaser I have sold the
Post Office. I think this is a standard letter they
send to everybody and they send to me as well and I did
not go through.
Q. Are you saying --
A. I can't remember, I can't remember firstly this. But
I think this is a standard letter they have got in
the system and they sent to me as well but I don't have
any purchaser.
Q. At the time you gave notice, did you have a potential
purchaser in mind? Had you contacted or was there
someone you had in mind you were going to sell it to?
A. You can't sell to somebody. First subpostmaster has to
give resign to the Post Office, they publish the
Post Office in their website, and then somebody come and
visit it if they show interest. Then the listing
postmaster accepting -- this is the procedure which is
adopted by the Post Office which --
Q. I understand what you are saying. But if you have
someone, say a friend or someone who wants to be
a postmaster, whilst it is not guaranteed you could
transfer it to him, because he might not be a suitable
person, but assuming he is a suitable person then you
can have him in mind when giving your notice,
am I right?
A. Can you repeat your question, please.
Q. What Post Office is saying here, rightly or wrongly, is
they understood you to have a prospective purchaser, so
someone who was interested in buying, yes? What I am
saying to you is that is perfectly possible you did have
a prospective purchaser, you give notice and, as you
say, that prospective purchaser has to go through the
Post Office system, and if they are acceptable then they
can be your purchaser, yes?
A. I can't remember. As far as I can remember, that Mr --
we were not making any profits and Mr Munir Ahmed, he
decided to go back to accountancy at that time.
Q. You gave three months' notice to terminate?
A. Yes.
Q. Because that was a right you had under the contract with
Post Office?
A. I can't remember it. But I gave -- as far as I know,
I gave resignation and they gave me a specific date that
you will be employed for this period of time.
Q. And you understood at the time that was reciprocal. So
you can give them three months' notice and they can give
you three months' notice, yes?
A. I don't know about this. I don't think Post Office can
give somebody three months' notice, as far as I know.
Postmaster has to give resign, as far as I know.
I don't know about ...
Q. So this was in relation to Crossflatts. Then if we go
to {E3/121/1} in relation to Cottingley, on 10 July you
give three months' notice in relation to Cottingley as
well, don't you?
A. Yes, I gave.
Q. We see that, as I say, at {E3/121/1} and that is
a further three months' notice you are giving, yes?
A. Yes. It's not further, this is for Cottingley
Post Office. This is not any further notice.
Q. Sorry?
A. This is for Cottingley Post Office, this is not for
Crossflatts.
Q. That is what I am saying. I have shown you the
Crossflatts one at tab 120 and I have just shown you the
Cottingley one.
A. Yes.
Q. At {E3/121/1}, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Going to the deficits in your branch, if we go please to
paragraph 113 {C1/3/19}, cast your eye over
paragraph 113 for me. The scratch card problem.
A. Yes.
Q. Correct me if I am wrong, but there was a problem with
one of your assistants mixing up the stock in and stock
out buttons?
A. Yes.
Q. In relation to scratch cards, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You say I think at paragraph 118 of your witness
statement on {C1/3/21}, that until you had the problem
with lottery scratch cards:
"... explained above ..."
The problem with lottery scratch cards:
"I wouldn't say I otherwise had problems with my
accounts on Horizon."
Yes?
So basically Horizon was okay, but we had a problem
with scratch cards. Is that a fair summary?
A. But she was putting the scratch card wrongly in Horizon.
Q. But the problem with the scratch cards is created by the
assistants mixing up?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. There was then an audit on 10 August 2009 in
Cottingley?
A. Yes.
Q. We see that at {E3/123/1}. On 10 August 2009 the
auditors went in and conducted an audit?
A. Yes.
Q. And they found a deficit, a shortage in the branch of
£4,878.36, of which 5,000 -- that's the net figure, but
they had found a difference in stock figures of some
£5,117, we can see on that page, can't we?
A. Yes.
Q. If we look at the comments on the audit report over the
page at {E3/123/2}, second paragraph:
"During the audit it was quickly established that
the office was showing large amounts of lottery scratch
cards and on counting it was found to be short by some
£5,000 approx. At this point I spoke with Mr Sabir to
establish the cause of the shortage and was told that
the error relates back to 2007."
Then you refer to a letter and things of that kind.
Then we go through what they did, they telephoned
et cetera.
I think you would agree that a deficit of £4,878 is
a serious matter, do you agree with that?
A. No, I didn't agree. I told them everything what was the
problem.
Q. Do you agree that a shortfall of £4,878 on your account
is a serious matter?
A. The money was in the safe, this is not -- have you read
all the statements which I submitted to support this
one?
Q. Do you accept in principle a deficit of £4,878, if one
is found in your accounts, is a serious matter? Just
generally.
A. If that was due to my mistake, that is acceptable. If
I have done the fraud, that is not acceptable. So when
auditors came there, when they found out this
discrepancy, I showed them in my notebook, this is the
reference number. I spoke with the Helpline, and I also
showed the receipts in which she was doing the mistakes.
The girl, she has also been through lottery training.
But what happened, instead when she remmed in the -- it
mostly comes in cards 50 and 25. Instead of clicking
rem in, she was clicking rem out. And this was the
surplus according every day, 50, 60. But when we do end
of the day balance, we can't check that day what is the
problem. It can be postage stamp or anything else. And
because I thought -- I gave her training but I started
investigating what is the problem.
When I saw that the scratch cards are every day
coming over, I asked her "How do you rem in in the
system?" And when she showed me the button, she said
instead of remming in, she was clicking remming out.
And so for that thing, if end of the day she remmed in
50 scratch cards and we sold 10, so at end of the day it
was coming about £110 surplus. But when I found out
this one, this has been going on maybe -- I have to go
Wednesday to Crossflatts for the balance, and she was
covering behind me at around -- at that period of time
this has been happening.
When I found that, and after that suddenly the
Post Office showed in their system that I am short so
much stock. I rang the Helpline, I requested that "This
is the problem I have, and can you please let me know --
I have got money in the safe written on those that this
is the spare cash, and if somebody can please help me
from lottery side so I can balance the stock".
I -- I have already resigned from the Post Office
branch as well, and if I have found somebody I have to
balance everything.
So when they came, I showed the details, the
receipts in which she was used to rem out instead of
remming in. I said that this was the problem. I could
not find how many scratch cards I am under, so can you
please ask somebody -- I told the Helpline to ring me,
and if they tell me, the money are already in the safe
and I can balance my stock. But nobody rang me after
that. Then suddenly they came and they suspend me.
Q. Mr Sabir, what I want to do is concentrate on the
accounting. How you accounted for this difficulty.
Yes? You are an assistant accountant, you must have
realised the importance to account for this matter
properly. Do you agree with that?
A. I was accounting every day properly.
Q. As at 10 August when the auditors came in, you were
telling the Post Office through your signed accounts
that you had £4,878 more in stock at your Cottingley
branch than in fact you did have. Do you accept that?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. Yes. As at 10 August you were telling Post Office
through your signed accounts that you had £4,878 more in
stock at your branch in relation to scratch cards than
in fact you did have?
A. I have spare cash in the --
Q. In terms of your accounting to Post Office ... It was a
net figure. The gross figure in terms of stock
obviously is the £5,117.40, but you were significantly
in your signed accounts inaccurately accounting for the
stock you actually had. You were telling them you had
£4,000 plus, more in stock than in fact you did.
A. I have already raised this complaint before signing the
accounts, and if we don't sign the accounts and don't
roll over you can't clear the next day. And when the
auditors came on the spot he rang somewhere,
I don't know, he rang on his mobile and he came to know
in five minutes how many scratch cards are short. And
we, as subpostmaster, we should have got some sort of
help if we are struggling, we contact the Post Office
and they resolve our problem. This was my concern.
Q. Mr Sabir, this was Post Office's money you were
misaccounting for. You were saying you had 5,000-odd
more scratch cards than you did. There's nothing
complicated about it. From the accounting point of view
that is what you were telling Post Office, yes?
A. The cash was in the safe. The complaint was already
made --
Q. But the cash in the safe isn't reflected -- sorry, can I
ask the question. The cash in the safe isn't reflected
in your reports you are accounting to Post Office, is
it? It's not part --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, paragraph 113 deals with
a degree of communication to the Post Office about this
problem.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So when you are saying to the witness
"accounting to Post Office", you are going to have to be
precise, please. Because as I understand paragraph 113,
that pre-dates the audit.
Is that right?
A. Yes, I showed the reference number from that, my Lord.
This is the reference number. I requested them:
please --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I understand that. Mr Cavender is now
going to put his point to you about the way in which you
were accounting for that.
MR CAVENDER: Your earlier communication had been almost two
years earlier, hadn't it? 2007, wasn't it, when you
raised the point?
A. The point I raised in 2008, later 2008. The problem
started maybe in 2007. Because if she was activating
one bundle of cards, that is about £50 worth. And then
I -- later on I came to know why the surplus cash is
coming every day. I was taking out and putting in the
safe. And when I came to know that she is doing this
mistake, then I rang the Post Office Helpline, "Please
can somebody from lottery office ring me or come to my
office and resolve this problem. This is the problem
I have", and I showed the reference number for the
details, "this is the reference number of the card".
But they said "We don't believe you. We have to suspend
you".
Q. When you do your monthly accounting you have to declare
to Post Office your stock figures, don't you, including
your stock for scratch cards?
A. Yes.
Q. When you do that you make a certification, is this
right, that says:
"I certify that the contents of this balancing and
trading statement is an accurate reflection of the cash
and stock at this branch."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So when they see your stock declaration for scratch
cards that you had made in the previous months, it would
be wrong to the tune of 5,000, wouldn't it? The stock
of scratch cards you were declaring would be wrong by
some 5,000, yes, do you accept that?
A. The stock was short, but I have got the cash in the safe
and I have already made the complaint about that, that
this is the problem I am facing, and if you don't roll
over the trading period it don't allow us to work next
trading day. So I can't close the Post Office.
Q. So why couldn't you simply have put the cash in?
Because on the day of the audit, or soon after, the cash
was put into the system, wasn't it?
A. They did put the cash in the system.
Q. Why didn't you do that beforehand? If you had this cash
that has erroneously been generated in the way it has
because of a stock problem, why didn't you simply put it
into the system?
A. I was waiting for somebody to ring me and tell me what
is the actual figure I need to put in the system,
whatever I -- coming above that was going in the
Post Office system, not in my pocket or anywhere else.
And they took the cash out of --
Q. When do you say the first time you raised this problem
with the Helpline, et cetera? 113 {C1/3/19} isn't
clear, to me at least, as to when you say you raised
this. What is the timing of that?
A. When I raised the complaint? I don't have that diary
with me, but I gave them the reference and the date as
well. I can't remember that one.
Q. Because in --
A. I showed them the receipts as well which she did wrong.
Instead of remming in, she used to do remming out.
I gave all these receipts as well. Because I was not
aware for how long this has been happening, that is why
I was just waiting that if somebody from lottery,
Post Office lottery side ring me and tell me: you need
to put -- balance this stock, and then I can balance
everything.
Q. Go to {E3/123/2}, the audit report, they refer in
the second paragraph on that page to you showing the
auditor a letter received in October 2008. In relation
to this. Do you see that? That would be some nine
months before --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Whereabouts, Mr Cavender?
MR CAVENDER: Second paragraph, my Lord. Last line:
"Mr Sabir did show me a letter received from the
Post Office on October 2008 ..."
That's give or take nine months earlier than the
audit. So how many declarations of the sort I have read
to you would you have made misdeclaring your stock?
Presumably eight or nine, because you did it monthly.
A. I can't remember this one, but I think this letter was
issued not just to me, it may be the case it has been
issued to all the Post Offices who are doing lottery
cards.
Q. When do you say you first contacted Post Office about
this stock problem in relation to scratch cards? When
in the chronological run? You have the audit in
August 2009. The audit report says you say this error
relates back to 2007. So presumably it had been a year
or more earlier you had reported this to the Helpline,
is that what you are saying?
A. No, I think you did not understand what I told you how
this has been happening. This has been happening over
months and months. She may be activating one or two in
a week and the surplus will be about £40/£50. So
whatever was coming we are putting in the safe. When --
I can't remember everything, but when Post Office on
their side, when they did the balance, the stock, how
much scratch cards -- I don't know how their system
works, that is why I was asking to somebody, when they
showed in their system that I am short of so many
scratch cards, that time I can remember I rang
straightaway to Helpline, "Please ask somebody to ring
me and I can resolve this problem".
As and when they put stock in my system that "You
are negative in stock", I state "Please, I have got cash
in the system. I was already finding this problem and
if somebody please ring me and resolve this problem".
Q. Because if you had put that money -- the £5,000-odd for
5,000 scratch cards into the system, the Horizon system,
that would have shown a surplus, wouldn't it, because
the system then would show you have 5,000 more cards
than you really have and the cash for them, you create
a surplus, and that would have triggered an audit. And
you knew that which is why you didn't put it in the
accounts. Is that right?
A. I did not catch your question. Can you repeat your
question again, please.
Q. If you put the cash in your safe, your £5,000-odd into
the Horizon system, yes? You'd acknowledged it existed.
Then that would have created a surplus?
A. Yes.
Q. And if Post Office had seen the surplus of £5,000-odd,
that would have triggered an audit, wouldn't it?
Post Office see you running a surplus of £5,000,
they would want to know what is going on here and they
would have an audit, wouldn't they?
A. I reported to Post Office soon after I received the
stock is showing short in my system. I straight away
reported to them, "Can please somebody ring me and tell
me how much cards I am short. I have got money in
the safe. I can put the money in and balance my stock".
Q. How long do you say you let this run for? How many
months did you mis-state your stock of scratch cards?
A. When they updated the system, it may be maximum two
months, when they updated the system, when they showed
in the system that I should have so much cards, and that
was not balancing with my cards, that is why I rang the
Helpline, "Please tell somebody, tell me exactly how
much I am short with the cards, because I am struggling
with this thing, and if they ring me I put the cash in
and balance the scratch cards straightaway".
Q. So you are saying that it was a couple of months before,
and yet the audit report at page {E3/123/2} says you
told them the error dates back to 2007.
A. I can't remember and this was not happening first -- it
may have started from that date, maybe £40/£50 every
day, every week. But the main problem occurred when
they showed in the system, Horizon system, that I am
short with the stock, and I rang them straightaway,
Helpline, "Please, I have got this problem with the
scratch cards. If somebody ring me and tell me how much
scratch cards I need to put in the system to balance my
stock". And nobody did ring me back, and I think they
came after a couple of weeks and suspended me.
Q. Because there was no need to falsify your accounts in
this way and mis-state your stock, was there? All you
had to do was put the cash in and in fact that is what
happened.
Look at the bottom of {E3/123/2}, part of this audit
report. Cash was in fact -- actually a balancing cheque
was put in to make good the error. So you didn't need
to mis-state your accounts in this way, did you?
A. Which I requested before. I did not falsify anything.
This was a genuine mistake, and what I'm -- what my
concerns are, if an auditor came on the spot, if he knew
in five minutes how much actual stock I should have, so
subpostmasters should have this sort of access so these
things don't happen. This was my concerns.
Q. You were an accountant, you were in a particular
position to know the importance of how you accounted for
things, leaving aside the cause of the error at this
stage, and instead of properly accounting for your
scratch cards, as the audit report indicates, there was
a discrepancy on stock, on audit, of some £5,000-odd.
And that happened, even on your case, for a couple of
months, and in fact according to the audit report in
the timing maybe for a lot longer.
A. But this was the thing which I found there, Post Office
did not find before. Because I am accountant, that
is -- that is why I found this on my side. Nobody rang
me from Post Office. Nobody contact me from Post Office
to resolve this problem.
So as regard accountants, we have to put the figure
what are told to us. We can't falsify information for
somebody or anybody else, you know.
Q. But that is exactly what you were doing. Look at
{E3/123/2} at the top. Look at the second paragraph.
What did you do in the audit? Was it complicated? No.
"During the audit it was quickly established that
the office was showing large amounts of lottery scratch
cards and on counting count, it was found to be short by
5,000 approx."
So all you had to do, which in fact was done, is to
put the cash in representing the shortage of the stock
you were carrying. There was no magic to this, was
there?
A. How can I put the cash in if I don't know how much
scratch cards I am short?
Q. You count them. What you do is what happened in the
audit --
A. This was the main problem. I told that they were wrong,
entries that were done in the Horizon system. The
Horizon system is not designed by me and is complicated.
As we were told at the training, this is best system we
have got, we have got the best Helpline in the world,
and we will be always alongside you if you have any
problem. But when you go practically on the ground
everything is the other way round.
Q. It's very straightforward. You were obliged to declare
the true stock figure, that is all you had to do, and
you didn't. You refused to do it. And you declared it
was true and honest and it wasn't. All you had to do
was count, as the auditor did {E3/123/2}, count how many
you were short and put that in the Horizon in the till?
A. I requested the Helpline before the auditors came. If
auditors came before, and if they have found that I have
not done anything, then this was my mistake. But I have
already requested Helpline, "Please ask lottery people
to ring me. I can resolve this problem".
Realistically, I was doing sometimes Wednesday two/three
hours off in the afternoon, and since I made this
complaint, I used to go straightaway back to office and
I advised my staff, "If anybody ring from lottery
section from Post Office, please call me straight away,
I want to -- because I want to get rid from this problem
I have".
Q. Mr Sabir, were you capable of counting the scratch cards
in your branch at the time of the audit and comparing
the number you counted with the number at that date you
had declared to Post Office? Were you capable of doing
that exercise?
A. That was the difference which was coming on and I --
that difference I want to -- that is why I report before
they came to my branch. I reported before that date.
Q. You don't need to report. What you need to do is count
them, find the difference, and get the cash,
Post Office's cash, and put it in the till. Why didn't
you do that simple thing? Why didn't --
A. The cash was in the safe. That was not in the till.
Q. And it should have been in the till. It should have
been in the system?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, I'm not sure that is
an accurate reflection of what the witness's evidence is
about what was wrong with the scratch cards.
Was your assistant -- as I understand your
explanation, and please tell me if I am wrong, when your
assistant was entering in the scratch cards she was
pressing a wrong button.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So instead of in, she was pressing out.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Did you have a separate record of how
many scratch cards you should have or is that
the information you were asking --
A. This was information I was requesting from the lottery,
"Just give me the figure, I put in the system, and then
I balance the -- "
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Did you have any other way of getting --
A. No --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just wait until I have finished asking
the question. Did you have any other way of finding out
how many scratch cards you should have to compare
against how many you did have without that information,
from Post Office?
A. No, we had to speak with the lottery Helpline to get
that correct figure.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That was my understanding of the
information.
A. That is why I rang to Helpline.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By all means, Mr Cavender, pursue it
further if you would like to.
MR CAVENDER: The simple point that still arises, though, is
you were -- you were in a position at the time of the
audit to accurately declare the real stock in your
branch, whatever that was. You were capable of counting
the number of scratch cards that were in fact in your
branch, yes? You were capable of doing that?
A. I was not able to find out how many scratch cards should
I have and how many I have. This was the enquiry I was
doing with the Helpline. This was my problem. A very
simple problem. Money I have in the safe. I was asking
"Give me the figure". I put in the system and my stock
will be balanced then. If we don't sign the -- the
monthly accounting -- accounts we can't roll over in
the next month, and if you don't roll over we can't
operate the system.
Q. I think even you would accept the certification you put
on your monthly balancing accounts was inaccurate, at
the very least? It didn't accurately reflect the cash
and stock at your branch, did it?
A. Yes, that was not right. That is why I am ringing the
Helpline to resolve this problem.
Q. So why are you signing certification which you know to
be wrong?
A. We can't roll over unless -- we can't run the branch
unless we roll over the previous trading period.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, I have no further questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. Mr Green, do you have any
re-examination?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much, Mr Sabir. That is
the end of your evidence. Thank you very much for
coming.
(The witness withdrew)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Would you like to start at 10 o'clock
tomorrow?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, no. Mr Sabir finishing today was the
target.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That was the milestone.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So if there is no need to do that then
we won't. We can always catch up a bit of time again at
the end of tomorrow if we need to. Thank you all very
much. There is no housekeeping or anything? No.
Thank you all very much. 10.30 am tomorrow.
(4.30 pm)
(The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Tuesday,
13 November 2018)
INDEX
MS PAMELA JOAN STUBBS (continued) ....................1
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER .................1
(continued)
Re-examination by MR GREEN ......................67
MR MOHAMMAD SABIR (sworn) ...........................75
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN ................75
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER ................76
(10.30 am)
MS PAMELA JOAN STUBBS (continued)
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER (continued)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just two very quick points before you
start.
Last week I asked if a custom bundle could be
created, if I did it internally with Opus for documents
per day. Has that -- on my Opus as of very early this
morning it hadn't appeared. It might be that it is in
hand. It doesn't matter just yet.
MR GREEN: We will check and make sure it is done.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. Then the other point is just
a reminder which I am sure you know about anyway. On
Wednesday of this week is when we have to stop at
3 o'clock.
Right, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Good morning, Ms Stubbs.
A. Good morning.
Q. We are about to move on to deficits operation of your
branch more generally. Before I do, can I ask you a few
questions about errors in branches generally and
supervision.
Would it be fair to say, in the years you were
a subpostmistress, that the Post Office staff were very
rarely physically present in your branch during normal
operations?
A. Could you say that again.
Q. That during all the years you were a postmistress,
Post Office staff were very rarely physically in your
branch during the time of your operations?
A. No, I wouldn't say that at all.
Q. On a day-to-day basis, when you open up at 9 o'clock and
go through to 4 or 5, generally you and your assistants
are the people in the branch doing the transactions?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And the Post Office staff are not there, they are
not able to see what you are doing in terms of selling
stamps, in terms of taking cash, in terms of remming out
cash?
A. That depends at what times that was happening. Because
for the majority of the time that I was in charge of the
branch we were a two position Post Office, which meant
there were usually somebody else in the Post Office
branch with me.
Q. But it wasn't a member of Post Office staff, was it?
A. You mean Post Office as in the wider range of
Post Office?
Q. Exactly. In terms of supervisory, in terms of the audit
people, the Post Office management?
A. We didn't have any Post Office management with us at
all.
Q. Exactly. I am just --
A. I wasn't sure what you meant by Post Office staff, that
was all.
Q. Okay. What I am talking about is supervisory staff,
audit people, other people from the management aren't
there. You're running the branch on your own with your
assistants. That is the obvious point I'm --
A. Yes, I understand you now.
Q. Okay. So when you count cash or hand cash to customers,
Post Office doesn't know how much you are handing to
those customers, does it?
A. I presume not since they are many, many miles away.
Q. And if you handed the wrong amount of money to them, or
took the wrong amount of money in, Post Office has no
way of knowing that?
A. No, I presume not.
Q. If you enter the wrong figure into Horizon, higher or
lower, again Post Office has no way of knowing that is
what you have done?
A. No, they wouldn't.
Q. If one of your assistants was dishonest and took
a couple of hundred pounds out of the till, Post Office
would have no way of knowing that?
A. Post Office itself would have no way of knowing but
I would.
Q. You may or may not, depending on whether you were in the
branch at the time.
A. Or even at the end of the day because I always, except
on the rare occasions when I wasn't in the branch at
all, I was always aware of the overnight cash and
roughly how much money had come in, if you like, in
bulk, and £200 is a bulk amount.
Q. But obviously if assistants take money, put it in their
bag or pocket and leave, you don't search them, do you?
You have no way --
A. No, no.
Q. So just with those quite basic, obvious things out of
the way, at paragraph 88 and following of your witness
statement you deal with what I am going to refer to as
the portacabin losses, ie those that commence really
when you moved into the portacabin.
Do you have a hard copy of your witness statement?
A. No, I prefer the screen. I find the hard copy quite
hard to turn over.
Q. Yes. It's {C1/2/21}.
A. Thank you.
Q. Paragraph 88 is, as I read it, where you start dealing
with the portacabin losses.
If we go to the page before that {C1/2/20},
paragraph 87, we see from that that you had run the
branch for some eight years, I make it, with Horizon,
without any particular problems with Horizon, is that
right?
A. Apart from the period when I had power outages, when
certainly the balance issues were quite spectacular. It
was pretty much like being on a choppy sea. It would be
up one week, down the next, and I was having, I think
the maximum, up to 36 power outages in one day.
Q. So leaving that this one side, the electricity supply
thing which magically -- or you say magically seemed to
sort itself out, or maybe an electrician sorted it out.
Leaving that aside, up to this point of the portacabin
losses you had no particular problems with Horizon, is
that right --
A. Not really, no.
Q. What I am saying is fair, that you didn't have any
particular problems with it?
A. No.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: As in you agree?
A. Sorry --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is just if counsel is saying you
didn't have any particular problems, and you say no,
I assume --
A. No, I didn't have -- I agree with what you're saying.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You are agreeing.
MR CAVENDER: I am obliged.
In terms of -- before we go to the specifics, you
employed up to about six assistants, is that right?
A. Over that nine-year period.
Q. Yes. Do they change over time regularly?
A. Not really.
Q. You had some people --
A. I had a couple of staff when I first took over who
stayed a long time until they decided to emigrate, and
obviously couldn't work. From then on, I think staff
lasted perhaps two or three years at a time.
Q. There were errors in the branch over the years, I could
point you to various examples, where you did have
difficulties in terms of money going missing,
deficiencies, things of that kind.
A. Yes, I had some shortages and I had some surpluses, and
I dealt with those by and large by the means that we
have heard about before where you have an envelope in
the safe and you keep a note of surpluses and put the
money in. If there was a shortage then you made a note
of that on the outside of the envelope, removed the
money, and put it into the Post Office cash.
Q. In terms of these deficiencies we are talking about at
the moment, this was due to error of you or your staff,
were they?
A. I think the largest of them was actually my own error.
Q. Can we look at a few of them so we see what we are
talking about. {E2/6/1} please.
A. I have no idea what this one is, I am sorry, I don't
recollect. It is there, and I know it is there because
I have signed it. I actually can't remember what that
was.
Q. You have a shortage of £393 and then a surplus of £529,
it seems.
A. Yes.
Q. But was that typical of the kind of problems you had on
an ongoing basis?
A. No, not on an ongoing basis. This was typical of
the sort of shortage and surplus that I had around the
time I was experiencing the power outages.
Q. Go to {E2/9/1}, another such example of the £578.02
shortage.
A. Is this not the same one as the previous one?
Q. I'm not sure it is. We haven't gone into huge detail
and analysed them. You may be right but I don't think
so unless you can point to something which --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we go back to the other one.
MR CAVENDER: {E2/6/1} --
A. The £529.23, this was --
Q. The £529 is a surplus, remember and this is a deficit.
So seems to be a different number, but I'm happy for you
to tell me --
A. One is November, one is July.
Q. Exactly.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Are these both pre-Horizon?
A. I cannot exactly remember when Horizon came in. It was
about the time that Horizon would have been put in the
branch.
MR CAVENDER: On the same theme, I don't want to spend too
much time on this. If you go in the same bundle
{E2/14/1}, this is 5 April now 2001, a letter from you
outlining the number of three separate cash shortages.
367, the robbery --
A. These were definitely -- this letter was written after
the power outages, so I would assume that those, the
shortages and surpluses, were due to the power problem
I had.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Why don't you just read it first.
A. I have read the last paragraph which reminded me what
I said. (Pause)
MR CAVENDER: I think you can see from {E2/14/1} that this
was during the time of your electric problems.
A. Yes, it was.
Q. That is also supported by a document my learned friend
asked me to take you to at {E2/10/1}, power failures.
I don't think I need to ask you more questions about
that.
In terms of {E2/24/1}, this lists a whole number of
transaction corrections over a significant period. So
{E2/24/1}, again I'm not going to take you through all
of these, but if you go to the first page, I'm not
sure -- in mine they are not actually paginated, I'm not
sure if they are on the electronic bundle?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We are not there yet, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: {E2/24/1}, please, which should be a table.
(Pause)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We will just pause for a second.
How are we getting on? (Pause)
I'll tell you what I am going to do, rather than put
people under pressure with everyone waiting expectantly,
I will rise for five minutes. So if you can get the
equipment sorted out I will come back down at ten to.
(10.44 am)
(A short break)
(10.52 am)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We have an issue.
MR CAVENDER: Apparently somebody from Opus is on their way,
we are told.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Someone is on their way? All right.
I'll tell you what we will do. Mrs Stubbs, you may
as well leave the witness box. I will rise, and if
someone comes and gets me when it is sorted out.
I don't want whoever it is to feel under ridiculous
pressure and then crash it again in 10 minutes, so take
enough time to set it up properly for the day, and then
we will see how much time we have lost and we will catch
up somewhere.
All right, Mr Cavender?
MR CAVENDER: Thank you.
(10.56 am)
(A short break)
(11.07 am)
MR CAVENDER: Mrs Stubbs, we were looking at {E2/14/1}, and
some of transcript seems not to have -- the system went
down during that discussion.
So if we go back to {E2/14/1} briefly, do you
remember that was the letter I think you were reading?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. The last paragraph talks about magical skills and
electrical problems.
These were the type of problems that you had in
April 2001, is that fair?
A. Yes, that is probably fair to say, yes.
Q. Then going on in time to {E2/24/1}. This is later in
time now. This is a document of transaction corrections
from 2006 onwards. So this is much later. Your
electricity supply has been sorted out by now, that was
2001, so some years later.
If you go to the third page of that, the top of the
it, left-hand column, the date is 14 March 2008.
Row number? I don't have row numbers on mine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Where do you want us to look?
MR CAVENDER: It's the 14 March entry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: On the left-hand side, 2008. Yes, row
17.
MR CAVENDER: If you look at that page, we can see
a transaction to the right, batch control voucher,
12 January. It shows one cheque of £74.88. This amount
has not been claimed through Horizon and remmed out,
therefore £74.88 is allowed. Evidence sent by post.
And then on the 31st of that month we see on
25 February remmed out is a total of £1,470 by your
office but amount sent and received was £1,900, so £488
wasn't remmed out.
Then going down to 2 June 2008, we have value
£12,500 booked out through Horizon but not collected.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which was the date of the third entry?
MR CAVENDER: 2 June 2008.
There are many others, I could go through them all.
My question is simply: is this typical of the kind of
errors that you had in branch caused by you or your
assistants at this time?
A. These I believe were -- at least the first two were
batch control vouchers which were cheques which had to
be remmed out after ... After being totalled at the end
of the day, they were then remmed out as batch control
vouchers and went out in the red and white striped
envelopes to batch control centre.
I did I believe at that time have one assistant who
seemed to have a mental block. She would rem them out
possibly once and then rem them out again and again,
and I found out from the Helpline how I could reverse
these to bring them back to normal, and it is possible
that I didn't actually bring them completely back.
The third one -- I don't know if I would say they
were normal, we are --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you tell me what "remmed out" is
shorthand for.
A. Remitted out.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Remitted out.
A. So you can remit out money and -- you can remit out
cash, but at the end of each day you totalled cheques,
added them up in branch, totalled them, and then in
order to clear them off the system you had to remit
them. I'm not quite sure where they were remitted to
but it was a requirement that you remit them. And she
seemed to have a mental block with this one, which was
why I took to standing over her quite often to make sure
they were correct.
MR CAVENDER: So leaving the errors behind. Obviously there
are many others -- I'm not taking you to all of them,
I am just giving examples to you. In your witness
statement, paragraph 88 and following {C1/2/21}, is
where you start at 11 November 2009 with what I have
called the portacabin losses. I am going to that area
now.
A. We seem to have jumped again. I have a witness
statement of ...
Q. Can we go please to {C1/2/21}. What you do in
the paragraphs following paragraph 88 is summarise your
shortfalls during the period from December 2009 through
to May 2010. I am going to summarise just so you
understand the context of my question.
So you have shortfalls of various amounts: in
December of £2,500-odd, in January of £9,000-odd,
February £8,400, April 2010 £7,900. You then give
notice in May of 2010 --
A. I am taking your word for that because that is not what
I have on screen.
Q. On 15 May you have a shortfall of £5,000-odd, on 25 May
a shortfall of £3,200. I'm just going through order of
magnitude --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think, Mr Cavender, the witness thinks
you are taking her through her witness statement.
What Mr Cavender is doing, he is just reading out to
you the figures and the dates over that eight-month
period.
Is that --
MR CAVENDER: That is exactly right.
What you get to is, from December 2009 to May 2010,
a shortfall of some £28,000-odd during the portacabin
period.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Does that sound about right?
A. That sounds about right.
MR CAVENDER: In relation to losses, before we go into those
particular losses, in terms of procedure for losses, you
knew the procedure was to settle centrally and dispute
it?
A. No, at that time I didn't. When it started I didn't.
Because the first two, the one on 11 November was
an apparent shortage of £388.88, and I was told that
I ought to pay it because it was probably a piece of
paperwork that had got lost in that move and it would
turn up as a transaction correction. So I paid that in
cash.
Q. Shall we look at what happened in relation to
the £9,000-odd one, the January one. That is when we
get a bit more light shed on this. So it's {E2/40/1},
this is the £9,033 one and this is 27 January 2010.
It says at the bottom, I think my learned friend put
this in opening:
"This statement excludes any items currently in
dispute ..."
Or it is meant to.
We then have your response which is at tab {E2/42/1}
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We are going to have to increase the
size of that, please.
A. It's okay, I can read it. Unless you can't, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I can't actually.
MR CAVENDER: Fifth paragraph down:
"When I received the last reminder I rang the
accounts office and was told that unless the matter had
been reported as in dispute they could do nothing.
I was unaware that this had not been reported as a
dispute ..."
In relation to that conversation you had, is it
possible that when you first raised the matter with the
Helpline you raised it as a query and asked about it and
didn't formally say "I want to raise a formal dispute
about this amount", is that possible?
A. That is entirely possible. I wrongly assumed that if
I rang the Helpline and said "I have got this shortage,
I don't think it is right, what can I do about it",
I thought that automatically meant that I was disputing
it, because I didn't understand it, I didn't believe it
was right. But it wasn't until the £9,033 one came up
that the words: you have to actually declare it in
dispute. If you don't say those words it doesn't count,
and that is when I discovered what to do.
Q. At tab 42 we have that letter. If we go to {E2/44/1} we
have at the top of that page the response from
Post Office where they say:
"I confirm this matter is being investigated so we
have put the request for payment on hold until
a conclusion is reached."
So effectively you agree with me they take on board
that you intended to dispute it and then went into the
dispute mechanism, effectively. Is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Thenceforth you are aware of that procedure and you
followed that procedure for the subsequent deficits?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And there was no problem with following that
procedure for you?
A. No. I -- I could only investigate as far as I could do,
and I expected that if I declared them in dispute that
Post Office would actually investigate at their end and
between us we might find out what had happened.
Q. And you didn't have to manipulate your accounts to
affect the system?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. You honestly declared what you needed to declare and
were open about it and settled it centrally with
the dispute. That is what you did?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And when you settled it centrally with
the dispute, what was the outcome?
A. Nothing. It just sat there. That is why it grew to
£28,000.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You just agreed with Mr -- I must
misunderstood then. You just agreed with Mr Cavender --
he said you settled it centrally with the dispute ...
A. Yes, if you settle it centrally but declare it in
dispute, it -- I'm not entirely sure what happens but
I think -- I think my cash account reverted to zero.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Let's just call it X, the X thousand
stays in dispute.
A. It stays in dispute. And I assume that Post Office is
investigating at their end as I was investigating at my
end and checking along with all the data transactions,
the data logs I had, that there were no outrageous
entries on the computer.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. But so far as your
accounting, that reverts to zero for the next period?
A. Yes. Although I would say that because I -- I believed
that my trading statement wasn't accurate from the time
this -- in January I did not sign a set of accounts
because they weren't correct, as far as I was concerned.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Going into this period of basically early
2010, the portacabin period, what assistants did you
have working for you?
A. What assistants?
Q. Yes.
A. I had a lady who had been with me for some considerable
time. You want names?
Q. Yes.
A. Anne Watts. I had one other assistant who had come to
me I think just before we moved into the portacabin, her
name was Philippa Gilham. I think that ... and I had
one lady who literally worked on a Saturday morning
because it was busy.
Q. Was there a stage when suspicion fell on any one of
those individuals in relation to the portacabin losses?
Did you at any stage have any concerns or worries that
possibly they may have been involved?
A. No, not with those. With Anne Watts, yes, I will say
that I -- she was not a methodical mathematician, put it
that way, and I had a little booklet in which we kept
overnight cash figures, and she was the one person that
never took on board the idea of putting all the single
figures at that side, then the tens, then the hundreds,
then the thousands, to make it easier to add up before
you entered the overnight cash figures. Which meant
that it was fine because if they were wrong, I could see
that -- that it was her mathematics that was wrong, and
I knew exactly who had done it and I was able to go back
and put it right. And check.
Q. What investigations did you do into any of those members
of staff in relation to any part of the £28,000 loss?
Did you ever sit them down and try and interview them
and get to the bottom of whether they might have been
involved?
A. They knew what was going on. In fact, everyone who came
into the portacabin knew what was going on. They were
as worried as I was. They knew that I was -- if you
like, I had an overview for the entire time, and that
I was watching everybody. And I had -- with those
particular people I had absolutely no doubts that they
were honest, if you like, as honest as I felt I was.
Q. Did you ever sit them down and ask them questions about
particular days or particular transactions to try and --
A. How could I? Because I couldn't pick out particular
days or particular transactions. This was the point
that I always made with -- whenever I dealt with my
contracts manager, that I could sit and look at my
transaction logs, and I did do this, I went through them
for hours looking at one week's transactions. And you
can look at one side of the problem for as long as you
like and you might, if you are very lucky, pick out one
figure that looks out of place because somebody -- it
never happened, but in theory I did what the Helpline
told me to do which was look for extra noughts. So it
would be a £9,000 pay out instead of a £900 pay out.
It never happened, I never found it, and I never saw
anything that looked in the least bit suspicious. And
to pay out £9,000 too much in a matter of two and a half
weeks I think would have involved every single customer
being given too much money.
Q. Let's have a look at that as an example. Go to
{E2/43/1}, please. This is an intervention request form
from Post Office. There is some narrative on it I want
you to look at. So {E2/43/5}, this is after a visit on
16 February.
A. Yes.
Q. The bit I want you to concentrate on is the second to
last paragraph where he says:
"I also explained to Pamela that as her office deals
with few regular Alliance & Leicester business customers
who regularly deposit large amounts on automated process
(bar coded) or card based deposits to check their books
or paper work as wrong amounts can be fed through, ie
£900 as £9000 ..."
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't that kind of a problem a distinct possibility in
your case if a particular assistant had a blind spot --
A. If this --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Wait for the question.
Q. -- and repeatedly made the same error, that is
a possibility on a transaction like that, isn't it?
A. The very large Alliance & Leicester automated
transactions were one specific customer, and I was the
only person that dealt with him because he actually came
in before 9 o'clock on his way -- he ran a garage
forecourt business and he handed his money in in sealed
bags, I checked them in sealed bags and checked that
each bag was correct, and I then entered his amount in.
And I think in about six to eight months I made one
mistake and I discovered that mistake almost within
about an hour. I then telephoned him and we were able
to correct the mistake. And there were one or two
occasions when he had miscounted on his side and a bag
of £1,000 would be £20 short, and then he would correct
that as far as I was concerned. So by the time they
were sealed in the Post Office, with that one exception
which was one of my mistakes, they were correct.
Q. But getting away from that particular gentleman to this
kind of example more generally, it is the sort of thing
that could easily happen, isn't it, putting in the wrong
number of noughts?
A. It probably could, yes.
Q. In relation to Post Office investigations, you said
I think on Thursday how upset and angry you were at
times because you felt as if the Post Office didn't
really do anything in terms of investigating portacabin
losses, do you remember?
A. I do.
Q. I want to test that with you. In terms of chronology,
you moved into the portacabin in October 2009 and before
then I think we have agreed there were no major
shortfalls, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. So for ten years or so you balanced the branch well with
Horizon.
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Early on in December 2009, as we have discussed, you
thought that calling in to discuss a problem was
sufficient but you subsequently learned you had to say
the word "dispute" or make it clear that you were
engaged in a dispute.
From early on in the process, Post Office was
investigating the problems at your branch and you were
told about that. If you go to {E2/44/1} to remind
yourself of what you were told at the time, I think this
is a document I showed you earlier but in a slightly
different context, the £9,000-odd demand was being put
on hold subject to an investigation.
If you look at the other said of the fence, you
wouldn't have known this at the time, but if you go to
{E2/33/1} there is a log here. In line 20, column H
there is text in capitals. Do you see that:
"Had call from Judith at Horizon saying this ref and
problem had been investigated four times. Is not
a software issue."
Do you see that?
A. That is alright, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mrs Stubbs, I need to read it as well.
A. Sorry. I assume I am the only one with really bad eyes.
I beg your pardon.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR CAVENDER: Then there was a visit to your branch on
16 February by Mr Tanveer, do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. He took papers and records away to consider and reported
on 19 February, I think, that he couldn't identify any
problems. Do you remember that?
A. I think he couldn't identify any problems from the
trading statement that he took away and any other papers
that he took away. He looked at the, if you like, the
mathematics that I was producing from my transaction
logs and said that I -- he told me I was doing right
thing by doing that. He also I believe said that there
weren't enough stamp sales to actually -- or sales from
the branch to account for the losses that were there.
But he did admit that as I was only looking at Horizon
figures, which were the trading statements, he didn't
expect to find anything.
Q. I think he also confirmed, didn't he, that he wasn't
able to find any evidence of suspicious activity at that
time?
A. That is right.
Q. What else did you consider as possible causes for these
losses?
A. I couldn't consider anything else at all, except that as
far as I was concerned, Horizon was a hidden partner in
our accounts. I had no idea what Horizon was doing.
I discovered some considerable time later in 2014 that
things happened when you remitted out or prepared bags
to remit out, and also that there are entries on the
Horizon server side of the accounts which it was
admitted that a subpostmaster would never know about and
never see. And I am sorry, that was what I had always
believed to happen.
I knew we hadn't done anything as wrong as this --
we had some small losses, but certainly nothing of this
magnitude, and I firmly believed that this had come from
the Horizon side of the accounting procedure because
nobody could see that. I wasn't allowed to see it.
I asked on many, many occasions that somebody from
Fujitsu, Horizon would come and sit with me to compare
even one day or one month of their logs with mine to say
that they were exactly same. And there was nothing --
Q. You mentioned Fujitsu. Can we go to what they were
doing in the background. You didn't know this at this
time, but you seem to be suggesting Post Office and
Fujitsu weren't doing anything.
Go to {E2/53/1}, I want to show you some emails from
March 2010. Page {E2/53/5}, please. The bottom email:
"Morning, Christine."
And you will see:
"Please see attached copy of intervention visit to
the above branch regarding large losses. Branch was
moved into a portacabin in October last ..."
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Sorry, I can't see that at all.
MR CAVENDER: {E2/53/5} at the bottom:
"I have spoken to the contracts manager ..."
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR CAVENDER: So it's bottom part of that:
"Please see attached copy of intervention visit ...
"Spmr has experienced losses since that time which
she is attributing to Horizon software issues and not
human error. Also states this has been reported to the
Horizon technical team - is there any evidence of this?
The current loss stands at £17,670.65 made up of the
following ...
"These discrepancies are causing the subpostmistress
a great deal of anxiety. Could you urgently investigate
them and report your findings back to me ..."
So it seems Post Office weren't just sitting on
their hands, were they, they were trying to engage
Fujitsu in addressing their minds to the problem, is
that fair?
A. They were engaging Fujitsu. But as I did point out to
Mr Allen when he came back to me within 24 hours after
I had again asked for something to be done, it seemed to
me that his investigation was to telephone Fujitsu and
say "Is there a problem?", they would say "No", and that
was the answer.
Q. Pausing there, if you go to the email at the top of the
page {E2/53/5} you had the Fujitsu answer:
"We have sent this call to SSC several times now and
they are insistent there are no software issues with
this branch ... conclusion they have to ..."
Et cetera.
"... there isn't really any further investigations
that we can carry out.
"However, if you are able to detail what checks have
been carried out ... to rule out user error we can
clarify ..."
Et cetera.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What does SSC stand for?
MR CAVENDER: I'm not sure, my Lord.
Fujitsu support centre, I am told, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: SSC, Fujitsu support centre.
MR CAVENDER: I am not claiming I know each word but that is
the net effect of -- service support centre.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is a Fujitsu department?
MR CAVENDER: Indeed. So they are saying they have done
everything, et cetera.
Then we see at the bottom page of page {E2/53/4}
that Post Office again aren't really accepting that:
"Chris. The reason for attaching the intervention
report was to give you precisely the information SSC
might require. Please get them to investigate further
based on Junaid's report. It is not satisfactory for FS
to just 'shrug your shoulders', so to speak. This is a
serious issue for the branch and Post Office ..."
So they weren't just sitting on their hands and
taking the first answer, were they?
A. It appears not. But then they do say if they "can't
progress it, I shall have to escalate". But it never
escalated and I would have expected that in order to at
least -- how can I put it -- stop me from bombarding
them with telephone calls, letters, that they might have
actually said, "Okay, we will go out and we will compare
the ARQ", which is the Horizon server logs, "with this
subpostmaster's transaction logs". But there was
an absolute refusal to do it until I believe I saw
an email in autumn of 2010 when somebody at Post Office
said "We might actually have to get this ARQ and do
a comparison even though it is time-consuming and quite
hard work".
Q. When you say "transaction logs", are you talking about
the printed out ones from Horizon?
A. No, the ARQ are the Horizon server logs. I don't know
what that means but they are the Horizon logs. My
transaction logs were the ones that I printed out which
actually recorded just the transactions which had been
acted out on my own terminal in the Post Office.
Q. As I understand it, it's your case that -- I think it is
accepted that prior to the portacabin period Horizon was
fine. We know that after you left and another
postmaster got involved there were no further problems
with Horizon.
A. So --
Q. If you go to {E2/104/2}, an email from Nigel Allen of
13 September 2010 referring to:
"She [ie yourself] is alleging her losses of £28,000
are due to problems with the Horizon system after it was
relocated into a portacabin ...
"Can you advise whether a case is being raised on
this? Given the fact we have not experienced similar
losses with the temporary subpostmaster who was
appointed after Mrs Stubbs was suspended and the same
Horizon kit is being used ..."
So it seems after your period of you and your staff
using the same Horizon kit there weren't any
difficulties?
A. I will accept that. I never said that there was any
problem with the hardware, but it was -- and I have to
say it was common knowledge that Horizon, Fujitsu were
able to remotely access the computer system, which is
why I wanted this done before I was moved out of the
portacabin. In June we were due to move into the new
building, and I had consistently asked that any
investigation, any examination, was done before it was
moved out. And in the end I was suspended, terminated,
the Post Office was empty for I think almost two weeks
and didn't re-open, and in my cynical frame of mind
I would say that gave Fujitsu, Horizon nearly two weeks
of ample time to reconfigure, which they can do
remotely, before the new subpostmaster came in and took
over.
Q. Pausing there, if you would. You said a moment ago it
was common knowledge that Horizon, Fujitsu were able to
remotely access the computer system. From when do you
say it was such common knowledge?
A. Amongst the postmasters I had spoken to from quite early
on.
Q. When would you say?
A. Probably before I moved into the portacabin.
Q. I see. The document I have just shown you involving
bundle {E2/104/1} is one of the ones you refer to. Go
to --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just before we go off that, I think just
out of fairness to the witness, you put it to her that
after she was removed, everything worked -- I can't
remember the exact phrase you used --
MR CAVENDER: It balanced accurately.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It balanced accurately. Is that what is
being said in the middle email? Because the two
substantive passages in the middle email seem -- I say
two substantive, actually it's the second and third
substantive passages, don't necessarily sit with that
question.
Would you like to just read them carefully,
Mr Cavender, and decide how you want to proceed with the
witness. (Pause)
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, I don't think I can proceed any
further than I have really.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But you put it positively to her, and
yet those two passages say that after she left
an auditor went in and sat with the subpostmaster who
must be her replacement for half a day. That made
matters worse. And then the next sentence, the second
sentence of the next paragraph says:
"The auditor supposedly witnessed all transactions
for half a day and witnessed Horizon being short,
thereby corroborating her account and also now
a potential witness for her when in fact clearly he
cannot have witnessed everything."
That is rather different from the way you put the
question.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, it is. I think, my Lord, this is
dealing with the time when an auditor sat with
Mrs Stubbs. I think.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is one possibility in which case
you have to put that to her. Because that I understood
from an answer three answers ago is what she said she
was asking and didn't happen so, if that did happen you
need to explore that with her.
MR CAVENDER: So was there a time when the auditor came and
sat with you for half a day, while you were doing
transactions, to look over your shoulder and identify
any problems?
A. There was. I have to say that my Post Office counter
was probably that big (indicates), he sat there,
I sat -- stood here. I only had one stool. He did
a cash balance at 9 o'clock when we opened. He
literally sat, watched each transaction I did. He did
a cash balance at 1 o'clock when we closed. And the
Post Office had lost £190 in that time.
Q. This was Mr Tanveer?
A. No, this was Rajinder Gihir who also came to do an audit
in my Post Office. And when the auditors come, they do
all the audit figures on their own laptops. They don't
use the Horizon terminal, they have their own laptop.
And he spent I think the better part of the morning and
he did the audit, found that it was short, and said,
"Okay, all we have to do now is transfer these figures,
everything I have entered, on to your Horizon terminal.
It will come up with the same figures".
When he did that it came up short another £376. And
he and I then spent the next -- it was a very hot day,
and I think we spent about three hours re-entering all
the figures, checking that we had re-entered them
correctly, and in the end he just said "I am sorry, I am
going to have to accept the Horizon figures", and added
another £376 loss to my audit.
Q. I am going to return to the £190 in a moment in
a separate piece. But just drawing those questions
together, it is fair to say, isn't it, contrary to the
impression given in your witness statement, that
Post Office was doing some investigations behind the
scenes, it was engaging Fujitsu to try and get people to
get to the bottom of whether there was a software
problem in your branch?
A. I ... To all intents and purposes, yes, they were, until
you read the top email on 17 September where it says:
"I think in a nutshell we need to decide if the
investigators who have the knowledge to sit and sift
through what has been provided along with the ARQ and go
and see what the subpostmaster is holding. I think it
is going to be an onerous task but I don't see how we
can let it go considering she is questioning the
integrity of Horizon."
Q. Pause there, Mrs Stubbs. You are right about that, but
that was with a view to starting a criminal
investigation, do you realise that? That was in
connection with a further investigation, as you can see
from the context of the emails, talking about asking
some pointed questions under caution. That was a very
different thing. You can't infer, can you, from that,
that there was no investigation advanced, I suggest to
you?
A. I was investigated, I was interviewed but not under
caution. I don't know why they didn't. I have no idea
why they didn't. I spent the following four years
waiting for somebody to knock at my front door. I did
at one point on the telephone say to Mr Allen that if he
actually thought I had stolen this money, would he
please send somebody to arrest me, and I would quite
gladly go to court with the evidence that I had. I was
advised to do this by one of my customers who was
actually a local chief inspector at the time. He said
"Just tell them to arrest you".
Q. Can we move on from this to two examples that you give
in your witness statement where you I think infer that
Horizon is the issue or Post Office somehow has behaved
in a way they shouldn't. And just go through them with
you to see whether in fact, on an analysis of the
evidence, that is true.
The first is the £7,000-odd, that you deal with at
paragraph 117 of your witness statement.
A. Yes.
Q. The so-called missing cash, do you see that? It's at
{C1/2/27}. I think start at 116 to be fair {C1/2/26}.
Just read paragraph 116 and 117 to yourself to
remind yourself of the subject matter.
A. Could we start with 115?
Q. Of course. Just remind yourself of the context.
(Pause)
So middle of 117 {C1/2/27}, what it comes to is
that:
"... Post Office was still trying to pursue me for
[the £7,000] four years after the cash centre had
confirmed it had been received."
That is the main thrust of the complaint, isn't it?
What happened in fact, correct me if I am wrong, is that
on 25 May 2010 you sent a cash remittance
to Post Office, didn't you, and you entered into the
system that you were remitting £22,000?
A. Yes.
Q. You agree with that?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. In fact £7,000 of that didn't go into the envelope,
did it? It was left in the branch?
A. That is explained in the previous paragraph. Mr Gihir
arrived as I was part-way through preparing my
remittance, and in order to prepare a remittance you put
cash in a plastic bag, you then have to print a little
chitty, if you like, that says what is in that bag and
it records the bar code of that bag. I had completed
one and sealed it.
Had I completed the second one and sealed that in
the same way before Mr Gihir had arrived he would have
accepted it as a sealed bag. He arrived as I was in the
middle of putting the cash in that bag. I had printed
the little slip that goes inside -- you have one that
goes in the bag and one that stays outside which the
Cashco men take. Because I hadn't sealed it, he said
that it was -- he was quite happy for it to go but he
needed to double-check that the cash was right because
it wasn't sealed at the time.
Cashco then arrived while he was doing it --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: When you say "doing it", you mean
counting the money?
A. Counting the bags of money. I think there were some --
obviously there was £7,000 in there. So they would have
been either £1,000 cash bags or £500. I didn't do it,
I had nothing to do with that because he had taken over
effectively at that point. So he did the cash
remittance, he sealed it up, he sent it out with Cashco.
And then afterwards we discovered -- he discovered,
whoever -- that there was £7,000 worth of notes still
sitting in the cash drawer. I didn't because I, apart
from preparing the slips for the remittance, had no
input on the terminal at all.
So I think Mr Gihir rang cash centre and said,
"Right, is there anything we can do?" They said no,
that it had to be entered as a shortage, which it was,
and there would later be a transaction correction, but
that I would be able to send the £7,000 to get rid of it
from the branch with the next cash remittance that
I did. And that I did ... I can't, I think it was --
the 25th would have been possibly a Tuesday so it went
on the Friday of that week.
MR CAVENDER: Can we follow some stages because what you are
saying is absolutely right, I think. But let's follow
it in stages and see what happened in terms of the
accounting of the extra £7,000.
{E2/66/1} is a letter of 27 May from Post Office to
you.
A. Yes.
Q. Notifying you that it has found the remittances £7,000
short. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. You say in your witness statement, we have just seen it,
paragraph 117 at the end, that Post Office's story or
account of the £7,000 is nonsensical. Do you remember
that? You said that in your witness statement. Yes?
A. Where do I say it is nonsensical?
Q. The last words of 117. {C1/2/27}
A. Yes.
Q. So do I understand this right, that you think you have
been wrongly pursued for £7,000? Is that your complaint
here?
A. Yes, I believe so. And I think rightly so in that I --
I didn't not put the money in. I didn't account for it.
The money was sent away. I believe a transaction
correction came through after I had been suspended, so
I would have had absolutely no knowledge of it at all.
I believed that Mr Gihir had done all that was
necessary, because he is an auditor after all, he knows
the system, and he spoke to the cash centre in Bristol
and he dealt with that at the time.
All I know is that that £7,000 was still in my debt
list, as it were, in April 2011. I believe it was still
in amongst the debt that I had in 2014, in August. And
I think there is an email at some point when the £7,000
was discovered in an account at Post Office and was then
taken off, but I -- I'm not absolutely sure when.
Because I think it was accounted for at some point when
they did the closing audit, which is why my closing
audit was a surplus, not a loss. But it was still on
the debt list and on the debt letters that came out,
certainly the one in April 2011.
Q. Sorry to interrupt. Can we be clear, then. You are
saying the Post Office did in fact receive the missing
£7,000 after all but it failed to record that receipt
and it has wrongly chased you for that amount. Is that
what you are saying?
A. I'm not saying anything, because I didn't do the
transaction to record that it was -- that it had been
left behind. I knew it was short because we had it
physically there. I don't know what Mr Gihir did to
counteract that. I know that I sent the £7,000 a week
later but that would have been a separate transaction.
Q. Pause there for a moment. The remittance you made
later, let's say it was £20,000. Let's assume you had
to remit a week later £20,000, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. The £7,000 was -- well, pause there. So you remit on
this basis £20,000 a week later?
A. Yes.
Q. And you tell Horizon you are actually remitting £20,000,
don't you?
A. Yes, it is entered on system.
Q. You don't in fact send £27,000 and only tell Horizon you
are remitting £20,000, do you?
A. No, because that is what happened when the audit was in
process. He said that there was -- I don't know how
much in the envelope, but there was £7,000 short in
the envelope. Which is why we got the letter coming
through saying that my remittance was short by £7,000.
Q. No --
A. At that point I could only ignore it, and the next
remittance that went out included that £7,000 plus what
would have been remitted out anyway as a natural course
of things.
Q. What I suggest happened is you remitted accurately and
said you remitted that which you did remit a week later.
So although physically it might have been the £7,000 you
had in your safe, yes? And you took that with whatever
else you were going to remit at the end of that week,
and put it together, and told Horizon you were remitting
£20,000?
A. Yes, if we are talking hypothetically.
Q. So what that would have done, you would have remitted
the £7,000 once, ie the week later, but you have
recorded remitting it twice. Once when it wasn't taken,
and once when it was taken as part of the remittance
that you remit out of the system. That is what
happened?
A. Yes. But the first time the cash centre recorded that
there was £7,000 short. They sent a letter to my office
saying that it was £7,000 short and saying that there
would be a transaction correction coming through at some
point. So that, as far as they were concerned, meant
that they had actually accounted for it so there was
nothing for me to do at that point.
The £7,000 went back into the safe and it was then
treated as any other cash that I had in the office. It
didn't have red lines on it that said, you know, this
is -- this is suspect money and you must not touch it or
you have to account for it separately. It was there.
And the next remittance I did, that £7,000 went in and
joined the rest of the money --
Q. Pausing there. And it did so accurately. So if you
have £15,000 for the rest of the money, plus the £7,000
of the old money, you remit on Horizon £22,000?
A. Right.
Q. Right, so --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have we finally stumbled on
paragraph 34(i) of the Defence, which is exactly the 15
plus the 7?
MR CAVENDER: Exactly.
So what happened, I don't want to spend much more
time on this. At {E2/85.1/1} is an internal Post Office
document. It's the left-hand column, "TP6"?
A. Yes.
Q. Which has the effect of relating to the cash rem of the
25th of the 5th, 2010?
A. Yes.
Q. A notional receipt -- and it is notional -- on the 11th
of the 6th. So it's not a real receipt. This is
a correction, as you call it a transaction correction.
It's not called that, it is done by -- it was called
a TP6. But what it's doing is recording a correction to
the account of £7,000 on 11 June. Not because anything
happened on 11 June, £7,000 more was not received, that
was just when they did the correction. Do you see?
A. Yes. Yes. But I had already -- sorry, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You answer the question and then ...
A. I had already been suspended at that point. I was
locked out of my office, I would have known nothing
about it, and Post Office obviously didn't write to me
as a normal member of the public or a human being, they
only sent it as a transaction correction, which somebody
somewhere should have noted would never have received --
would never have been received or seen by me because
I had already been suspended and locked out.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just to clear up this one point, I see
you have a file in front of you. Is it your witness
statement?
A. It is, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Will you turn, please, within that to
page 27 which is paragraph 117 {C1/2/27}. The one that
Mr Cavender did have on the screen.
A. Yes, 117.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: On the screen I would like, please, the
individual Defence which is {B5.2/3/19}. If that could
be scrolled down so it begins -- you can see
"Termination"?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: This is the passage that you are being
asked about because this is the passage which in your
witness statement you say is nonsensical. All right?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If we can go to the next page, please
{B5.2/3/20}, you see at (i), just read what it says at
(i). (Pause)
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is the point Mr Cavender was
putting to you, I think.
Is that right, Mr Cavender?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord it was, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So that point is being put to you, that
that is what happened. Do you see that?
A. That is the day -- it's exactly what happened. But
25 May was the day of the audit. So it is not the
claimant or an assistant, it was actually I began the
process --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I understand.
A. -- and the auditor completed it.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I understand. So it's 25 May that you
accept only £15,000 went in cash but it should have been
£22,000.
A. I agree, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Back you to, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: So what I have just described happening was
explained to you was happening by Mr Gihir at the time.
If you go to {E2/120/1}. I shouldn't say "at the time",
actually. This is retrospective, looking back.
A. Yes.
Q. This is what Mr Gihir says and it is really the last
paragraph:
"When I got in touch with the cash centre they said
that a TC will be issued to resolve the money left
behind. That was the last I heard about that matter
..."
A. Yes.
Q. What I have described to you with the TP6 transaction
correction on 11 June is what happened. So Post Office
weren't chasing you for £7,000 that somehow you paid
again or was found on 11 June, all that happened was
a transaction correction that was necessary because of
the mistake was effected on that date. Did you see?
A. I can see that it is there and I can see that it was
done on that date. However, when I received I think
possibly the last debt letter that I ever received
in April of 2011, the £7,000 was still listed on the
reverse of that letter as part of my debt and it hadn't
been removed from there. Whether they were ever
actually going to chase me for that particular bit
I don't know, but it was still there at the time, and
they didn't always total everything that was part of the
debt on the back of the letter, but this particular one
had everything listed there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mrs Stubbs, if you look at the document
in front of you, the email at the bottom which is dated
12 April 2011, do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just read the first two lines of that to
yourself, please. (Pause)
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have you read that?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Does that help you?
A. Not really, because the next sentence says:
"The rem shortage forms part of her debt but it
looks like she thinks the £7,000 was sent in the next
remittance."
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
MR CAVENDER: But the thing is it wasn't, you see. With the
greatest of respect, I think you are confusing the
physical sending of the £7,000 on one hand and its being
accounted for on the other. So yes, in the subsequent
rem the £7,000 was sent but it was remmed out on Horizon
for the second time. The first time that 7,000 was
remmed out was the day it was mistakenly not taken, and
the second time it was remmed out was when it was
included in the subsequent week. So from an accounting
point of view you have remmed out £14,000, but you have
only actually sent £7,000 in cash once. That is what
I am suggesting these documents show and why there had
to be a TC.
A. I agree. But the TC was sent, I had no knowledge of it,
I knew nothing about it. All right, if I hadn't been
terminated I had at least been locked out of the office.
I had no access to any transaction correction which
might have come through. As far as I was concerned
I didn't deal with that shortage in the rem,
Rajinder Gihir did. And when I discovered in 2011 that
it was still forming part of my debt I think I am
justifiable in perhaps feeling that it had never really
been removed from my own debt. Because I didn't know
that it had been reversed with a transaction correction,
I had no idea. That was done by the person that came in
after me.
Q. Go to {E2/85.1/1} and look at that again and I will put
a final question to you. This is the reference to the
TP6. What someone seems to have done on your side is
say, "Oh, right, here is a document here. Here's
Post Office saying they received the £7,000 on 11 June,
therefore this is something else to complain about and
what Post Office says is nonsense". When the truth is,
I think you have accepted, that this was just a method
of transaction correction effected on the 11th of the
6th to deal with an earlier mistake. So it is not that
they were chasing you for £7,000 twice, it was just
a recognition of a transaction correction. Isn't that
right?
A. This might very well be. I didn't see this until fairly
recently. I was going by the letter, the debt letter
I received from Paul Kellett, and by an email
subsequently, an internal Post Office email. I think
the gist -- I can't remember exactly where it is in
here, but the gist of it was, oh, by the way, there is
£7,000 which is in some Post Office account which had
never been taken out. It was still sitting in that
Post Office account despite the fact that the
transaction correction had been sent.
Q. Can we move on then because I think we have had exchange
on that.
So that was one example. The other example is £190
when Mr Gihir was in the office and you deal with this
at paragraph 112. You touched on this earlier and
I said I would come back to it {C1/2/25}.
Your position is that a loss of £190 occurred when
the Post Office auditor was there, yes? That is
essentially what you are saying?
A. Yes. Could we go down beyond 112. {C1/2/26}
Q. Read as much as you like to familiarise yourself with
what you have said.
A. Yes.
Q. I am going to focus on the £190 though, if I may. It is
right to say whilst Mr Gihir was there you continued
trading and serving customers, is that right?
A. Yes, that was the whole reason he was there. He was
there to observe me in the Post Office serving.
Q. So this was an intervention, if you like, as opposed to
an audit. In an audit all transactions stop, am
I right?
A. Yes.
Q. You had been trading before 09.00 that day, is that
right?
A. I would have to check dates and times on transaction
logs.
Q. Go to {E2/107/1}, at the bottom there, an email from
Mike Wilcox:
"Nigel. A couple of points which may help in
the meantime."
This is 25 October, so after the event:
"When she says that the auditor did a cash check at
09:00 and 13:00 on the 10th May there is no Horizon
record of this so cannot say either way, however she had
been serving customers before 09:00 and the last
customer at 09:00 was a withdrawal of £190.71. (£190 is
the shortage she is disputing)."
So pausing there, is it not possible that Mr Gihir
counted the cash in the relevant till before you carried
out that transaction and, more importantly, before you
passed the cash for the customer for that withdrawal?
A. Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
Q. Given that you were serving at the time --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and Mr Gihir, to make his calculations, has to do it
at a certain stage, doesn't he, on a certain basis?
Isn't it possible that in doing that he counted the cash
in the relevant till he was checking before you carried
out the transaction, ie the giving of the £190.71 for
your withdrawal, and before you passed the cash to the
customer? Because that would mean the declared cash at
the start of trading would be 190 too high relative to
what it should be. It is a question of timing,
isn't it?
A. I am actually not willing to swear to any timings
because there are -- if Post Office is referring to the
information they have from the ARQ, that did not change
to British summertime whenever it should have done. So
unless I see a document that has the date -- the times
on it, I can't confirm at that time of year whether the
Post Office is running one hour behind or not.
Q. Ignore that point for a moment and just --
A. But --
Q. What I am saying to you is a possibility, based on your
timing point. Subject to that, given the close
similarity between £190 that was withdrawn at 09.00, and
given that is when the auditor did his cash count, it is
perfectly possible the discrepancy arose in the manner
I described. That is a possibility, isn't it?
A. Anything is a possibility, yes.
Q. I would say it's a high likelihood --
A. No, it's a possibility.
Q. Would you agree it is a likelihood given it's the same
number?
A. I wouldn't, I am sorry. It's like I was serving
customers before 9 o'clock and the last customer at
9 o'clock was a withdrawal. At 9 o'clock.
I am only aware that he came in. I believe he did
the cash declaration at the time when we started serving
because I knew he was coming. I wouldn't have --
I wouldn't have done it before then, and we had to start
at a particular time, and --
Q. Because he did another cash count at 1 pm, didn't he?
A. He did.
Q. And if what I am saying is right, it would look as if
there had been a discrepancy or £190 had disappeared
between his 9 o'clock count and his 1 o'clock count.
That is how it would look, isn't it? Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. But my point is you immediately blame it on Horizon
without really casting your mind as to other
possibilities. And this seems to be a theme of people
saying, "Well, it's Horizon", and I have identified two
examples with you where in fact there are other
explanations here if you look a bit more carefully. Is
that fair?
A. Which was the other example?
Q. You blame Post Office more generally for the £7,000.
A. But that's --
Q. And in relation to the 190, you are saying it is Horizon
generating a loss while the auditor was there.
A. All I can say is that the auditor couldn't explain it.
And had he arrived in the middle of the morning I would
say there was no point in doing the cash declaration, it
wouldn't have made any difference. But he arrived early
in the morning. I knew he was coming. He did all the
cash declarations at the beginning and at the end. And
that is all I can say. He couldn't explain it, and
I haven't been able to explain any of the shortages that
I have had.
It's -- yes, I mean you could make up any fairy
story about anything if you really wanted to. It is not
difficult to do.
Q. Can we move away from fairy stories. I've put forward
at the very least a plausible explanation of the timing
based on the evidence we have and you are not willing to
open your mind to it at all and you are calling it
a fairy story. Is that what you are doing?
A. No, I am not calling that a fairy story. I seem to
recall somewhere, because I didn't get this email
obviously until -- I didn't see it until it came up in
disclosure, but I believe that there is a letter
somewhere where Post Office said that my last
transaction was after 1 o'clock. Or it was on
an alternative screen at the end of that morning. You
can, I gather, switch screens and go into what is
effectively a reserve screen, which I don't use, and
apparently, according to Post Office, that is where it
went. That is what it was.
Q. You said a moment ago I think that when the auditor came
in on this day he did cash declarations at various
times.
A. Yes.
Q. You mean cash counts, don't you? Didn't he just count
the cash? He didn't declare it on Horizon, did he, he
just counted the cash?
A. I believe he entered it on Horizon because that is where
you get the -- they don't -- they don't -- or didn't
always show up. Because you could, when you were
closing at the end of a day, do several cash
declarations. If you had made an error, you then had to
go back in and re-enter your cash declaration for the
end of that day. And they don't always show up as lots
of different ones.
Q. Moving on in time --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you are going to move on,
Mr Cavender, we will give the shorthand writers a quick
break. I owe you 20 minutes from this morning.
We will come back at 12.25 pm.
(12.19 pm)
(A short break)
(12.25 pm)
MR CAVENDER: Mrs Stubbs, we've been dealing with what
I call the portacabin losses, we've been dealing with
those. The end of that story was that you were
suspended on 8 June 2010. And we know that Newrose took
over. I have shown you one email on that subject,
I will show you another.
Go to {E2/89/9}, please. An email from Nigel Allen
of 18 June, so a few days later:
"To clarify the situation at this branch.
Mrs Stubbs has sustained a series of large losses which
she attributes to the Horizon system since it was moved
into the portacabin - current amount owed by her is
around £25k. She has sent in some information to the
Horizon live service team but due to the losses
escalating she was precautionarily suspended on 8 June.
Branch subsequently reopened on Mon 14 Jun with a temp
spmr (Newrose Personnel) and I understand that the
branch is balancing OK!"
So we have that along with the earlier email
I showed you to the same effect. And we know that in
advance of going to the portacabin you accept that
Horizon also was okay.
So what I suggest to you is that in fact, and this
would be the case of Post Office in a breach trial,
there was nothing wrong with Horizon, it was operation
by the branch, by you and your staff during
the portacabin period, that caused the losses. Do you
have any comment on that?
A. I dispute that completely.
Q. Moving on then to a different subject leaving that one
behind. Training, briefly. Training on Horizon. You
say at paragraph 61 I think of your witness statement
and following {C1/2/14} that the training wasn't
sufficient. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. But it did cover how to balance cash and stock, I think
you say at paragraph 64, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And it is right that Horizon had a training function on
it you could have used outside office hours to brush up
on your skills, is that also true?
A. If there had been time to do that, yes, that could have
been used. We did try --
Q. You say "time". Outside office hours is all your own
time, you can use as much time as you like.
A. Subpostmasters and people that have businesses don't
have as much time as we like. I did try to use this.
It wasn't easy to transfer in and out of training mode.
Q. But the example I gave to you is not training during
working hours but outside of working hours. You've got
rid of all your customers, you have done all you need to
do, you want to spend half an hour/an hour doing
training. I think Mr Bates said he thought the training
system was useful. Would you agree with that, it was
a useful system?
A. Yes, it was a useful system. It just took too long to
get in and out of. And I believed that the way
I trained my staff was -- it was pretty much the way
Post Office used to train new subpostmasters. Certainly
when my husband started you had somebody who sat with
you whilst you did transactions, prompted, corrected,
and praised when you did it right so that you could
follow, if you like, an established pattern of serving.
Q. In terms of manuals et cetera, when Horizon came in I am
assuming you were given various training documents and
manuals, is that right?
A. At this moment I really couldn't say.
Q. So if I showed you some you wouldn't be able to say
whether you had seen them or not? If you go
for instance to {F4/5/1}, I suggest this is a document
you would have been provided with called "Balancing with
Horizon"?
A. Yes, it looks like a booklet that I would have had, yes.
Q. Then as manuals were issued, so if you go to bundle
{F4/21/1}, the index page of a balancing part of
a manual issued subsequently, in 2006 I think. Do you
see that?
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Is that the sort of document you would have been
provided with?
A. Possibly, yes. It looks -- it looks familiar is all
I can say.
Q. And behind tab 22 similarly the same thing, but dealing
with branch trading reports outlining what reports you
could file. Does that look familiar? {F4/22/1}
A. That particular page doesn't look particularly familiar,
but the overall look of those booklets, yes, they look
familiar.
Q. Because the other thing, isn't the fact that you didn't
have any problems with Horizon, balancing or whatever,
for some eight years, leave the portacabin thing to one
side, you balanced it and operated it successfully,
doesn't that rather indicate the training you were given
was such as was necessary for you to operate the system?
Because you did in fact operate it successfully. Is
that fair -- is that a fair thing for me to say to you?
A. I'm not saying that it was not sufficient to operate the
system, it wasn't sufficient for a member of staff who
had never worked a computer before. I had run our
retail business and done all the computer work on that
so I was -- I was, if you like, at least conversant with
computers. One of my staff did the half day training,
and at the end of it she just held up her hands and said
"I can't do this, I don't understand what they are
talking about", and never set foot in the Post Office
again. The other knew what Post Office and Post Office
balancing was about so she was able to transfer that
knowledge to the computer use of it.
Q. But you accept it was for you, if you are going to use
assistants, for you to train them sufficiently?
A. Yes.
Q. And depending on the quality of the people you recruit,
they may be either whizzes with computers or a
point-of-sale system like this or they might not, and
you would have to judge whether to employ them and you'd
have to judge what training was necessary for them to do
the jobs you allocated to them?
A. And the training had to be sufficient and suitable for
them to become efficient at working at it.
Q. That is a judgment for you?
A. Yes. And if it meant that I had to stand beside them
every day for a week or every day for two weeks, then
that was what it took. If at that stage they still
didn't understand it, then obviously it was time to say
go and work in a shop and forget the Post Office.
Q. Moving on to the Helpline, then. Your evidence is that
the Helpline was generally a useful one?
A. When I first took over, yes, it was useful. When
Horizon came in, I found it less helpful. I found that
particularly as things might have changed on Horizon,
I could ring up with the same query three, four,
possibly five times, speak to somebody different and
actually get a different answer.
Q. Mrs Stubbs, I recall an answer you gave it me on
Thursday saying you didn't recall having any manuals in
the branch and you used the Helpline almost as your
manual. Are you going back on that now?
A. No, I am not saying that the Helpline was never less
than useful. Every so often you would get somebody who
actually knew what they were talking about. But what
I am saying is you could ring several times with the
same question, the same query, and get a different
answer. And there are an awful lot of Post Office
queries where there is an answer. You can't have
a selection where you have a tick box and you can sort
of tick four boxes and say that is all right, try any
one of those.
And certainly it became less useful at the time
when -- I think a lot of subpostmasters needed help on
a Wednesday when we were doing a balance, particularly
a trading balance. And that was the time where the
Helpline really wasn't helpful at all because you could
ring, as I used to when I was in the portacabin, and say
"Oh my God, what am I going to do? I have this
shortage, I have searched, I have sat in there until
10 o'clock at night and got absolutely nowhere". So
I rang the Helpline during that time, and in the end all
we got, or all I got, was a message saying "Leave your
office code and number. We will get back to you within
48 hours". Which is less than useful.
Q. The other thing, there is an NBSC Helpline as well. In
terms of the second tier of that, can I ask you to go to
{E2/83/1} where you think you found the second tier of
the Helpline useful?
A. Yes, I believe I was upgraded to the second tier.
Q. Go to {E2/83/2}, please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is NBSC the second tier?
MR CAVENDER: No, NBSC is actually -- I'm saying Helpline,
the NBSC Helpline has various tiers, and what the
witness says in this document is she found the second
tier particularly helpful. I was investigating that.
A. Yes, I actually was -- I am loathe to say it in case the
lady had done something wrong. But one particular
member of the investigative team on tier 2 was
particularly helpful, and she on many occasions said,
"Yes, I have checked this. Yes, I have been promised
that there will be an investigation". And I think by
the end even she was becoming disillusioned by the fact
that nothing happened at all.
Q. Mrs Stubbs, it is often the case with Helplines that you
have an initial response, which is quite vanilla, and
then you can go through as you say to the second tier,
and if you have a complicated problem it is not
a surprise that you have to go to the second tier, as
you call it, to deal with it, is it?
A. Yes, we were actually on first name terms by the time
I'd finished.
Q. That is not a great surprise. You accept from me that
most Helplines have that feature?
A. Yes. But I did actually once manage to get through to
Horizon about the balance shortage, and I think that was
actually because Horizon themselves had come to the
Helpline with a message saying I had a serious shortage
in my branch in January, some 20 something
thousand pounds. I managed to get through to Horizon
and the young lady I spoke to just said: we've checked
our nodes, it is your problem if you are short. Then
I managed to get through to a supervisor and I got his
name and his reference number and he added very little
to the conversation, except that he brought up this
shortage on 5 January.
Q. But you knew, because I have shown you the emails this
morning, that Post Office behind the scenes was doing
all sorts of investigations and reporting to you about
them?
A. No, they weren't reporting to me. All they said was
they had investigated and there was nothing wrong.
Q. No, quite but --
A. But this proves that there was something wrong, because
Horizon were reporting a shortage of £26,000, they had
no knowledge of it at the end of January --
Q. January what year are you talking about?
A. January 2010. And they were also unaware that I had
remmed out £26,000 on 5 January. They had no record of
it and were saying that I was short. This came from
Horizon. This didn't come from me. I didn't bring this
up. I was blissfully ignorant and it was only after
I had got this that I then had to make sure that that
rem had actually arrived.
Q. We don't have all the accounting records for all these
transactions, so I can't go into every one. I have been
into a couple with you.
A. No, that's fine.
Q. I was dealing with the Helpline, if I can. So I put to
you really as a final question is that the Helpline did
provide you with a reasonable level of help and
assistance. Isn't that fair?
A. Not as far as I was concerned. The only thing that
would have been of any help to me would have been for
somebody to have said: right, you've got your
transaction logs. You choose three days. I wasn't
prepared to give them up to Post Office. They wanted me
to hand them all over. I said but I am perfectly happy
for you or Horizon to come to my house, to come to
a neutral venue, put your logs down beside my logs and
we will check them.
Q. Picking up on that point, you did refuse to send your
information to Post Office. Couldn't you have copied it
and sent it to them, your transaction logs?
A. I think, if you look on here, you will find one day of
transaction logs. I photocopied one day at the
mediation.
Q. But didn't Post Office at the time ask --
A. In January, and that was 22 pages. So we are talking
about 22 feet per day on a quiet day and, yes, I could
have -- I could have photocopied all of them. But it
seemed -- in the end I think I reprinted as many as
I could. Because you can go back 42 days from where you
are --
Q. But I am also talking about your own transaction logs
you are talking about. You said, I think, that you
weren't willing to hand them over?
A. No.
Q. All I am saying is couldn't you, when asked by
Post Office for all evidence, have copied them? Copied
all of them, not just a couple of pages.
A. I could have done, yes. 22 pages minimum per day for
eight months.
Q. You could have produced -- here's a month of them. This
is what it shows. If you want others, you could have
them. Rather than flatly refusing, couldn't you?
Wouldn't it have been more co-operative --
A. I didn't -- I flatly refused to send them because they
were the only copy in existence. I did, however,
reprint some and had Post Office wanted copies, they
could have asked me to reprint them. I think to ask me
to photocopy -- I still can't do the instant maths -- at
least 22 to 25 pages per day of transaction logs,
I think is a little bit too much.
Q. Go to {E2/67/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It would be about 5,500 pages.
MR CAVENDER: But you could have done it for a short
period -- for a month or for some period to allow
an investigator to get the flavour, couldn't you?
A. And equally Post Office could have sent out a Fujitsu
engineer with theirs, which take up considerably less,
and they could have sat on either side of my dining room
table and we could have compared them.
Q. Go to {E2/67/1} for me --
A. I am there, yes.
Q. 28 May. It is really the bottom paragraph there.
A. Right.
Q. "In the meantime ... Horizon data you have ...
transaction logs and details of calls made ..."
Et cetera. If you thought that was too much in
terms of copying all of them, couldn't you have at least
provided some of them? Because your response is -- we
see at tab 72 {E2/72/1} on 3 June -- if we go to
{E2/72/2}, the penultimate paragraph on that page --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we start at the front page, please.
{E2/72/1}.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed. This is your response.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just increase the size a bit, please, so
I can read it. (Pause). Thank you.
MR CAVENDER: If you look to the penultimate paragraph is
point I am making. You are saying:
"I am afraid I must refuse your request to send all
documentation ..."
The simple point is, isn't it, that although you
agree to send certain information, an investigator
looking at it needs really all the evidence. Doesn't he
really? Not just such bits of it as you send him?
Isn't that fair?
A. If they are going to investigate, yes. Which is why
since, from my perspective, I was the only person who
was investigating my shortages, I wasn't about to give
the whole lot away to somebody who patently did not
believe that Horizon could ever be the cause of any of
these incidents, as it said in my letter.
Q. Pausing there, you now know that is not true that you
were only one investigating, you knew that Post Office
had and was investigating through Fujitsu and the emails
I have shown you? You now know that to be true?
A. Here we differ, because I know that I was told and my
local MP was told that we would get reports when the
investigation was complete. I discovered from emails
that have come to light that no investigation actually
took place at all. We were being humoured the entire
way through. There was no investigation. Because
I don't think it was in anybody's interests for Horizon
to be found wanting is all I can say.
MR CAVENDER: I don't accept that. I have shown you the
emails when Fujitsu was being engaged.
I have no further questions, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. Mr Green.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mrs Stubbs, please could you be shown {E2/42/1}.
This is the email that my learned friend took you to on
page 14, line 18 of today's transcript {Day3/16:14}.
You were asked about this letter.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's just take it in stages, if we may. Sorry, let's
just go to {E2/44/1}. You were asked about this letter
on page 14 of the transcript at line 18, and the words
were put to you:
"I can confirm that this matter is being
investigated, so we have put the request for payment on
hold until a conclusion is reached."
That email is dated 11 February. Do you see that at
the top?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: 11 February ...
MR GREEN: 2010. If you go forward to {E2/45/1}, having
been told on 11 February that the request for payment
would be put on hold, on 15 February 2010, top right,
you have a statement of outstanding debt dated the 12th,
which is the day after the email.
A. Yes.
Q. And there is a subtotal of £9,033.79 which is a balance
brought forward, which is the sum that you have just
been told was being put on hold, and a total account
balance of 17,670 and you are told at the bottom:
"Please settle this account by 25 February 2010 in
one of the following ways ..."
What did you think when you received that? Was that
what you were expecting?
A. I don't know. No, it wasn't. But I assumed that
I would continue to get these every month, or a version
of them each month. I didn't think that I would
be -- having put that amount in dispute and declared it
in dispute, no, I didn't think that I would be asked,
without having received any result of any investigation,
that it would just be sort of, if you like, lumped with
everything else and I would have to repay it within two
weeks or a week or ...
Q. Let's go forward to {E2/46/1}. You have been told on
11 February that the request for payment was on hold
until a conclusion was reached. About three weeks
later, 3 March, there is a letter:
"I am writing to you in respect of the recovery of
outstanding debts in the accounts at the above
Post Office. According to our records, the sum of
£17,670.65 is overdue for payment. Since you are
contractually obliged to make good any losses incurred
during your term of office, please call the Debt
Recovery Team on the number quoted above to settle
this amount ..."
Was that what you expected?
A. No, and I believed that until -- obviously until I had
started reading these letters, that I was contractually
obliged to make good any losses caused by my error, my
carelessness, any of the other things that were listed,
or any carelessness or anything on behalf of my staff,
and it suddenly disappeared and now I am obliged to make
good any losses during my term of office. The playing
field has moved somewhat -- the goalposts have moved.
Q. Go back to {E2/44/1}. Do you see that email is from
Mr Kellett?
A. Yes.
Q. Go forward now, please, to {E2/47/1}. A letter to you.
Who is that from?
A. Paul Kellett.
Q. It is dated 11 March, so precisely a month after his
email. Had you had a conclusion of investigation
promised by then or not?
A. No, I had nothing.
Q. This letter has outstanding amount £17,670.65 underlined
in bold:
"Please see the attached 'Request for Payment' for
the specific amount shown which has been 'settled
centrally' at your Post Office and, despite previous
reminders, is still outstanding."
Then in bold:
"Failure to meet repayment terms by 21 March 2010
will lead us (with approval from your contract
manager) to deduct this outstanding debt from your
future remuneration payment."
What did you think when you saw that letter now
signed by Paul Kellett?
A. He obviously had no intention of ever coming back to me
with any sort of conclusion of the investigation.
Because it was meant to be repaid when I had some sort
of a conclusion of any investigation at all. And I have
to say some -- how many years later, eight/nine years
later, I have never had any conclusion or any report
from any investigation that the Post Office has
apparently carried out. Neither has my Member of
Parliament, because he has chased it up several times.
Q. Who is your Member of Parliament?
A. John Redwood. He, I think, wrote two or three times and
was promised a full investigation and that he would be
told what the result was, and he had nothing.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think you have probably made your
point.
MR GREEN: My Lord, yes. I was just about to say I would
deal with the balance of that in submissions.
Could you now be shown, please, {E2/33/1}. The
spreadsheet. Is it not working? If you download that,
I will move to a different point, with your Lordship's
leave.
Okay, look at row 20, please. If you go across to
the right in row 20, if you just stop there.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: This is the Horizon box, is it?
MR GREEN: It is column I.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The one next to it.
MR GREEN: Yes. And you see there:
"Priority: low."
Did anyone tell you that the treatment internally of
the investigation into this was being treated as a low
priority?
A. Nobody ever told me anything about anything, I am sorry.
Q. Moving on to the next point. You were challenged about
two of your complaints about the accuracy of Horizon.
I will deal with each one in turn very briefly.
Please look at tab {E2/114/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think we are there yet. (Pause)
{E2/114/1} The system is down again. All right.
MR GREEN: I could probably do it --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: If you can do it without requiring the
document.
MR GREEN: When you were answering questions about the
£7,000 figure, that was explained as if it had all been
dealt with, and you repeatedly referred to it being
sought later on?
A. Yes.
Q. You referred to understanding that to be the case from
various documents.
May I just show you those in closing, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, I have them already. By all means
show me them in closing.
MR GREEN: I think examples included 114 --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, let's not spend time. Just
give me the references at the end of the day.
MR GREEN: I am most grateful.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I found some of them whilst Mr Cavender
was asking questions about them.
MR GREEN: I am most grateful. Could we look, please, at
the email, if it is working again at {E2/65.1/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think the common screen is
bringing up anything.
MR GREEN: My Lord, I will deal with that by way of
submissions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
MR GREEN: Yes. No further questions, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right. I have one question,
although actually that was going to require the document
as well, or a document, so I'm not going to ask you it.
But there is a point I want to mention to counsel which
I will do now.
That is the end of your evidence. Thank you very
much for coming and you are now free to leave the
witness box.
A. Thank you very much.
(The witness withdrew)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have three screens, as you can see,
and from time to time when each of you are asking
questions I scroll through and have a look at different
things.
Mr Cavender, you put a document to the witness which
was an email of 18 June 2010 at {E2/89/9}. It is
actually part of a twelve-page document which refers to
the fact that the replacement for Mrs Stubbs was I think
appointed on 14 June and the email says that everything
seems to be working okay.
MR CAVENDER: In the immediate days following, indeed, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is right. When I first looked at
it and you were asking the witness questions, it seemed
to me it was dated 13 April 2011, but I think that is
the date it is printed.
MR CAVENDER: Yes. If you go to {E2/89/8} --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is 18 June.
MR CAVENDER: Yes, 18 June.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: 18 June 2010. I then looked through the
rest of that email, and I am sure you can all see what's
coming, I think it is 95 per cent redacted. I would --
it doesn't have to be done by today but by the end of
tomorrow, please, I would like counsel, and it doesn't
have to be you, it can be one of your juniors, just to
individually review the redactions that have been made
and then just confirm the basis of the redactions, and
if some have been made by mistake we can deal with them
then.
So do you want -- you have Mr Sabir to do this
afternoon. Do you want to start before 2 o'clock? Or
shall we start at 2 o'clock and see how we go, because
I can sit past 4.30 pm if you want to.
MR CAVENDER: I think, with a fair wind, between 2 o'clock
and 4.30 pm we should be fine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay, we will come back at 2 o'clock.
(1.00 pm)
(The short adjournment)
(2.00 pm)
MR GREEN: My Lord, I call Mr Sabir. Your Lordship will see
there are a few minor typos in accordance with the
directions.
MR MOHAMMAD SABIR (sworn)
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do have a seat, Mr Sabir.
MR GREEN: Mr Sabir, in front of you should be a document
with "Witness Statement of Mohammad Sabir". Do you see
that? {C1/3/1}
A. Yes.
Q. And you have identified a few corrections which you have
put on these sheets?
A. Yes, please.
Q. We will just pass those to you now. Subject to those
corrections, do you believe the contents of your witness
statement to be true?
A. Yes.
MR GREEN: Thank you. Wait there, please.
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER
MR CAVENDER: Good afternoon, Mr Sabir.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. You started working for Post Office on 9 September 2006,
is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. At that stage I think we can agree Horizon was the
computer system you were using?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were doing monthly accounting?
A. Yes.
Q. You started work on 9 September as I say at the
Cottingley branch, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And your contract on Cottingley and Crossflatts, the
separate Crossflatts branch, were both terminated on
2 October 2009, some three years later, does that sound
right?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. The questions I am going to ask you today, Mr Sabir, are
about the events occurring in 2006 mainly when you
contracted with Post Office, you first dealt with them.
Yes? That is some twelve years ago now. Yes, do you
agree?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you also agree that, understandably perhaps, your
memory of those events isn't going to be particularly
good?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Given it is twelve years ago, the events I am going to
ask you about, back in 2006, your memory of them is not
going to be particularly good?
A. Some should be good but I can't remember everything.
Q. Okay. In terms of background, can I deal with that
first. You say prior to applying to Post Office in 2006
you had worked as an accounts assistant, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. We can pick that up I think in {E3/31.1/5}. Just cast
your eye down that. This is your previous employment.
Ignore number 1 for these purposes and go to
paragraph 2, Charterfields UK Limited in Bradford, and
you worked there as a part-time supervisor/payroll
assistant accountant from April 2003 onwards. Is that
right?
A. It's in Huddersfield, not in Bradford.
Q. Bradford Road, Huddersfield. Quite right. Your role
there was dealing with all payroll of the client's
companies and other accountancy work?
A. Yes.
Q. So at the date of applying in 2006 you had been in this
role for some three years or so?
A. Yes.
Q. And then item 3 on the same list, Apex Accountants, you
worked from April 2004 to date, ie to the time of the
application, as assistant accountant dealing with
preparation of accounts, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had these two jobs simultaneously, is that
right? Were they part-time?
A. Both part-time.
Q. Those roles involved you being good on detail, would
that be fair?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Performing those roles would involve you being good on
detail, detailed points?
A. I didn't understand.
Q. As an assistant accountant you have to be careful, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have to look carefully at the figures you are
given?
A. Yes.
Q. And insert them into accounts?
A. Yes.
Q. And be very careful you do that properly and not in some
careless general way?
A. We have to prepare what information is provided by the
clients.
Q. Do you accept from me that being involved over a period
of years as an assistant accountant means that I can
consider you as not commercially naive? You are not
commercially naive, are you, Mr Sabir, at the time when
you applied to Post Office in 2006. Do you accept that?
A. I did not understand your question, please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Rephrase it.
MR CAVENDER: As at the time you applied to Post Office in
2006, at that time, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not commercially naive, were you?
A. Can you explain?
Q. You weren't -- you had experience of commercial things?
You weren't -- it's put me on the spot trying to
rephrase this.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: To take it in stages, did you have
experience of commercial matters?
A. Not fully. I was working as assistant in both of the
places. I was not dealing fully with the clients, I was
just dealing as the assistant accountant in both of the
places.
MR CAVENDER: But you did have experience of commercial
matters in those roles?
A. Not full commercial matters, some which I was dealing.
Q. It's fair to say that the financial commitment you were
making in buying Mr Rooney's business at Cottingley and
Mr Taylor's business at Crossflatts were significant
investments for you?
A. That was an investment for my future career.
Q. So they were things that were important to you, those
investments?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. And it is something about which you were going to take
care when considering whether to invest in them?
A. Yes, obviously.
Q. And you were going to use all your professional skill
and diligence when deciding whether to enter into those
transactions, is that right?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. And the same would apply also, would it not, to entering
into the contract with Post Office to operate those two
premises?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. You would have used your professional skill and
diligence in deciding whether to enter into a contract
with Post Office to operate at those two premises?
A. I didn't understand first part of your question, please,
the first part of the question.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It's the professional skill and
diligence. You might just rephrase it, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: You were going to use your skills you had
acquired as an assistant accountant over a number of
years in deciding whether or not to enter into
a contract with Post Office?
A. I still didn't understand your question, please.
Q. You had to decide whether or not to enter into
a contract with Post Office?
A. I decided myself to enter the contract with the
Post Office.
Q. You did. What I am suggesting is in doing that, in
deciding whether to or not, you had an option whether to
enter into the contract or not, didn't you, with the
Post Office?
A. I did the contract myself.
Q. Yes, but you had a choice whether to or not? You didn't
have to enter a contract with Post Office, did you?
A. I entered into the contract with the Post Office.
Q. Yes, but you didn't have to. You had a choice,
an option, whether to or not to?
A. When I applied for the Post Office I put all of my
stake, so I obviously I intend to do this, both of these
businesses.
Q. But you'd developed certain skills as an assistant
accountant, hadn't you, for the three years prior to
applying to the Post Office?
A. Not everything is same as we are doing in the
accountancy office when you go in the Post Office.
Q. What I suggest to you is you used your skills you had
developed as an assistant accountant when looking at the
detail of what is being offered to you by Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. And you used that skill to decide whether or not to
agree to the contract from Post Office, am I right?
A. I did -- I did use my skills where those were applicable
with the Post Office contract.
Q. Thank you. You did that to consider whether it was
acceptable to you, this contract with Post Office, and
to Mr Ahmed who was your business partner, am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. How did that work? Did you go through the various
contracts and proposals together or did you both go
through them separately?
A. We both went together.
Q. So you both looked through any of the business papers
for the purchase or the Post Office contract, you looked
together?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you used professional transfer agents to assist
with the identification of the post office premises, did
you not? Did you use transfer agents to find the
premises?
A. Yes, Ernest Wilson.
Q. That was their name, Ernest Wilson. And were they
available to give you any advice you required about that
process?
A. They did.
Q. They were able to tell you where, if you wanted to get
any legal advice, you could get it if you thought you
needed it?
A. They did not tell anything like this.
Q. No, but if you had wanted -- did you want to take legal
advice?
A. I did not -- I did not.
Q. But if you wanted to you could have done?
A. Yes, I could have done but I did not.
Q. Before you enquired about a particular Post Office --
and I'm going to your witness statement now if I can --
you did your own investigations, didn't you, into
Post Office and what it would be like to be
a postmaster, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you touch on this at paragraph 9 and 10 of your
witness statement {C1/3/2}. You had spoken to other
subpostmasters, had you, to get an idea of what it was
like to run a Post Office?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think it is right to say, isn't it, that you had
also prepared accounts in your role as an assistant
accountant for subpostmasters, is that true?
A. I did initial works for them but I was not in a
position, those -- both posts, to finalise the accounts
in both places.
Q. I don't understand. Say that again, please.
A. I did help my senior accountants, I was working with
them as assistant accountant, and I have to do whatever
I have been advised by them.
Q. And you did that in relation to accounts for certain
subpostmasters who were clients of the accountancy firm,
am I right?
A. I was helping my senior accountants, not finalising
those accounts.
Q. But in doing that you got, did you not, a good idea of
what it was like in terms of the financial side of
running a Post Office, or what it might be like. Is
that fair?
A. Can you repeat your question again, please.
Q. By doing that, and helping your seniors finalise
accounts for subpostmasters, it gave you a good insight
into the financial side of being a subpostmaster?
A. Yes, I changed my career from accountancy to running
a Post Office after I have consulted with one of my
friends, Mr Mohammed Zubair, who was running
a Post Office and had a good profitable business from
there, and that is why we both decided to buy the
Post Office.
Q. During the course of preparing the accounts for these
other subpostmasters, did you come across the idea of
unders and overs, where there was a shortage or
a deficit sometimes, and sometimes a credit, is that
something you came across?
A. They were showing little bit, very little bit losses.
Nothing more than this.
Q. So the answer is yes, you did come across that concept
but you only think it was a little bit?
A. Little bit. You can say 100/150, not more than this.
Q. So you were aware of the concept then of postmasters
being liable for shortfalls in terms of money leaking
from the branch, is that fair?
A. Can you repeat your question, please?
Q. You were aware of the possibility of postmasters being
responsible for deficits in their branch --
A. Yes.
Q. What I called leakage?
A. Yes, I was expecting very little bit.
Q. But whether or not in any given case there is a little
bit or a lot just depends, does it not, on how competent
firstly the postmaster is, would you agree with that?
A. Can you repeat your question again?
Q. Whether it's a little or a lot of deficit is simply
dependent on how good or bad the postmaster is in
running his Post Office?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. And also depends on for what period that bad or
potentially negligent behaviour continues?
A. I did not understand this question.
Q. The extent of how much a given deficit might be is
dependent, I think you have accepted, on the skill of
the postmaster, firstly. And I'm putting to you another
point: it depends on the period over which that lack of
skill has been allowed to operate, for how long it has
gone on, is that fair?
A. I didn't understand this one again.
Q. And the same point applies to the honesty, doesn't it?
That a deficit caused by honesty, the limit on the
amount just depends on how dishonest the person is and
over what period it is operated, do you agree with that?
A. I didn't understand this question as well.
Q. You said in answer to me a moment ago that you thought
the deficits were only small, they were minor, a few
hundred pounds. That is your answer?
A. Yes.
Q. What I am putting to you is whether that is right or
wrong, the amount of any deficit is dependent on how bad
the behaviour is, how good or bad the postmaster is, and
over what period it operates. They are the two factors
that generate the amount of the deficit, do you agree
with that?
A. I used to do accounts for one of Post Office in
Huddersfield. For three years he hardly had £150/£100,
not more than this, loss. And I have not been -- gone
through with any postmaster who has been terminated or
suspended. So I don't think this question is relevant
to this.
Q. Another point is if you are a little bit over or
a little bit under for these purposes each week, over
the course of a year that could mount up to quite a lot?
A couple of hundred pounds here or there, if it's every
week then that can amount at the end of the year to
quite a large sum. Do you agree with that?
A. Yes, if it's prolonged it goes over ...
Q. The reason that you wanted to apply to Post Office was
because you wanted to run your own business, is that
fair?
A. Yes.
Q. We see that in your business plan. There is an express
reason. I think you said in that business plan too you
saw your main competitors as the banks, is that right?
A. We can't compete with the banks, but banks are the
competitors with the Post Office.
Q. If it helps you, go to {E3/27/1}. That is where I am
getting some of these comments from, your business plan,
at {E3/27/3}. In the second box you say:
"Interested in running own business."
If you go to page 7 of the same document {E3/27/7},
you say under "Market":
"... there is good scope to increase banking
services, insurance services and travel money
facilities."
Do you see that?
A. It means that I was able to increase the banking
services we do in the Post Office and I was expecting to
have an ATM machine there.
Q. This represents, I suggest to you, a sophisticated
commercial approach to your -- the background to your
contract with Post Office. What do you say to that?
A. Yes, I bought the Post Office to make profits.
Q. And you knew that you would be asked to enter into
a written contract between yourself and the Post Office
to regulate your arrangement? You knew that was going
to happen, didn't you, from the very beginning, there
would be a contract?
A. Is there any letter you can refer to me?
Q. No, I am just saying your expectations at the moment --
I will show you lots of letters, don't worry. But your
expectations at the time of the business plan and at the
time of going into this situation, you always expected
your relationship with Post Office to be governed by
a written contract, is that right?
A. Yes, we have to sign the contract when we are elected
the Post Office.
Q. Going back to your witness statement and to your
expectations again, it is really paragraph 9 {C1/3/2},
you say in the third sentence:
"I expected that if appointed as subpostmaster,
Post Office would not terminate my position unless there
was very serious wrongdoing on my part, such as theft."
Do you see that?
A. Which paragraph?
Q. Paragraph 9 in the middle, the third sentence. Fourth
line to sixth line:
"I expected that ..."
Do you have that, Mr Sabir?
A. Yes.
Can we check the paragraph from the beginning? What
is the background of this?
Q. Paragraph 9.
A. Yes:
"Deciding to change from my established career in
accountancy to running a Post Office was a major change
for me but I understood that the role was stable and
secure and I expected my investments to be worthwhile.
Post Office was a well-respected name in the community
and I trusted that they would be a good company to work
with."
Q. It's the next bit I want you to --
A. "I expected that if appointed as subpostmaster,
Post Office would not terminate my position unless there
was very serious wrongdoing on my part ..."
Q. Pausing there. Where do you say you got that
understanding from, that your contract would only be
terminated in that circumstance?
A. These were my own.
Q. Say again?
A. These were my own thinkings.
Q. Your own thinking. Where did your own thinking come
from, do you say?
A. Because I have put all of my stake on my house, I got
(inaudible) on that one and I invested so much money on
that one, and that -- that is why I was expecting that
the Post Office will also know this, that I have
invested so much money in the business.
Q. You surely would accept, wouldn't you, at the very
least, that if you were seriously incompetent that also
the arrangement would be terminated, wouldn't that be
fair? If you were just no good at it, surely that would
be an eventuality where you wouldn't expect to be held
in position?
A. I did not understand your question again.
Q. You say serious wrongdoing, such as theft, was in your
expectation a reason why Post Office could terminate the
contract, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. What I am saying to you is surely at the very least you
must have expected that serious incompetence, ie if you
weren't any good at the job, would also be a ground for
terminating you. Do you agree with that or do you
disagree with that?
A. Disagree.
Q. So you think you could be as incompetent as you like for
as long as you like and Post Office wouldn't be able to
terminate the contract. Was that your understanding,
you say?
A. No, when they select you, you have to go very long
procedure, you know. If you are not competent, how
Post Office can select you?
Q. You must have also been aware, must you not, as
an assistant accountant with commercial experience, that
it is quite standard in any commercial arrangement for
the contract to be terminable on notice, on both sides?
So a period of notice, normally measured in months, you
can give and it terminates it.
First question: do you agree that you were aware at
this time that most business contracts contain such
a clause?
A. I am not sure. I can't remember it.
Q. What about your role as assistant accountant with these
two companies? Was that terminable on notice? Could
they give you notice to end the contract?
A. Yes.
Q. So wouldn't it be the same, you would expect, such
a provision, in relation to your contract you would
enter into with Post Office?
A. How can this be the same? I was employed by them
and I have not invested a penny in that business, and in
Post Office I invested £82,000. How both things can be
the same?
Q. But what you invested, you bought two businesses, didn't
you? You had retail offerings at both those premises,
didn't you?
A. There was not much on Crossflatts side. But still
I have invested on one side £82,000, and on other side
I just did interview and they selected me. And if they
kick me out I can find some other job somewhere else.
But there was not any of my stake, my financial stake,
on those -- both jobs.
Q. Because you say also in paragraph 9 you believed it was
going to be a long-term relationship. That would depend
whether or not it was terminated or not, wouldn't it?
Whether it turned out to be long-term would depend on
whether or not it was terminated before it became
long-term, is that fair?
A. I did buy these both post offices to run long-term
business, long-term business, to establish my business
and to establish my family life.
Q. In terms of your due diligence, you obtained the trading
accounts, is this right --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for both Crossflatts and Cottingley?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did that in order to determine whether they were
going to be profitable enough, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. And whether the business enterprise you were going to
engage in was going to be commercially sensible for you?
A. Yes.
Q. As part of using those, and thinking about your future,
you produced the business plan, and we see it at
{E3/27/1}. We have looked at a couple of pages of this,
haven't we? I don't want to go through it all, but as
a result of looking at those accounts and talking to
your business partner, you produced the figures and the
approach set out in the business plan at {E3/27/1}
am I right?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. Yes. Do you have {E3/27/1} in front of you, the
business plan?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the first page of a document that you created
and submitted to Post Office in support of your
application to become a subpostmaster, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And the contents of this include various projections and
indications as to how you were going to go about, if you
were appointed, running the Post Office, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What this suggests -- I am going to put to you -- is not
someone who is commercially naive, but someone who has
thought about the business and put forward a perfectly
sensible business plan. Is that fair?
A. My Lord, English is not my first language. Can you
please ask counsel to ask the question in a simple
language, please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
I think it was the phrase "commercially naive" that
we had problems with about ten minutes ago. So would
you like to rephrase it.
MR CAVENDER: This business plan is a sensible commercial
business plan, do you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. It was produced by you?
A. Yes.
Q. With your skills?
A. I get help from Apex Accountants' main accountant.
Q. Did you draft your witness statement? Because I read
that and it is in very good English and very articulate,
but when I ask you questions you seem almost not to be
the person who authored that.
A. I did read it, there is no problem of reading. But as
I requested, English is not my first language. Because
in the business plan the accounts which I prepared,
those were finalised by the Apex Accountants, and on
that aspect I took final advice from Mr Abdul Rashid,
and I think we should have mentioned in the witness
statement as well.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: They helped you fill in the business
plan.
A. No, accounts. That is also part of the business plan.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: They helped you fill in the accounts
part of the business plan.
A. Yes.
MR CAVENDER: Go forward then to the application stage. So
go to {E3/23/1}, please. This is a letter to you of
18 May 2006 in response to your initial enquiry, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. If you look at the fourth paragraph on that page, it
says:
"Subpostmasters hold a contract for service with
Post Office; consequently they are agents, not employees
of the company."
Question: you would have understood from the receipt
of this letter that you were going to enter into
a contract and you were going to be an agent, is that
fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Then if we turn the page we see various things mentioned
there. At the bottom of {E3/23/3} we see "Proposed
Conditions of Appointment":
"In order that you may complete your business plan
accurately, the contract and service manager would like
you to consider the proposed conditions of appointment
appended to this letter."
Do you see that?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't think we do. We have
a different page, Mr Cavender.
MR CAVENDER: Go to {E3/23/3}, at the bottom, read to
yourselves under "Proposed Conditions of Appointment".
(Pause)
A. Proposed conditions of appointment?
Q. Yes. I am just drawing your attention to it. They were
saying what they were going to deal with you if your
application leads to an interview, et cetera.
Question: you were told you were going, if you were
going to take this job up, to be an agent, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You understood that to mean that you were going to
represent Post Office, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understood you were going to be given
Post Office's cash and stock to run the Post Office,
didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And as an agent you have to account to Post Office for
what happened to that cash and stock in your branch, you
understood that?
A. Yes.
Q. So we then invite an -- you're invited to an interview
on 30 June which is {E3/27/1} -- sorry, that is your
business plan. We have seen that.
If we go to {E3/53/1}, please. This is the letter
setting up your interview. 30 June. This is the
letter, and it says at the bottom of that page:
"I also attach a brief summary of the conditions of
the subpostmasters contract for your attention. Please
note that the summary does not represent the complete
terms and conditions of the subpostmasters contract and
may not be relied upon for any purpose by
a subpostmaster."
Then over page {E3/53/2}, at the top:
"... and should not be used in place of a thorough
review of the contract. You will receive a full copy of
the contract if you are successful in your application
as part of the appointment process."
So that represented your knowledge before you went
to interview, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. What it attaches then is the brief summary of certain
sections of the subpostmasters contract, do you see that
at the top of page {E3/53/3}?
A. I can't remember this one.
Q. You can't what, sorry?
A. I can't remember this one.
Q. This was an attachment, {E3/53/3} was an attachment to
the letter at {E3/53/1}, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got the letter of 30 June, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was an attachment to it. What it does, if you
cast your eye down {E3/53/3}, is it summarises briefly
certain sections of something called the subpostmasters
contract. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. We see under the "Contract" heading things you have seen
before, that subpostmasters are agents, not employees.
So that wasn't new to you, was it? You had seen that
before? We have seen that in an earlier document, yes?
A. Earlier document I can remember, but I can't remember
this one.
Q. I suggest you did get it and it was an attachment to
this letter. Go back to the letter {E3/53/1} --
A. That I can remember.
Q. -- and look at the last paragraph for me. It says:
"I also attach a brief summary of conditions of the
subpostmasters contract for your attention."
Question: if in fact the letter had not included the
brief summary, you would have said something or phoned
someone, wouldn't you, to ask where it was?
A. I can't remember, as far as I know.
Q. If it hadn't been there, Mr Sabir, you would have asked
for it, wouldn't you? This was a big investment, you
say.
A. Yes.
Q. You have attention to detail, you are an accountants
assistant. And the only document it says it is
including is an important one. The conditions of
contract are important, aren't they?
A. Yes, but I can't remember it. This is the thing I am
telling you, I can't remember it.
Q. But if they hadn't been there you would have asked for
them, wouldn't you?
A. How can I remember twelve years things? I can't
remember everything.
Q. But if you get a letter saying "I enclose a brief
summary of conditions of contract ..." and this is for
an interview you are about to go to, then you would ask
for it, "What are you talking about, you have included
this document? You haven't included it". You would
have asked that question, wouldn't you?
A. When we go for interview they don't let us to speak
anything. We have to answer the questions.
Q. Look at paragraph 41 of your written statement. You
don't there say that you didn't receive it. {C1/3/7}.
You say:
"I do not recall whether I considered these terms
... in any detail ..."
A. Yes, that is why I'm -- I can't remember. This is
twelve year old things. I can't remember, I can't --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which paragraph?
MR CAVENDER: Paragraph 41, my Lord.
What you say at paragraph 41, Mr Sabir, is you don't
recall whether you studied them in any detail prior to
attending. You are now saying for the first time, as
I understand it, that you don't recall whether you
received them prior to the interview. Do you see they
are two different things?
A. I did not say I did not receive. I did say I can't
remember it.
Q. But you don't say that in your witness statement either.
A. Same thing I have told in ...
Q. You don't say in your witness statement anywhere that
you don't recall whether or not you received the summary
of conditions. Are you saying your memory is improving
as you are in the witness box there to the time when you
produced your witness statement?
A. Can you ask the question again, please.
Q. Is your memory improving now you are in the witness box
compared to when you drafted paragraph 41 of your
witness statement?
A. I did not understand your question again.
Q. Paragraph 41 of your witness statement says you don't
recall whether or not you considered them in any detail
prior to attending the interview:
"The letter did not indicate any contractual terms
would be discussed at interview ..."
{C1/3/8}
That is what you say in your witness statement.
What I understand you to be saying now in the witness
box is you don't in fact recall whether -- and you are
putting in doubt whether -- you actually received the
brief summary of sections of the contract.
A. I did not say I did not receive it. I said I can't
remember it. This is my simple answer.
Q. My question to you is: just following up that premise,
if you are going to run with that, if you had
received -- put yourself back in the position in 2006
receiving {E3/53/1} that says it is enclosing something
called a summary of terms and conditions, and it wasn't
there, you would have asked for it, wouldn't you?
A. If I can't remember how can I answer the question? If
it is a thing which I can't remember how can I answer?
Q. Doing the best you can at that time, given the degree of
experience you had --
A. At that time I was just thinking to buy the business,
run it, make my life better and serve the community.
This was my main ambition. And the Post Office was the
social (inaudible) and I liked since the date I started
until I was terminated.
Q. I suggest it was with this letter, you did receive it,
and let's look at the conditions you have then seen
{E3/53/3}. You would have seen "Assistants" halfway
down. You must provide at your expense any assistants
which you need to carry out the works. Assistants are
employees of the subpostmaster. And the subpostmaster
will be liable for any failure of the assistants.
That represents your understanding of assistants
that you might employ at your branch, doesn't it? That
you would be responsible for them?
A. Yes, obviously every postmaster is responsible for the
assistants.
Q. And whether you employ assistants or not is totally up
to you?
A. You can't run the Post Office without employing the
assistants.
Q. Well, you could if you run it on your own, potentially,
you and your partner?
A. We wanted to take over two Post Offices, so can we run
them without assistants? Plus there are Post Office
conditions: if some employee is already working there,
you can't terminate them, you have to take them on.
Q. And "Losses" at the bottom of this page {E3/53/3} says:
"The subpostmaster is responsible for all losses
caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error
and also for all losses caused by his assistants.
Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good
without delay."
That is something that would have caught your eye
and you would have read before interview, isn't it,
Mr Sabir?
A. I can't remember, that's why there is no point to insist
on that question. I know I -- we -- postmasters are
responsible for any losses and their assistants' losses.
Q. What happens after this in terms of the chronology, on
10 July you had an interview for Cottingley branch, do
you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. You were interviewed by Mr Haworth and
Caroline Richards, is that right? Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. How long do you say the interview lasted, Mr Sabir?
A. Yes.
Q. How long do you say this interview lasted?
A. As far as I can remember, I think it was an hour and
a half.
Q. An hour and a half?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read the witness statement of Mr Haworth about
what he says happened at this interview?
A. I did.
Q. Have you read Mr Haworth's witness statement?
A. I have read a little bit, not all of it.
Q. Can we go to {C2/14/2}. Do you have that there?
Paragraph 10.1. What he is saying is the things he says
in paragraph 10 are things that would have been
contained in your interview. I want to see if you agree
or not.
A. Yes, he did my interview.
Q. Did he -- 10.2 -- run through the "brief summary of
certain sections of the subpostmaster's contract"? Did
he run through that with you?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Is it possible that he did? He says he did. Are you
saying --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, he doesn't say he did,
actually.
MR CAVENDER: Well, he --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, Mr Cavender, this has now happened
on two or three occasions and we have to have a degree
of precision.
He says in line 2 of paragraph 8:
"... I can no longer recall interviewing Mr Sabir."
What he then does is he goes on to deal with what he
says would have happened based on his standard. So it's
wrong to put to the witness that he says he in fact did
that.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
What he says, Mr Sabir, is this is his standard
practice, and that he would have adopt adopted the
standard practice with you, do you see? What I am
asking you is whether you can disagree, because he is
going to come along and say what he is saying here is
true, that (a) this was his standard practice, and (b)
that he would have followed it with you.
So in relation to that, in 10.2, are you able to say
he didn't run through the "brief summary of certain
sections of the subpostmaster's contract"?
A. I told you I can't remember it. If he can't remember
it, how can I remember it after --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Sabir, you might be able to remember
it. It doesn't matter what he can remember --
A. What I can remember --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Sabir, just wait for me to finish,
please. Mr Cavender is putting to you what Mr Haworth
says he would have done. Your memory is not affected by
whether Mr Haworth can remember in fact doing it.
Because Mr Haworth says he did this in all his
interviews, right? So it is no answer to say: if he
can't remember it how can I be expected to?
Mr Cavender, ask it again, please.
MR CAVENDER: The "summary of certain sections of the
subpostmaster's contract" is a document I showed you
a moment ago, do you remember?
A. Yes.
Q. The one attached to the letter. What Mr Haworth says
his general practice was to run through that with
interviewees. He therefore says that, as you were
an interviewee, he would have done that with you. Are
you able to say that he didn't do that with you?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. Is it possible he did do that with you?
A. I can't say yes. What I can remember, I can tell you
whatever I -- what I told you on the interview. He
asked me some questions and then he went through the
business plan. Both things I can remember. I can't
remember anything else.
Q. In terms of paragraph 13 of this witness statement
{C2/14/3}, he sets out what he would ordinarily explain
to an applicant. And so therefore he says the
likelihood is he would have explained these things to
you. Can I check you have a memory of this. At 13.1 he
says he would have explained in the situation that it
was a contract for services and not of employment. Do
you remember him saying anything about that?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. Is it possible he did say that?
A. I can't say yes or not.
Q. So far as personal service is concerned, he would have
made clear that you didn't personally have to run the
Post Office but you could employ assistants if you
wanted to. Do you remember him saying anything about
that?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. Is it possible he did?
A. I can't say yes or no.
Q. 13.2, he says it was his practice to, and would with
you, have said the subpostmaster is responsible for the
operation of the branch and the operation of assistants.
Is that something that you recall him discussing or
saying to you?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Is it possible that he did?
A. I can't ...
Q. 13.3, that he would have said to you that you were
responsible for the staffing of the branch and for their
training. Do you remember him saying anything like
that?
A. I can't remember all these things, you know.
Q. Is it possible he did?
A. I can't -- I don't know.
Q. 13.4 {C2/14/4}, that the subpostmaster would be
responsible for any losses and gains identified in the
accounts. Do you remember him discussing that topic
with you, losses and gains?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Do you remember him putting forward a scenario with you
about a subpostmaster taking a bank deposit and
miskeying £90 for £900, do you remember an example of
that type being discussed?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. Do you remember, 13.7 here, that there was a notice
period under the contract, and there was a three-month
notice period either way. Do you remember any
discussion about notice periods?
A. I can't remember this one.
Q. What can you remember?
A. I went for the interview, he asked me: can you give me
example of previously you have been in -- dealing with
a person and you have sorted that matter out? And
I gave example for that one. And I also can remember
I said the customer is always right. The words which --
I can't remember if those are the words. And then he
asked: how you are going to run this when everything --
I told that first six months we will look into the
business and then we will do. There was much space for
expansion and we will increase the retail side, and that
is why other sales will be increased.
These are the things I can remember. Apart from
that, these are too old things. So I can't remember
what we discussed, and I can't lie in front of you,
my Lord.
Q. You have just told me what you were saying, and
presumably he must have been saying something to you,
giving you some information during this hour and a half?
A. I can't remember. I can't lie, my Lord. I can't
make -- judgments, I have to -- if something I can't
remember, I can't say anything.
Q. So all the identified points I have put to you
separately, you are not in a position to say those
weren't said to you, are you? You can't say to me or to
his Lordship that those points were not made clear to
you?
A. I can't remember, that is why I can't say yes or no.
Q. In terms of your working at the branch, we can see from
{E3/61/1} that you must have told Post Office -- go to
that, please. It's an internal Post Office document
following the interview. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Paragraph 3 says:
"The incoming subpostmaster will provide on average
not less than 18 hours personal service ..."
So am I right that they have said that because you
have indicated that it is your intention to work in the
branch?
A. I can't remember.
Q. And it is your intention to work in the branch for not
less than 18 hours per week?
A. Yes, I was planning to work full-time in the branch.
Q. No one told you that you had to work 18 hours per week
in the branch, did they?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Could you go, please, to {C2/14/6}. This is the witness
statement of Michael Haworth, the other person who
interviewed you.
At paragraph 19 on that page:
"In paragraph 20, Mr Sabir alleges that he was not
advised to seek independent legal advice."
That isn't right, is it? You weren't advised --
A. I can't remember.
Q. -- not to seek independent legal advice, were you?
A. I can't remember. And I did not take any legal advice
before taking over the Post Offices. I just used the
solicitors to transfer the lease.
Q. In paragraph 16 of the same witness statement {C2/14/5},
it is not right to say, is it, at the end of the
interview, it was indicated that you were going to be
appointed subject to a couple of factors. That isn't
right, is it? You weren't told you were successful or
unsuccessful at the end of the interview. The interview
ends and you will be told in the normal way.
You seem to be saying here, as I understand, in
paragraph 10 of your IPOC you were told during the
interview that you were successful, but it would be
conditional on a number of factors.
A. As far as I can remember, there were two things -- two
or three things which were asked when the Post Office
was surveyed by one of the Post Office person to
repaint, change the outside, repainting, and doing some
work inside. As far as I can remember, he told that if
you are selected you have to do these three things.
These are the three things I can remember, two or three
things.
Q. You engaged solicitors, didn't you, to advise you in
relation to the purchase of the two businesses, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were those solicitors?
A. One was SD Solicitors on Carlisle Road. And the other,
for Crossflatts, we used Rahman & Co(?) from London,
just to transfer the deeds and transfer the money to
the ...
Q. Sorry, can you speak up? The last bit?
A. Rahman & Co solicitors in London. The first one was
SD Solicitors on Carlisle Road.
Q. And they advised you on the purchase of the two
businesses?
A. They advised towards the lease. And also when I put the
charge on my house, they signed -- countersigned the
charge of the house.
Q. And they could have given you advice, could they, on
your relationship with Post Office if you required that?
A. I don't know about this.
Q. You could have asked them that. As solicitors, you
could have asked them if you wanted advice on the
relationship with Post Office, am I right?
A. I did not take any advice. This is simple --
Q. But as a businessman that was your choice?
A. I don't have any sort of doubt with the Post Office so
I did not take any advice.
Q. You had at this stage the summary of terms of the
subpostmasters contract, didn't you? It was attached to
the letter inviting you to interview.
A. But that was nothing to do with the solicitors. That
was coming to me, and then I was dealing with those
paperworks. I did not take any of these sorts of
paperwork to the solicitors.
Q. But if you had wanted to, you could have sent it to them
and asked for advice, then or subsequently during any
part of the things we are now going to go through, any
of the documents you were given?
A. I don't know about this. But they did not speak any
time that they give advice in this regard. They just --
I spoke with them to transfer the lease, that is all.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, is that a convenient moment?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am sure it is.
Just before we break, we are going to have
a ten-minute break, Mr Sabir. You are in the middle of
giving your evidence, please don't talk to anyone about
the case but you don't have to sit in the witness box.
At pages 102 and 103 of the transcript {Day3/106:1},
which was the period when Mr Cavender made certain
observations on a document, and how you were putting
questions, and then also the witness, I spoke to the
witness as well. The transcript, and I know it is going
to be refined, but it hasn't necessarily caught all of
the exchanges. So in open court I would just like to
ask you both if you could, not in the break but at some
point before you release the finalised transcript, if
you could just go back and listen to the tape. I know
you do that anyway, but particularly those two pages.
Thank you very much. Ten minutes.
(3.00 pm)
(A short break)
(3.10 pm)
MR CAVENDER: Mr Sabir, we're going forward in time now to
13 July when you received a letter from Post Office
saying you had been successful in your application.
That is {E3/64/1}.
Do you see that:
"... delighted to inform you that your application
for the position ... has been successful ... Your
appointment will be subject to:
"Your written acceptance of the subpostmasters
contract and other terms and conditions set out in
appendix 1 to this letter."
A. Yes.
Q. Pausing there, presumably you were quite interested in
the terms upon which the Post Office was proposing to
appoint you? That was a matter of interest to you, is
that fair?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. You have just been told you have been successful in
a process you have put a lot of effort in, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've been told that that appointment is subject to
acceptance of the subpostmasters contract. Do you see
that?
A. Yes.
Q. Paragraph 1 at the top?
A. Yes.
Q. Presumably you must have been very interested in
the terms of the subpostmasters contract?
A. As far as I can remember, I can remember that I thought
the conditions which they said I have to do three or
four things, these are the terms and conditions, I need
to accept it.
Q. That is not really answering the question. You have
just gone through a process and put a business plan
together and had an interview, and you have been told
you are successful, and you've told that subject to --
your appointment will be subject to your acceptance of
the subpostmasters contract.
Now, whether you are really happy or not really
happy at all will depend a bit, won't it, on what the
terms are, good terms or bad terms. Do you see the
point I am putting?
A. As far as I can remember, these are the conditions which
they told me that I have to do in one month, three
months and six months. As far as I can remember.
Q. That is not quite right, is it? If we go on in
the letter then it attaches a number of things.
Appendix 1, in bold, which is attached to this letter,
sets out the Conditions of Appointment, capital C,
capital A, that will apply to you. And it says one copy
of appendix 1 should be signed by you and returned. Do
you see?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the first thing. And we see that if you go to
page {E3/64/5}.
A. Yes.
Q. We see that set out there.
A. Yes.
Q. About the specific things, about tier payments, things
of that kind. Paragraph 5, about painting the exterior,
things of that kind?
A. Yes.
Q. So you are right, it was subject to that. But it was
also subject to -- looking at appendix 2 now -- the
document, something called the appointment pack. It
says:
"In particular, the appointment pack contains
[something called] the subpostmasters contract setting
out the contractual relationship with Post Office ..."
It goes on at {E3/64/2} to say:
"Please give these documents your utmost attention."
Do you see that?
A. I can't remember it.
Q. But you can read it on the page --
A. Yes, I did read the first page.
Q. And you would have realised this was an important letter
from a business point of view, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would have realised it was important that you
read the appendix 1 and appendix 2 documents, is that
also right?
A. I can't remember it. I did read or not I can't remember
it.
Q. But it is likely you did read it, isn't it?
A. I can't remember, that is why I can't tell you yes or
not.
Q. But given the sort of person you are and were back
in July 2006, and given that this was an important
matter for you and Mr Ahmed, your partner, it is
incredible beyond belief, isn't it, that you wouldn't
have read this letter?
A. I did read the letter, the first two pages you are
showing, but I can't remember the full -- going through
the full contract.
Q. Because if it wasn't there, surely you or Mr Ahmed would
say "It says it is subject to these various things",
including the SPMC as we call it, "but it is not
included. I must ask them for a copy". Isn't that what
you would have expected yourself to have said at that
time?
A. If I am going through now, then I will, because I have
suffered a lot. But at that time I was happy I am
selected for the postmaster. And I can't remember I did
read all the terms and conditions or not, I can't
remember.
Q. Did you show this letter to Mr Ahmed, your partner, your
business partner?
A. I was mostly dealing with this sort of paperwork.
Q. Did you show this letter to Mr Ahmed, your partner?
A. I can't remember.
Q. But were you -- you said earlier I think you did share
documents with him and you went through them together.
Does that apply in relation to this document?
A. We went through for business plan, not for these
letters.
Q. So even though Mr Ahmed was your business partner, you
wouldn't have shown him the letter and the attachments
informing you that the application was successful, is
that what you are saying?
A. As far as I can remember, I told him that I have been
selected as a subpostmaster.
Q. I suggest to you that you did receive appendix 1 and
appendix 2, and you did receive the subpostmasters
contract at that time.
A. I can't remember it. I can't say no but I can't
remember it.
Q. You also would have received appendix 1 to this letter,
we see at {E3/64/5}. If you read paragraph 1 of that,
it says:
"You will be bound by the terms of the standard
subpostmasters contract for services at scale ..."
You would have read that at the time, wouldn't you?
A. As I explained before, I was thinking that these are the
conditions which have been put on us to do within one
month, three months or six months.
Q. But if you read clause 1, which says you will be bound
by the terms of the standard subpostmasters contract for
services at scale, yes? And you didn't have that
document at the time, you would have asked for it,
wouldn't you?
A. I can't remember did I ask or not. I even don't
remember that I have received or not. This is very old
things so I can't tell you exact yes or no.
Q. Because the terms of the contract you were being
offered, and those terms, wouldn't that be your final
stage of your due diligence? All your efforts, your
talking to other subpostmasters, your business plan and
everything else, and this is them accepting it subject
to certain terms. Unless you see those terms then all
your other due diligence to that date has been wasted,
hasn't it?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. Yes. The terms, knowing the terms on which they were
going to appoint you was the final stage of your
due diligence, before deciding whether to take the
appointment or not. It was the final stage?
A. I was happy I am selected, and I signed the contracts
and sent them back.
Q. It would have been clear to you, wouldn't it, on reading
{E3/64/5} at the top, paragraph 1, that what they were
binding you to was something other than included in
the five clauses on that page?
A. I explained before that -- I was thinking these
conditions, which is on paragraph 5, that I have to do
this two or three, these are the things which I can
remember so far. Other than that, I can't remember.
Q. So pausing there. You thought, did you, that when in
paragraph 1 it talks about:
"You will be bound by the standard subpostmasters
contract ..."
That what it was talking about was be bound by
paragraph 5 of this page, is that what you are saying?
A. More or less. But my English was not so high standard
I can go in these sorts of things. I was very, very
positive towards the Post Office, I was keen to take the
business. So when you are so much interested you don't
go in these sort of things. I never thought that I will
lose some (inaudible) thing when I will be working in
the Post Office. So if I am clear, honest, so I don't
be afraid of signing any contract with anybody.
Q. Mr Sabir, you are familiar -- were familiar at the time
with the concept of standard terms of contract, weren't
you? You understand about that as a concept, is that
right?
A. I explained before --
Q. No --
A. -- as far as I can remember, I understood that these two
or three things which they explained in paragraph 5,
these are the things I need -- these are only things
I can --
Q. I am testing that, though. You were aware at this time
of the concept of standard terms and conditions. You
get it if you buy almost any item. If you buy a ticket
for the theatre there will be standard terms and
conditions on the back, yes, that apply to everyone.
Can we agree about that?
A. As I explained before, these are the things -- I am
telling you the truth which I understood at that period
of time. I can't remember -- I can't remember that
I have keenly gone through with all the paperwork and
neither any of my other Post Office friends advised me
to read the contract and everything properly and then
you sign it. Whoever was running to whom, I know they
were running the business successfully, and I also
expecting the same thing.
Q. Mr Sabir, the accountancy firms you worked for, did they
have standard terms they would send out to new clients
when you had new clients?
A. I have not dealing with that part of the business.
Q. But you are aware that your accounting firm had standard
terms of trading, are you not?
A. They don't -- there are specialist accountants to deal
with these sorts of things.
Q. But you were aware the accounting firms must have had
standard terms of trading, weren't you?
A. They are doing -- I know they are doing because now I am
running my own business. But at that stage I was not
dealing with this part of the business.
Q. Are you aware of the concept of something called
standard terms, yes, as opposed to -- that apply to
everyone, yes, as opposed to individual terms that might
apply to an individual? Do you agree with that basic --
just in theory? At this time you were aware of that
distinction?
A. I can't tell you -- I explained before, you know, what
I understood at that period of time.
Q. Because I suggest you well understood at that time the
concept of standard terms, and you furthermore well
understood that what appears at paragraph 5 on page 5
{E3/64/5} of this document are on no view standard
terms. They are the terms applicable to you about
painting and clearing away stickers and posters.
A. These are the things which I understand at that time,
which I am telling you. Other than things, I did not go
through with all the contract and with everything. As
far as I understood, I am telling you right now.
Q. What you were expecting was what you were told on
30 June, if you go back to {E3/53/1}, was the complete
terms and conditions for the subpostmasters contract.
You were told that back in June. That is what you were
expecting. And you knew at the time of 13 July that
that, on your case, is what you hadn't got and what you
must have been looking for.
A. I think I gave the same answer at that time as well,
that I was thinking that the Post Office officer which
have been in the Post Office, whatever he has, pointed
I have to do that thing. And still I am on the same
answer, you know. As far as I understood I am telling
you the truth.
Q. Moving forward then in terms of your reasonable
expectations when entering into the contract in
July 2006. Firstly, the background would be the
documents we have been discussing now. I suggest you
got them all but you suggest you are not sure. That
would be part of background, do you agree?
A. Which documents you are ...
Q. The ones you received with your letter in advance of the
interview and the documents we have just been looking at
behind tab 64, the appendix 1, appendix 2 letter at
{E3/64/5}. They form the background to you deciding to
sign the contract, yes?
A. I can remember these two papers here. Appendix 1, I can
remember this when I received it.
Q. As regards the issue of Horizon, you would have expected
that, in terms of your expectations at the time, to be
a reasonable reliable computer system, is that fair?
A. Yes. As advised by the Post Office I also believed that
this will be the good system.
Q. As regards training, you understood at that time you
would be provided with any training necessary for you to
operate the Post Office and operate the Horizon system,
is that fair?
A. I was given training, one-week training in Burnley.
Q. As regards the Helpline, your expectations were, or a
reasonable person in your position would have been that
it would provide such assistance as was necessary for
you to run the branch?
A. Yes.
Q. Classroom training then, which is the next thing that
happened in time. On 21 August 2006 you had five days
of classroom training.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was useful training, do you agree with that?
A. That was useful, yes.
Q. Do you think that training allowed you to operate as
a postmaster and to operate Horizon?
A. When I came in the branch that was not enough. When
I took -- when you are doing training in the classroom
that is a different thing, when you come on ground that
is a bit different. I have been facing a lot of
difficulties in the beginning.
Q. I think you had -- just joining those dots -- from
31 August I think you had six days' on site training as
well, does that sound right?
A. One week she came during the day.
Q. That was hands on practical training?
A. We have to work but she was standing behind.
Q. Was that helpful training as well, the on site training?
A. That is helpful but for the new person it is not enough.
Q. Going back to classroom training, for the moment, I have
various documents I can put to you, but I think you
would agree that during classroom training part of it
was introduction to Horizon and Helpline, do you
remember that?
A. Yes. There are some dummy type of Horizon system there
and some dummy paperwork as well, how you have to do.
Q. And they also covered a stock balancing. We can turn
some of these up, if you like. Go to {F3/48/1} and
{F3/49/1}, a document "Introduction to Horizon and
Helpline", do you see that? This comes from the course
you would have been on.
A. I can't remember this document.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am not sure Mr Cavender is suggesting
you have seen the document, but he will in a minute if
he wants to.
MR CAVENDER: This is what the trainer would have had. So
this just helps us with the scope. I am not suggesting
you would have seen this, but this would have been the
scope of what the trainer was trying to achieve in this
one hour 30 segment. Does that remind you of the sort
of things covered during the classroom training?
A. We did some training for four or five days. But as far
as I can remember, I think none of us balance was okay
when they did the final thing.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The classroom training.
A. Classroom training, yes. And when we come on -- in
the branch, the lady who came to train me, she helped to
do day to day transactions, but Wednesday and Thursday
we were opening late due to lottery, and she has to go
early, so I have to do the balance on my own.
MR CAVENDER: If we go to {F3/51/1}, I think the same
classroom training package for stock balancing this
time. I don't suggest you saw this but this indicates
another aspect of the training sessions.
MR GREEN: My Lord, there is a question about whether this
is the right document to be looking at. Because at
{F3/47/1} there is the timetable into which these pages
appear to fit, and it relates to a two-week not
a five-day one. So it may be fair to have that in mind.
MR CAVENDER: Thank you to my learned friend for that.
Looking at the content, though, of the five days you
had, we have dealt with introduction to Horizon and
Helpline, I think you said there was something about
that. What about stock balancing, would you have done
some balancing work, do you think?
A. Yes, we did, but we -- I explained that at the end of
five days, most of us were working, our balance was not
right. We did not understand 100 per cent how the
procedure works because there is a difference between
working on ground and getting training in the classroom.
Q. Of course. And didn't your six days on site training
build on that? Isn't that what that was about? And
that is what happened in your case, was it not?
A. As I explained before, on the balance day she was
leaving early because we were opening until late,
9 o'clock for the lottery. So she was leaving by
lunchtime and she said just follow the procedure and do
it.
Q. So leaving that training behind then, can we go on to
the transfer date which is 8 September 2006. Can
we take up Mr Webb's witness statement as to what he
said happened. So that's {C2/11/3}, please.
Firstly, what is your memory like of what happened
on 8 September 2006? Do you have a good memory, or is
it like your memory has been so far, not really
remembering very much?
A. I can't remember everything but I remember most of the
things.
Q. What Mr Webb says at paragraph 14, {C2/11/3} is that:
"I believe that the paperwork which we, as auditors,
were required to run through with the incoming and
outgoing subpostmasters included the documents which
have been listed in the witness statement."
I will take you to the documents, don't worry.
He says this:
"I would briefly explain the documents to the
incoming subpostmaster. I would also give him or her
time to read the documents carefully if they so wished."
Do you agree or disagree that that practice --
A. Disagree.
Q. You disagree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. Which bits do you disagree with? Are you disagreeing
that he didn't explain briefly the documents he was
asking you to sign? Do you disagree with that?
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. Are you disagreeing that he didn't explain to you
briefly the documents he was asking you to sign?
A. When the auditors come on site to transfer the branch
they only let the new subpostmaster do very little
things. They deal with the old postmaster, and they
assume that the new postmaster also think that these are
the people on my side and they also act like this, and
most leave balancing, and everything is done by the
auditors. They don't -- they just ask sometimes to
count a little bit of cash or some stamps, not more than
this. Everything is done by the auditors who come on
site.
I think this is the practice, I don't know about
now, but at that time they were -- because I had been
transferred to Cottingley Post Office, they did the same
thing. And when the Crossflatts Post Office was
transferred they also did the same thing.
Q. What Mr Webb says is his usual practice, which he says
he will follow here, was to give you time to read the
documents carefully if you wished. Do you recall being
given time to read them before you signed them?
A. No. Whenever they come they do their work. They don't
let you to do anything.
Q. If you had wanted more time you could have asked for
more time, couldn't you, presumably?
A. Because they assume that they are on your side and they
are working on your behalf.
Q. Do you remember -- do you recall asking for any more
time to look at any documents before you signed them?
A. When they are working like you, how can you ask them to
give you some more time? They assume they are on your
side, and they are working for yourself. When the audit
is finished they ask you to sign the paperwork and then
they say, "Yes, okay, open the branch tomorrow then".
Q. So I take it from your answers you didn't ask for any
more time, is that right?
A. I didn't ask because they were assuming that they are
doing everything for goodness of me and I had already
positive thinking about this.
Q. You wouldn't have signed them unless you understood
them, would you?
A. They don't take much time. When they finish the audit,
they ask you to sign it, but -- the new subpostmaster
see what is happening there but they don't know
everything because everything is new for the new
postmaster. Everything happens in front of the
subpostmaster but they don't let him do everything.
They do everything, counting, balancing and everything,
especially those stamps and those tickets and everything
you know.
Q. Let's go to some of the documents then. If you go to
bundle {D1.3/4/1}, please. This is something called the
"Acknowledgement of Appointment". You would have read
this before you signed it, yes? It's quite big, bold.
Not a lot of words on this page. Can we assume you read
this?
A. I remember this. I signed it.
Q. And you would have read it before you signed it?
A. Yes, I read it and then I signed it.
Q. If you didn't understand it, or anything in it, you
would ask questions about it before signing it?
Am I right?
A. As I explained before, I don't have any negative aspect
of my thinking about the Post Office. That is why, when
they completed the audit, they asked me to sign this
one, they witnessed it and then I did sign it. And
I was happy to start next day as a subpostmaster.
Q. It says you agree to be bound by "the terms of my
contract". Pausing there, what do you say you
understood your contract to be? On your case, you are
not sure whether you received the SPMC at this stage.
A. As I explained before, these were -- the conditions
which they put on me to do in one, three and six months,
I thought these are the things which I have to do about
this letter.
Q. You are saying, are you, at this stage you thought the
entirety of your relationship with the Post Office
involved painting within a certain time and taking down
posters, which is paragraphs 5 and 6 of the document we
were looking at before? Is that your evidence; you
thought that that was the entirety of your written
agreement with them?
A. No, every postmaster knows that he has to run the
business efficiently. He is responsible for his losses
and his assistants' losses. As far as I understand I am
telling you truth right now.
Q. But you must have realised -- I think you accepted
earlier and it will be in the transcript -- that you
expected your relationship with Post Office to be
governed by a written contract.
A. If you have some negativity about anything, then you can
ask these sorts of questions, and if I am 100 per cent
positive, I have put all of my assets and stake, so how
can I think any negative and I can go through all these
sorts of things? As I explained before, I never had any
negative aspect about -- all of the people I know who
were running the Post Offices, they still are running
and they are very, very well-established.
Q. But, Mr Sabir, it is not about negative or positive, it
is just knowing what the terms are. Because on your
case at this stage you don't have a contract, you have
some specific terms about when you have to paint
something and when you have to take posters down. So on
your case at this stage you don't have a contract. So
what are you signing this for, agreeing to be bound by?
That is my question?
A. As far as I understand I -- this is the question I think
the respected counsel is asking twenty times. As far as
I understood, I told you. Whatever I understood, I told
you. I have nothing more than that. I can't lie in
front of you, which I don't know.
Q. Go over the page to the appendix {D1.3/4/2}, you see
there -- no, I will leave that. We have dealt with that
before. Let's go then to {E3/102/1}. This is
a document, page 1, something called "Serv 135" we see
at the top. We can see this has been signed by you at
{E3/102/2}. Yes?
A. Yes, these are my signatures.
Q. You are familiar with this, yes?
A. No, familiar -- but I can remember this. I signed this
paperwork.
Q. And before you signed it, you would have read it?
A. Not really.
Q. Look at page {E3/102/2}. The declaration you made is:
"I Mr M Sabir acknowledge that I have read and
understood these extracts."
And you have signed it. Was that declaration you
made true or untrue?
A. No, I made -- whatever the auditors told me, I signed
it, and they did not speak about any sort of these --
they did not explain me anything about anything. They
completed the audit and then they asked me to sign it
and they witnessed it.
Q. Whether you signed this document was up to you. You
weren't told to sign it, saying: you must. You were
asked to sign it if you wanted to take up the
appointment. Yes?
A. I did not ... can you repeat the question, please?
Q. You said I think in answer to a question that you were
told you must sign it. It was up to you whether you
signed it and what you read before you signed it, wasn't
it?
A. When they complete the audit, every subpostmaster has to
sign it. He can't refuse that: I can't sign it.
Q. What you acknowledge by signing it is that you have read
and understood these extracts. And that is what you
would have done, isn't it? You would have had a look at
them to decide whether you understood and agreed to
them?
A. As far as I understood I explained to you before.
Q. When you looked over these items, you will see in the
first paragraph:
"Dear Subpostmaster.
"Recent findings by the audit teams have raised
doubts in my mind as to how conversant subpostmasters
are with very important Post Office regulations. As a
means of protecting the investment made by yourself
and Post Office in the business, I would like to draw
your attention to the following extracts from your
contract ..."
Pausing there. If you thought your contract was
simply about painting within a certain time and removing
posters, then why have you got in section 12, cash
balance, and all these other items here. Over the page
{E3/102/3} section 19, suspension. Why have you got all
these things as part of your contract?
A. Can repeat. I did not catch --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I am sorry, we are jumping around on the
common screen. I think you were reading from a document
which wasn't in front of the witness, which is part of
the reason --
MR CAVENDER: The document I want to go to is {E3/102/1}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That is what I thought. Have you got
that now, Mr Sabir?
A. Section 19?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, that is page 2. You want
{E3/102/1}.
MR CAVENDER: We see, if you read the top paragraph,
Mr Sabir, what they are doing is saying, by means of
protecting the investment, they want to draw your
attention to a number of extracts from your contract,
capital C. On your case you say you --
A. Excuse me, I did not find where you --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It's the top four lines just after "Dear
subpostmaster", Mr Sabir. Have you got that? It
starts:
"Recent findings ..."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just read the next few lines to yourself
and then Mr Cavender will ask you again. (Pause).
A. I can't remember.
MR CAVENDER: What can't you remember?
A. This one.
Q. We know you signed this one, don't we? If we go to
{E3/102/2}. You certainly had this in your hands and
signed it, yes?
A. Yes, I did sign it.
Q. What was being made clear to you was that certain
extracts were being highlighted.
A. But as I -- as far as I can remember I did not go
through with everything. Neither they explained who
did audit for -- took over the branch.
Q. When you looked at this, you would have seen
for instance section 12(12) "Losses":
"The subpostmaster is responsible for all losses
caused by his own negligence, carelessness or error and
also losses of all kinds caused by his assistants.
Deficiencies due to such losses must be made good
without delay."
You would have seen that passage, wouldn't you?
A. This I knew before; that I am responsible for all the
losses and for the assistants' losses. But 100 per cent
I can't remember everything I have gone through at that
time, no.
Q. How was it you say you knew that; that they were
responsible for losses by assistants and losses by
negligence? How do you say you had come to know that in
advance of this?
A. I knew that I am responsible for all the losses.
Q. How?
A. I may have spoken with Mr Zubair or the other
postmasters, but not in detail. But I know that I am
responsible for everything.
Q. The next document I think you were shown and signed is
at {E3/102/3}, something called ARS 110. Do you see
that document?
A. Yes.
Q. This is basically you accepting you have received
a whole range of documents there. Including, we can
see, as well as the operations manuals at the top, under
Horizon at the bottom, the Horizon User Guide, Balancing
Guide, et cetera and you have signed that. And you have
signed that because you were satisfied that those
documents had been handed over to you, is that fair?
A. Those were put in the (inaudible) and they show these
are the documents and you just sign it. They checked
with the old postmaster, not with me.
Q. But, as I understand it, you have signed this as
recognising that those things are present in
the Post Office and are now under your control?
A. The auditors who came, they always assume that they are
working on your behalf and you trust them.
Q. In terms of on your case, I think you say that the
contract may well have been formed on this day, the day
of appointment, rather than at an earlier time. Were
your expectations at this stage the same as the
expectations at the earlier stage I mentioned, namely,
Horizon would be reasonably reliable and that you would
obtain the training necessary for Horizon? Were they
still your expectations at this later time?
A. Yes, everybody expect this one, that ...
Q. And that the Helpline would provide you with any
necessary assistance? That was your expectation?
A. Everybody expect that the Helpline would provide ...
Q. In terms of the chronology, because you apply for
Crossflatts, the second business, don't you? So
meanwhile, while all that is going on, you have your
Crossflatts invitation to interview on 3 August.
A. Yes.
Q. We were just dealing a moment ago with 8 September, the
appointment, for Cottingley, and during this stage
obviously you are having also the Crossflatts
application. Do you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. Just following that story up and catching up, if we go
to {E3/78/1} we will see the start of the documentation
in relation to that appointment. So we see at {E3/78/1}
3 August 2006. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. The letter. In exactly the same form as the letter in
relation to Cottingley we looked at earlier, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would have read this letter presumably,
including the brief summary of conditions of
subpostmasters contract we see at the bottom of
{E3/78/1} being referred to?
A. I can't remember.
Q. If we go over the page to {E3/78/3} we see the summary
again, which is familiar because we looked at it
a moment ago.
A. Again I don't say I did not receive it, but I did not go
through it, all this paperwork.
Q. So on this occasion you are not saying you didn't
receive it, but you are saying that you are not sure you
went through it? Have I recalled that accurately?
A. The same thing I am telling before: I can't say I did
not receive it but I can't remember that I have gone
through with these all -- these letters.
Q. Because Post Office's case obviously is by this stage
you have actually got the full contract from your
Cottingley application. In terms of the chronology you
have got that at the time you receive this letter.
In terms of the interview on Crossflatts, that was
15 August 2006 I think, and without going through all
the same questions again, can I put it to you that the
interview on Crossflatts followed exactly the same
routine as was followed on Cottingley? It was the same
type of interview, you went through the same materials,
and information was given to you in the form that I have
suggested.
A. Then I went for the Crossflatts interview. That took
a very short while. And as they knew that I am already
selected they asked how you are going to run Crossflatts
Post Office? And I told the gentleman that Mr Munir
Ahmed would work as the manager in Crossflatts and
I will work full-time in Cottingley Post Office. And
that was not a very long -- it was a very, very short
interview.
Q. In terms of the Crossflatts process, taking that
forward. {E3/83/1}, please. This is the letter sent to
you, although it has the wrong date on it, it appears,
of 7 April, but this is the letter, the substance of the
letter sent to you, I suggest, on 16 August when you
were told you were successful. Yes? It's the same form
as we saw in relation to Cottingley.
A. Yes.
Q. "... delighted to inform you that your appointment will
be subject to ..."
Et cetera.
A. Yes.
Q. Same points on appendix 1 and 2. Same points when you
go to {E3/83/5}. This time it is paragraph 4 rather
than 5 of the conditions of appointment. This time at
paragraph 4, if you look over the page at {E3/83/6}, you
have various painting duties within certain time limits,
do you see that? And new flooring there as well.
A. Yes.
Q. And to provide a branch line, et cetera. This included,
as it suggests it does, a copy of the subpostmasters
contract.
A. I don't say I did not see it, but I can't remember --
Q. Is it possible you did receive a copy of the
subpostmasters contract?
A. I can't say.
Q. But it is possible you did?
A. I can't remember as I told you before.
Q. Then we go to {E3/107/1}, following the story through,
indicating you have been successful -- this is
20 September now -- and arranging a transfer. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. So dealing now with that transfer, I think it was on
11 October 2006, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That transfer mimicked, did it not, the transfer
unsurprisingly, some little time earlier, of Cottingley,
namely, you have the appointment document, you have the
Serv 135 document, and you have the ARS 110 in relation
to the documents. The same three documents that you
signed in relation to Cottingley, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Post appointment, if we move to that stage, the
businesses weren't as profitable as you had expected.
Is that broadly fair?
A. Yes.
Q. So you decided on 6 November to give three months'
notice to terminate the Crossflatts business because you
found a potential purchaser. Is that right?
A. There was no potential purchaser but Mr Ahmed was
expecting to go back in accountancy at that time. We
were not making enough profit in Crossflatts.
Q. I see. We see the letter recording your resignation, if
we go to {E3/120/1}, from Post Office to yourself
saying:
"Thank you for your resignation dated 6 November ...
giving notice ..."
Second paragraph:
"I note that you have a prospective purchaser for
your private retail business/premise who is also
interested in applying to be the new subpostmaster ..."
That is right, the understanding in this letter?
That was what was going on here?
A. I can't remember this letter but I don't have any
purchaser. If I had a purchaser I have sold the
Post Office. I think this is a standard letter they
send to everybody and they send to me as well and I did
not go through.
Q. Are you saying --
A. I can't remember, I can't remember firstly this. But
I think this is a standard letter they have got in
the system and they sent to me as well but I don't have
any purchaser.
Q. At the time you gave notice, did you have a potential
purchaser in mind? Had you contacted or was there
someone you had in mind you were going to sell it to?
A. You can't sell to somebody. First subpostmaster has to
give resign to the Post Office, they publish the
Post Office in their website, and then somebody come and
visit it if they show interest. Then the listing
postmaster accepting -- this is the procedure which is
adopted by the Post Office which --
Q. I understand what you are saying. But if you have
someone, say a friend or someone who wants to be
a postmaster, whilst it is not guaranteed you could
transfer it to him, because he might not be a suitable
person, but assuming he is a suitable person then you
can have him in mind when giving your notice,
am I right?
A. Can you repeat your question, please.
Q. What Post Office is saying here, rightly or wrongly, is
they understood you to have a prospective purchaser, so
someone who was interested in buying, yes? What I am
saying to you is that is perfectly possible you did have
a prospective purchaser, you give notice and, as you
say, that prospective purchaser has to go through the
Post Office system, and if they are acceptable then they
can be your purchaser, yes?
A. I can't remember. As far as I can remember, that Mr --
we were not making any profits and Mr Munir Ahmed, he
decided to go back to accountancy at that time.
Q. You gave three months' notice to terminate?
A. Yes.
Q. Because that was a right you had under the contract with
Post Office?
A. I can't remember it. But I gave -- as far as I know,
I gave resignation and they gave me a specific date that
you will be employed for this period of time.
Q. And you understood at the time that was reciprocal. So
you can give them three months' notice and they can give
you three months' notice, yes?
A. I don't know about this. I don't think Post Office can
give somebody three months' notice, as far as I know.
Postmaster has to give resign, as far as I know.
I don't know about ...
Q. So this was in relation to Crossflatts. Then if we go
to {E3/121/1} in relation to Cottingley, on 10 July you
give three months' notice in relation to Cottingley as
well, don't you?
A. Yes, I gave.
Q. We see that, as I say, at {E3/121/1} and that is
a further three months' notice you are giving, yes?
A. Yes. It's not further, this is for Cottingley
Post Office. This is not any further notice.
Q. Sorry?
A. This is for Cottingley Post Office, this is not for
Crossflatts.
Q. That is what I am saying. I have shown you the
Crossflatts one at tab 120 and I have just shown you the
Cottingley one.
A. Yes.
Q. At {E3/121/1}, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Going to the deficits in your branch, if we go please to
paragraph 113 {C1/3/19}, cast your eye over
paragraph 113 for me. The scratch card problem.
A. Yes.
Q. Correct me if I am wrong, but there was a problem with
one of your assistants mixing up the stock in and stock
out buttons?
A. Yes.
Q. In relation to scratch cards, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You say I think at paragraph 118 of your witness
statement on {C1/3/21}, that until you had the problem
with lottery scratch cards:
"... explained above ..."
The problem with lottery scratch cards:
"I wouldn't say I otherwise had problems with my
accounts on Horizon."
Yes?
So basically Horizon was okay, but we had a problem
with scratch cards. Is that a fair summary?
A. But she was putting the scratch card wrongly in Horizon.
Q. But the problem with the scratch cards is created by the
assistants mixing up?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. There was then an audit on 10 August 2009 in
Cottingley?
A. Yes.
Q. We see that at {E3/123/1}. On 10 August 2009 the
auditors went in and conducted an audit?
A. Yes.
Q. And they found a deficit, a shortage in the branch of
£4,878.36, of which 5,000 -- that's the net figure, but
they had found a difference in stock figures of some
£5,117, we can see on that page, can't we?
A. Yes.
Q. If we look at the comments on the audit report over the
page at {E3/123/2}, second paragraph:
"During the audit it was quickly established that
the office was showing large amounts of lottery scratch
cards and on counting it was found to be short by some
£5,000 approx. At this point I spoke with Mr Sabir to
establish the cause of the shortage and was told that
the error relates back to 2007."
Then you refer to a letter and things of that kind.
Then we go through what they did, they telephoned
et cetera.
I think you would agree that a deficit of £4,878 is
a serious matter, do you agree with that?
A. No, I didn't agree. I told them everything what was the
problem.
Q. Do you agree that a shortfall of £4,878 on your account
is a serious matter?
A. The money was in the safe, this is not -- have you read
all the statements which I submitted to support this
one?
Q. Do you accept in principle a deficit of £4,878, if one
is found in your accounts, is a serious matter? Just
generally.
A. If that was due to my mistake, that is acceptable. If
I have done the fraud, that is not acceptable. So when
auditors came there, when they found out this
discrepancy, I showed them in my notebook, this is the
reference number. I spoke with the Helpline, and I also
showed the receipts in which she was doing the mistakes.
The girl, she has also been through lottery training.
But what happened, instead when she remmed in the -- it
mostly comes in cards 50 and 25. Instead of clicking
rem in, she was clicking rem out. And this was the
surplus according every day, 50, 60. But when we do end
of the day balance, we can't check that day what is the
problem. It can be postage stamp or anything else. And
because I thought -- I gave her training but I started
investigating what is the problem.
When I saw that the scratch cards are every day
coming over, I asked her "How do you rem in in the
system?" And when she showed me the button, she said
instead of remming in, she was clicking remming out.
And so for that thing, if end of the day she remmed in
50 scratch cards and we sold 10, so at end of the day it
was coming about £110 surplus. But when I found out
this one, this has been going on maybe -- I have to go
Wednesday to Crossflatts for the balance, and she was
covering behind me at around -- at that period of time
this has been happening.
When I found that, and after that suddenly the
Post Office showed in their system that I am short so
much stock. I rang the Helpline, I requested that "This
is the problem I have, and can you please let me know --
I have got money in the safe written on those that this
is the spare cash, and if somebody can please help me
from lottery side so I can balance the stock".
I -- I have already resigned from the Post Office
branch as well, and if I have found somebody I have to
balance everything.
So when they came, I showed the details, the
receipts in which she was used to rem out instead of
remming in. I said that this was the problem. I could
not find how many scratch cards I am under, so can you
please ask somebody -- I told the Helpline to ring me,
and if they tell me, the money are already in the safe
and I can balance my stock. But nobody rang me after
that. Then suddenly they came and they suspend me.
Q. Mr Sabir, what I want to do is concentrate on the
accounting. How you accounted for this difficulty.
Yes? You are an assistant accountant, you must have
realised the importance to account for this matter
properly. Do you agree with that?
A. I was accounting every day properly.
Q. As at 10 August when the auditors came in, you were
telling the Post Office through your signed accounts
that you had £4,878 more in stock at your Cottingley
branch than in fact you did have. Do you accept that?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. Yes. As at 10 August you were telling Post Office
through your signed accounts that you had £4,878 more in
stock at your branch in relation to scratch cards than
in fact you did have?
A. I have spare cash in the --
Q. In terms of your accounting to Post Office ... It was a
net figure. The gross figure in terms of stock
obviously is the £5,117.40, but you were significantly
in your signed accounts inaccurately accounting for the
stock you actually had. You were telling them you had
£4,000 plus, more in stock than in fact you did.
A. I have already raised this complaint before signing the
accounts, and if we don't sign the accounts and don't
roll over you can't clear the next day. And when the
auditors came on the spot he rang somewhere,
I don't know, he rang on his mobile and he came to know
in five minutes how many scratch cards are short. And
we, as subpostmaster, we should have got some sort of
help if we are struggling, we contact the Post Office
and they resolve our problem. This was my concern.
Q. Mr Sabir, this was Post Office's money you were
misaccounting for. You were saying you had 5,000-odd
more scratch cards than you did. There's nothing
complicated about it. From the accounting point of view
that is what you were telling Post Office, yes?
A. The cash was in the safe. The complaint was already
made --
Q. But the cash in the safe isn't reflected -- sorry, can I
ask the question. The cash in the safe isn't reflected
in your reports you are accounting to Post Office, is
it? It's not part --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, paragraph 113 deals with
a degree of communication to the Post Office about this
problem.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So when you are saying to the witness
"accounting to Post Office", you are going to have to be
precise, please. Because as I understand paragraph 113,
that pre-dates the audit.
Is that right?
A. Yes, I showed the reference number from that, my Lord.
This is the reference number. I requested them:
please --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I understand that. Mr Cavender is now
going to put his point to you about the way in which you
were accounting for that.
MR CAVENDER: Your earlier communication had been almost two
years earlier, hadn't it? 2007, wasn't it, when you
raised the point?
A. The point I raised in 2008, later 2008. The problem
started maybe in 2007. Because if she was activating
one bundle of cards, that is about £50 worth. And then
I -- later on I came to know why the surplus cash is
coming every day. I was taking out and putting in the
safe. And when I came to know that she is doing this
mistake, then I rang the Post Office Helpline, "Please
can somebody from lottery office ring me or come to my
office and resolve this problem. This is the problem
I have", and I showed the reference number for the
details, "this is the reference number of the card".
But they said "We don't believe you. We have to suspend
you".
Q. When you do your monthly accounting you have to declare
to Post Office your stock figures, don't you, including
your stock for scratch cards?
A. Yes.
Q. When you do that you make a certification, is this
right, that says:
"I certify that the contents of this balancing and
trading statement is an accurate reflection of the cash
and stock at this branch."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So when they see your stock declaration for scratch
cards that you had made in the previous months, it would
be wrong to the tune of 5,000, wouldn't it? The stock
of scratch cards you were declaring would be wrong by
some 5,000, yes, do you accept that?
A. The stock was short, but I have got the cash in the safe
and I have already made the complaint about that, that
this is the problem I am facing, and if you don't roll
over the trading period it don't allow us to work next
trading day. So I can't close the Post Office.
Q. So why couldn't you simply have put the cash in?
Because on the day of the audit, or soon after, the cash
was put into the system, wasn't it?
A. They did put the cash in the system.
Q. Why didn't you do that beforehand? If you had this cash
that has erroneously been generated in the way it has
because of a stock problem, why didn't you simply put it
into the system?
A. I was waiting for somebody to ring me and tell me what
is the actual figure I need to put in the system,
whatever I -- coming above that was going in the
Post Office system, not in my pocket or anywhere else.
And they took the cash out of --
Q. When do you say the first time you raised this problem
with the Helpline, et cetera? 113 {C1/3/19} isn't
clear, to me at least, as to when you say you raised
this. What is the timing of that?
A. When I raised the complaint? I don't have that diary
with me, but I gave them the reference and the date as
well. I can't remember that one.
Q. Because in --
A. I showed them the receipts as well which she did wrong.
Instead of remming in, she used to do remming out.
I gave all these receipts as well. Because I was not
aware for how long this has been happening, that is why
I was just waiting that if somebody from lottery,
Post Office lottery side ring me and tell me: you need
to put -- balance this stock, and then I can balance
everything.
Q. Go to {E3/123/2}, the audit report, they refer in
the second paragraph on that page to you showing the
auditor a letter received in October 2008. In relation
to this. Do you see that? That would be some nine
months before --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Whereabouts, Mr Cavender?
MR CAVENDER: Second paragraph, my Lord. Last line:
"Mr Sabir did show me a letter received from the
Post Office on October 2008 ..."
That's give or take nine months earlier than the
audit. So how many declarations of the sort I have read
to you would you have made misdeclaring your stock?
Presumably eight or nine, because you did it monthly.
A. I can't remember this one, but I think this letter was
issued not just to me, it may be the case it has been
issued to all the Post Offices who are doing lottery
cards.
Q. When do you say you first contacted Post Office about
this stock problem in relation to scratch cards? When
in the chronological run? You have the audit in
August 2009. The audit report says you say this error
relates back to 2007. So presumably it had been a year
or more earlier you had reported this to the Helpline,
is that what you are saying?
A. No, I think you did not understand what I told you how
this has been happening. This has been happening over
months and months. She may be activating one or two in
a week and the surplus will be about £40/£50. So
whatever was coming we are putting in the safe. When --
I can't remember everything, but when Post Office on
their side, when they did the balance, the stock, how
much scratch cards -- I don't know how their system
works, that is why I was asking to somebody, when they
showed in their system that I am short of so many
scratch cards, that time I can remember I rang
straightaway to Helpline, "Please ask somebody to ring
me and I can resolve this problem".
As and when they put stock in my system that "You
are negative in stock", I state "Please, I have got cash
in the system. I was already finding this problem and
if somebody please ring me and resolve this problem".
Q. Because if you had put that money -- the £5,000-odd for
5,000 scratch cards into the system, the Horizon system,
that would have shown a surplus, wouldn't it, because
the system then would show you have 5,000 more cards
than you really have and the cash for them, you create
a surplus, and that would have triggered an audit. And
you knew that which is why you didn't put it in the
accounts. Is that right?
A. I did not catch your question. Can you repeat your
question again, please.
Q. If you put the cash in your safe, your £5,000-odd into
the Horizon system, yes? You'd acknowledged it existed.
Then that would have created a surplus?
A. Yes.
Q. And if Post Office had seen the surplus of £5,000-odd,
that would have triggered an audit, wouldn't it?
Post Office see you running a surplus of £5,000,
they would want to know what is going on here and they
would have an audit, wouldn't they?
A. I reported to Post Office soon after I received the
stock is showing short in my system. I straight away
reported to them, "Can please somebody ring me and tell
me how much cards I am short. I have got money in
the safe. I can put the money in and balance my stock".
Q. How long do you say you let this run for? How many
months did you mis-state your stock of scratch cards?
A. When they updated the system, it may be maximum two
months, when they updated the system, when they showed
in the system that I should have so much cards, and that
was not balancing with my cards, that is why I rang the
Helpline, "Please tell somebody, tell me exactly how
much I am short with the cards, because I am struggling
with this thing, and if they ring me I put the cash in
and balance the scratch cards straightaway".
Q. So you are saying that it was a couple of months before,
and yet the audit report at page {E3/123/2} says you
told them the error dates back to 2007.
A. I can't remember and this was not happening first -- it
may have started from that date, maybe £40/£50 every
day, every week. But the main problem occurred when
they showed in the system, Horizon system, that I am
short with the stock, and I rang them straightaway,
Helpline, "Please, I have got this problem with the
scratch cards. If somebody ring me and tell me how much
scratch cards I need to put in the system to balance my
stock". And nobody did ring me back, and I think they
came after a couple of weeks and suspended me.
Q. Because there was no need to falsify your accounts in
this way and mis-state your stock, was there? All you
had to do was put the cash in and in fact that is what
happened.
Look at the bottom of {E3/123/2}, part of this audit
report. Cash was in fact -- actually a balancing cheque
was put in to make good the error. So you didn't need
to mis-state your accounts in this way, did you?
A. Which I requested before. I did not falsify anything.
This was a genuine mistake, and what I'm -- what my
concerns are, if an auditor came on the spot, if he knew
in five minutes how much actual stock I should have, so
subpostmasters should have this sort of access so these
things don't happen. This was my concerns.
Q. You were an accountant, you were in a particular
position to know the importance of how you accounted for
things, leaving aside the cause of the error at this
stage, and instead of properly accounting for your
scratch cards, as the audit report indicates, there was
a discrepancy on stock, on audit, of some £5,000-odd.
And that happened, even on your case, for a couple of
months, and in fact according to the audit report in
the timing maybe for a lot longer.
A. But this was the thing which I found there, Post Office
did not find before. Because I am accountant, that
is -- that is why I found this on my side. Nobody rang
me from Post Office. Nobody contact me from Post Office
to resolve this problem.
So as regard accountants, we have to put the figure
what are told to us. We can't falsify information for
somebody or anybody else, you know.
Q. But that is exactly what you were doing. Look at
{E3/123/2} at the top. Look at the second paragraph.
What did you do in the audit? Was it complicated? No.
"During the audit it was quickly established that
the office was showing large amounts of lottery scratch
cards and on counting count, it was found to be short by
5,000 approx."
So all you had to do, which in fact was done, is to
put the cash in representing the shortage of the stock
you were carrying. There was no magic to this, was
there?
A. How can I put the cash in if I don't know how much
scratch cards I am short?
Q. You count them. What you do is what happened in the
audit --
A. This was the main problem. I told that they were wrong,
entries that were done in the Horizon system. The
Horizon system is not designed by me and is complicated.
As we were told at the training, this is best system we
have got, we have got the best Helpline in the world,
and we will be always alongside you if you have any
problem. But when you go practically on the ground
everything is the other way round.
Q. It's very straightforward. You were obliged to declare
the true stock figure, that is all you had to do, and
you didn't. You refused to do it. And you declared it
was true and honest and it wasn't. All you had to do
was count, as the auditor did {E3/123/2}, count how many
you were short and put that in the Horizon in the till?
A. I requested the Helpline before the auditors came. If
auditors came before, and if they have found that I have
not done anything, then this was my mistake. But I have
already requested Helpline, "Please ask lottery people
to ring me. I can resolve this problem".
Realistically, I was doing sometimes Wednesday two/three
hours off in the afternoon, and since I made this
complaint, I used to go straightaway back to office and
I advised my staff, "If anybody ring from lottery
section from Post Office, please call me straight away,
I want to -- because I want to get rid from this problem
I have".
Q. Mr Sabir, were you capable of counting the scratch cards
in your branch at the time of the audit and comparing
the number you counted with the number at that date you
had declared to Post Office? Were you capable of doing
that exercise?
A. That was the difference which was coming on and I --
that difference I want to -- that is why I report before
they came to my branch. I reported before that date.
Q. You don't need to report. What you need to do is count
them, find the difference, and get the cash,
Post Office's cash, and put it in the till. Why didn't
you do that simple thing? Why didn't --
A. The cash was in the safe. That was not in the till.
Q. And it should have been in the till. It should have
been in the system?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Cavender, I'm not sure that is
an accurate reflection of what the witness's evidence is
about what was wrong with the scratch cards.
Was your assistant -- as I understand your
explanation, and please tell me if I am wrong, when your
assistant was entering in the scratch cards she was
pressing a wrong button.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So instead of in, she was pressing out.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Did you have a separate record of how
many scratch cards you should have or is that
the information you were asking --
A. This was information I was requesting from the lottery,
"Just give me the figure, I put in the system, and then
I balance the -- "
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Did you have any other way of getting --
A. No --
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just wait until I have finished asking
the question. Did you have any other way of finding out
how many scratch cards you should have to compare
against how many you did have without that information,
from Post Office?
A. No, we had to speak with the lottery Helpline to get
that correct figure.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That was my understanding of the
information.
A. That is why I rang to Helpline.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By all means, Mr Cavender, pursue it
further if you would like to.
MR CAVENDER: The simple point that still arises, though, is
you were -- you were in a position at the time of the
audit to accurately declare the real stock in your
branch, whatever that was. You were capable of counting
the number of scratch cards that were in fact in your
branch, yes? You were capable of doing that?
A. I was not able to find out how many scratch cards should
I have and how many I have. This was the enquiry I was
doing with the Helpline. This was my problem. A very
simple problem. Money I have in the safe. I was asking
"Give me the figure". I put in the system and my stock
will be balanced then. If we don't sign the -- the
monthly accounting -- accounts we can't roll over in
the next month, and if you don't roll over we can't
operate the system.
Q. I think even you would accept the certification you put
on your monthly balancing accounts was inaccurate, at
the very least? It didn't accurately reflect the cash
and stock at your branch, did it?
A. Yes, that was not right. That is why I am ringing the
Helpline to resolve this problem.
Q. So why are you signing certification which you know to
be wrong?
A. We can't roll over unless -- we can't run the branch
unless we roll over the previous trading period.
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, I have no further questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood. Mr Green, do you have any
re-examination?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much, Mr Sabir. That is
the end of your evidence. Thank you very much for
coming.
(The witness withdrew)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Would you like to start at 10 o'clock
tomorrow?
MR CAVENDER: My Lord, no. Mr Sabir finishing today was the
target.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That was the milestone.
MR CAVENDER: Indeed.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So if there is no need to do that then
we won't. We can always catch up a bit of time again at
the end of tomorrow if we need to. Thank you all very
much. There is no housekeeping or anything? No.
Thank you all very much. 10.30 am tomorrow.
(4.30 pm)
(The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Tuesday,
13 November 2018)
INDEX
MS PAMELA JOAN STUBBS (continued) ....................1
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER .................1
(continued)
Re-examination by MR GREEN ......................67
MR MOHAMMAD SABIR (sworn) ...........................75
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN ................75
Cross-examination by MR CAVENDER ................76
Day 1 transcript - Wed 7 November - Opening arguments
Day 2 transcript - Thu 8 November - Claimants: Alan Bates, Pam Stubbs part 1
Day 3 transcript - Mon 12 November - Pam Stubbs part 2, Mohammad Sabir
Day 4 transcript - Tue 13 November - Naushad Abdulla, Liz Stockdale
Day 5 transcript - Wed 14 November - Louise Dar
Day 6 transcript - Thu 15 November - Post Office: Nick Beal, Paul Williams
Day 7 transcript - Mon 19 November - Sarah Rimmer, John Breeden, AvdB part 1
Day 8 transcript - Tue 20 November - AvdB part 2
Day 9 transcript - Wed 21 November - AvdB part 3, Timothy Dance, Helen Dickinson, Michael Shields part 1
Day 10 transcript - Thu 22 November - Michael Shields part 2, Elaine Ridge, David Longbottom, Michael Webb
Day 11 transcript - Mon 26 November - Michael Haworth, Andrew Carpenter, Brian Trotter Day 2 transcript - Thu 8 November - Claimants: Alan Bates, Pam Stubbs part 1
Day 3 transcript - Mon 12 November - Pam Stubbs part 2, Mohammad Sabir
Day 4 transcript - Tue 13 November - Naushad Abdulla, Liz Stockdale
Day 5 transcript - Wed 14 November - Louise Dar
Day 6 transcript - Thu 15 November - Post Office: Nick Beal, Paul Williams
Day 7 transcript - Mon 19 November - Sarah Rimmer, John Breeden, AvdB part 1
Day 8 transcript - Tue 20 November - AvdB part 2
Day 9 transcript - Wed 21 November - AvdB part 3, Timothy Dance, Helen Dickinson, Michael Shields part 1
Day 10 transcript - Thu 22 November - Michael Shields part 2, Elaine Ridge, David Longbottom, Michael Webb