On the 11th of May 2009 Rebecca Thomson wrote and published an article for Computer Weekly here.
At some point after Rebecca Thomson’s article was published, and before her trial was due to start on Tuesday 2nd June 2009, Seema Misra apparently “turned up” at the shop of Josephine Hamilton.
Josephine Hamilton stated in her 2nd witness statement to the post office Horizon IT inquiry;
Seema Misra (a fellow sub-postmaster) saw the computer weekly article and turned up at my shop. I took her to my solicitor and neighbour Issy Hogg. Issy managed to get the trial adjourned while a computer expert was appointed.
Excerpts from Josephine Hamilton’s 10th of February 2022 statement of truth to the post office horizon IT inquiry here
The following excerpts are taken from Seema Misra’s trial testimony (from p.136 here);
- Warwick Tatford: You did some research on the internet?
- Seema Misra: No, just the day before my first trial and there was like, then there was like, there was an article from a computer weekly which is like when I read the cases the same thing happen with me as well like figures doubling up, we are having losses and..
- Warwick Tatford: All right. Let me just cut the matter clearly if I may because this is new information for the jury. There have been some articles about whether the Horizon system is any good or not in various magazines, is that right, that you saw prior to your…
- Seema Misra: The day before my first trial
- Warwick Tatford: All right. So earlier in the history of the court proceedings you were aware that other people were saying there might be a problem?
- Seema Misra: Yeah, and then I read and the same thing happen with me as well when I read that incident and I remember staff saying that as well, there could be a system problem
- Warwick Tatford: Fine. I fully accept that that might have given you thought about another possibility. So let us leave that on one side. What I want to understand though is why in defence statements you only talk about theft. You don’t mention until the defence statement that was served in January of this year anything in that old defence statement about Junaid, about Michael and about how there were losses from the beginning. You don’t mention anything about that at all, do you?
- Seema Misra: Yeah. That is what I said. Like when I got that Javed and Nadia red handed they been nicking the money. That is what I thought that time
- Warwick Tatford: But you knew, Mrs Misra, that the losses had begun in 2005 from day one?
- Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
- Warwick Tatford: So it could not just be down to the thieves because they were happening when you were with Junaid?
- Seema Misra: I was in – I was in complete mess anyway. I was not like pinpointing what is here and what is not. I was in like whole lot of mess. I was struggling with one counter, then I like because I was struggling trying to find where more money was going so like I was trying to like created more work for me because I was going on like a complete mess. So when I got them red handed I thought like it be them who were nicking the money
- Warwick Tatford: You see, I suggest, Mrs Misra, that you were setting out one defence in your interview, theft. You were setting out one defence in your first defence statement, theft by employees. You then in a second defence statement add a whole raft of detail that you knew about at the time of your Post Office interview and at the time of your first defence statement. I am suggesting that these new additions have come because you have invented them?
- Seema Misra: No
- Warwick Tatford: You didn’t mention them earlier because they are simply not true?
- Seema Misra: I didn’t invent them. This incident happened
- Warwick Tatford: You know perfectly well, do you not, that in relation to some of those things you have read in articles that the prosecution have looked carefully at other complaints, have they not, and you have been disclosed material in relation to Calendar Square because that is an objective piece of material that gives a cause for concern about Horizon. You understand all that process, do you not?
- Seema Misra: Yeah
- Warwick Tatford: But you understand that the Post Office at the request of you and your solicitors have fully researched other articles and other suggestions of problems? You are aware of that, are you not?
- Seema Misra: Yeah, that is right
- Warwick Tatford: Thank you. So is it a case of you jumping on a bandwagon when you read something that might give you a hope and adding a few extra false limbs to your defence?
- Seema Misra: No. If you recall, in my, I think it was Mr Dunks’ calls, I did make the calls on that, the losses as well and when Chesterfield transfer me to Horizon that…
- Warwick Tatford: Yes, but you only made calls about the £6,000 loss according to Mr Dunks
- Seema Misra: And when we go into the call there isn’t the call that I have been speaking to Chesterfield for two weeks and they ask me to ring Horizon help desk. There was a call, was it not? I think so
- Warwick Tatford: I suggest there may have been some sort of disagreement with your staff and that prompted you to call the helpline, but whatever the rights and wrongs of that disagreement it does not go anywhere near to explaining why you were lacking £74,000?
The day before Seema Misra’s trial, was Monday the 1st of June 2009.
Seema Misra did not call the helpline “for two weeks”, like she claimed to the jury, this was another of her bare faced lies.
She first called the helpline on the 21st of February 2006 and told them she’d had problems for “the last couple of weeks”.
Javed and Nadia, her two former members of staff, had left the West Byfleet post office by February 2006.
Seema Misra did not report Javed or Nadia to either the post office or the police for any alleged thefts.
On the 8th of April 2006 Davinder Misra, Seema’s husband contacted Surrey police and reported Nadia for allegedly being an “illegal immigrant”.
On the 12th of April 2006 former employee Javed, reported Davinder Misra to Surrey police for harassment and stated that “Mr Misra had started spreading rumours around the community, telling others that Javed had stolen £2,000 from the till and was not paying it back”.
Hornswoggler Nick Wallis’s version of events differs from what Josephine Hamilton told the inquiry in her “statement of truth”.
Below are a few excerpts from Nick Wallis’s book The Great Post Office Scandal;
The day before her trial, a desperate Seema was searching on the internet.
One of her search queries seemed to return a lifeline. ‘I put in something like “Post Office court case help,” ’ she said, ‘and Jo came up!’ A local news website was carrying the story of Jo Hamilton’s conviction.
Seema called Davinder in excitement. They decided to try to contact Jo. Even though the Post Office had long gone, Jo was still working behind the retail counter at South Warnborough Village Stores.
South Warnborough Village Stores also just happened to be open on a Sunday, serving afternoon tea. Jo remembers taking Seema’s call. ‘She kept saying, “You’ve got to help me. You’ve got to help me.” She was crying and in a terrible state.’
The two women bonded on the phone. Jo told Seema about the journalist from Computer Weekly who had put together an investigation into Horizon.
Seema begged Jo for help.
Realising how little time was left, Jo ran over the road to Issy’s house and told her about Seema. Issy called up the Computer Weekly article on her computer. Jo wanted to know if there was anything that could be done. When Issy later told me about this dramatic moment, she laughed.
‘It was the day before the trial. Way too late. There was literally nothing I could do. Seema wasn’t even my client. I suggested to Jo that Seema should take a copy of the magazine to court, show it to the judge and ask for an adjournment.’
Jo ran back across the road, called Seema and explained what she had to do. The next day, Seema’s barrister approached the trial judge.
Excerpts by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021
Why does Nick Wallis’s version of events differ to Josephine Hamilton’s version of events?
Seema Misra has referenced Nick Wallis’s book in her statement to the inquiry (p.7 here).
Why would Seema Misra refer to Nick Wallis’s book in her statement, if she knew his version of events were wrong?
Why does Nick Wallis have Josephine Hamilton running “back across the road” calling Seema Misra, if Seema was already at her South Warnborough village shop?
The “day before” Seema Misra’s trial was Monday the 1st of June 2009.
If Nick Wallis’s version of events are true – that Seema Misra contacted Josephine Hamilton on Sunday the 31st of May 2009, then Seema Misra wilfully made a false statement during her trial evidence and committed perjury.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 