At some point after Rebecca Thomson’s article was published, and before Seema Misra’s trial was due to start, Seema apparently “turned up” at the shop of Josephine Hamilton.
Josephine Hamilton stated in her 2nd witness statement to the 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.
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?
Nick Wallis wrongly states in his book The Great Post Office Scandal;
As Seema’s trial date of 1 June 2009 approached, various preparatory hearings took place.
Excerpt 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
Seema Misra’s trial was due to start on Tuesday the 2nd of June 2009 – this fact was established during the 15th November 2023 inquiry evidence of prosecuting lawyer Warwick Tatford.
Hornswoggler Nick Wallis’s version of events differs from what Josephine Hamilton told the inquiry, in her “statement of truth”.
Below are further excerpts from Nick Wallis’s book;
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.
These revelations seemed extraordinary to Seema and Davinder, who believed they were the only ones having problems with Horizon, because that’s what the Post Office had told them. 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
The “day before” Seema Misra’s trial was Monday the 1st of June 2009.
If Nick Wallis’s version of events is 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 and committed perjury.
Why does Nick Wallis’s version of events differ to Josephine Hamilton’s version of events?
And why does Nick Wallis have Josephine Hamilton running “back across the road” to phone Seema Misra, if Seema was already at Josephine Hamilton’s shop?
On the 11th of May 2009 Rebecca Thomson wrote and published an article for Computer Weeklyhere.
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.
In his 25th October 2023 witness statement for the post office Horizon IT inquiry here, lawyer Warwick Tatford was critical of paragraphs 277 – 285 in Hamilton & Ors v Post Office Ltd on thief and fraudster Carl Page.
This was referred to in Part 33 of this blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;
At paragraph 104 of Warwick Tatford’s witness statement to the inquiry it states in part;
Finally, I am asked whether there are any further matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the Chair of the inquiry.
I have dealt, fully I hope, with the cases of Mrs Misra and Mr Pages..
Excerpts from Warwick Tatford’s 25th October 2023 witness statement for the post office Horizon IT inquiry from page 56 of 61 here
Although Warwick Tatford stated in paragraph 101 of his statement “I accept the criticisms made at Hamilton and others paragraphs 91(i), 131 and 207”, he made no reference or comment on paragraph 92 of the appeal courts judgement.
Warwick Tatford did state in paragraph 100 “I was particularly concernedwhen I read paragraph 206 of Hamilton and others” yet nothing on paragraph 92.
At paragraph 99 he also stated;
I am asked to reflect about the trial now, particularly in light of the Hamilton judgement.
I have thought about this case for many years; that is why I remember it much better than other more recent cases.
I don’t pretend that I have come to any clear conclusions.
I am very troubled by the case and to an extent confused.
Excerpts from Warwick Tatford’s 25th October 2023 witness statement for the post office Horizon IT inquiry from page 54 of 61 here
Warwick Tatford should know that at no time during Seema Misra’s trial did she mention anything about any figure “doubling” during her training, as claimed by her and Second Sight in their disingenuous and biased 2015 report, referred to by the appeal court judges in Hamilton & Ors v Post Office Ltd.
He should also know that trainer Michael was asked by Jonathan (Jon) Longman if he recalled Seema Misra’s “onsite training”, apparently carried out between 7th and 13th July 2005, and it was said he had “no recollection of events so long ago”.
Tap on the button below to read more about paragraph 92;
92: Seema Misra had been appointed an SPM in 2005. We note that in a report prepared by Second Sight in April 2015 (in connection with the possibility of mediation), the appellant is recorded as saying:
“she was surprised to find that discrepancies occurred on each day of her onsite training, particularly as the trainer had watched every transaction she carried out that week. She adds that in the second week, an unexplained shortfall of approximately £200 occurred whilst balancing, and that the trainer rang the Helpline for assistance. She says that the trainer followed the Helpline’s instructions, which had the effect of causing the shortfall to double, after which the trainer told her “we have to make the till good now and you might get an error notice”. She says that this ‘doubling’ of a loss also occurred on another unspecified occasion in relation to a £2,000 discrepancy. Post Office states that there are no records in the NBSC call logs of the call that the Applicant asserts was made by the trainer and that ‘due to the time that has elapsed there are no transaction logs available for the Applicant’s training period’.”
We observe that this appears to be a striking instance of a problem with Horizon, of which independent evidence was or should have been available from the person who was training the appellant in its use
Trial Evidence Verses Further Concoctions
The court of appeals paragraph 92 has been written off the back of Seema Misra, and her enablers, post trial concoctions.
Second Sight’s statement “she was surprised to find that discrepancies occurred on each day of her onsite training” is contrived.
During her trial Seema Misra only ever described two alleged “discrepancies” occurring at the end of each of her first two weeks “onsite training” during weekly balancing.
Tap on the button below to read thief and fraudster Seema Misra’s evidence in chief and cross examination;
Seema Misra also said nothing about Second Sights’ “£200” figure during her trial, and she most definitely did not say anything about any “shortfall” doubling (p.52c here).
The only time she used the words “200” during her evidence was when she chose to remind the jury, and everyone else, how much she had paid for the West Byfleet costcutters shop and post office (p.106e here).
Seema Misra also chose to lie to the post office Horizon IT inquiry on 25th February 2022 and attempted to re-write history. Referring to Michael the trainer she stated “…on Wednesday he was there with the balancing and all that, and there was a shortfall. It was in hundreds, I think a couple of hundred pounds. He called the helpline said he had been here whole week watching each and every transaction, me doing it correctly, but still there’s a shortfall. So the helpline asked him to do some procedure on the system and the figure doubled up” (p.44 & 45 here).
Seema’s evidence at trial was an alleged “£150” figure at the end of her first weeks onsite training (Wednesday 6th July 2005) and an alleged “£400shortfall” figure at the end of her second weeks onsite training (Wednesday 13th July 2005).
Seema Misra also said nothing about the onsite trainer ringing the helpline for assistance.
What she told the jury about trainer Michael was that “he made a phone call from office, I don’t know where” (p.52g here).
All call logs to the Horizon helpline number were disclosed and addressed during Seema Misra’s trial, and neither Michael the trainer or Seema had phoned the helpline during her second weeks trading and onsite training.
June 2005 Trainer Junaid
Seema Misra got the keys for the West Byfleet post Office branch on 29th June 2005 and started serving customers on 30th June 2005.
Although she had completed two full weeks training in a “classroom” setting in March 2005, during her first two weeks “live” in the branch, she was also supported by two trainers (p.117e here).
Junaid was the name of the trainer who supported Seema during her first week, from Thursday 30th June to weekly “balancing” on Wednesday 6th July 2005.
July 2005 Trainer Michael
Michael was the name of the trainer who apparently supported Seema in her second week, from Thursday 7th July 2005 to the weekly “balancing” on Wednesday 13th July 2005.
On 25th July 2005 a request was received for the West Byfleet branch to receive “ad hoc” training in relation to “balancing procedure”.
The request stated “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”.
August 2005
Trainer Michael was allocated to return to the West Byfleet branch on Wednesday 27th July and Wednesday 3rd August 2005 to carry out this “ad hoc” training.
Seema Misra chose to lie by concealment to the jury about Michael’s return for “ad-hoc” training to her branch.
During the weekly ad-hoc training balancing in August 2005, it was established that Seema Misra’s post office was “holding a loss of £466.73 and an over of £96.80” which amounted to around £400.
Seema Misra chose to conflate her “onsite training” with trainer Michael, which apparently took place between Thursday 7th July to Wednesday 13th July 2005, with Michael’s return to her branch a few weeks later, on Wednesday 27th July and Wednesday 3rd August 2005 for “ad hoc” training on “balancing procedures”.
This “£400 short” figure, which Seema Misra pretended during her trial had been the “£400shortfall” figure at the end of her second weeks training on Wednesday 13th July 2005, was not flagged until 3 weeks later in August 2005, following the “ad-hoc” training (Source p.52e here).
According to Intervention manager Alan Ridoutt “That was put into the suspense account by the trainer ‘Michael”, who had told Seema Misra “that a voucher would be issued to clear it”.
Seema Misra was then “warned” by Alan Ridoutt that unless an error came back, she would be liable for the “losses”.
The jury in the 2010 trial were told by judge Stewart;
In early 2010 Jon Longman spoke to the trainers Michael and Junaid and to Timiko Springer about their dealings with the defendant.
They all said they had no recollection of events so long ago. There are no written reports to refresh their memory
Excerpts by Judge Stewart from 18th October 2010 trial transcripts p.15f here
Second Sight’s Concocted £2,000 Figure
Regarding the “£2,000” figure referred to by Second Sight in their report, on the day of her suspension, Seema Misra’s husband Davinder made a hand written statement which had included a name that looked like “Sarah”. It was stated during trial “I would say that is “Sarah” but I don’t know” (Source p.65 here). This appears to have been Shakia Suksener.
Davinder Misra’s statement read “We have around £2,000 short in the stock unit due to staff theft. It was more than what we have now. We did put some money in this stock unit to make it good. This is what we left, owed £2,000 which we need to put this money is taken out by Sarah” (P.65 here & p.83 here).
A few months before her trial finally began in October 2010, Seema dropped her false allegations of theft against Shakia.
Prosecutor Warwick Tatford addressed Seema Misra’s false allegations relating to Shakia Suksener to the jury stating “..detailed defence statement that was served “on the 21st January 2010 “..there are references to the thieves that Mrs Misra thought she had found. Paragraph (c) says in fact that she was satisfied that Shakia Suksener was not accountable, not a theft, which does not tie in with the earlier letter where her identity is set out as a thief…” (p.18 here).
92: Seema Misra had been appointed an SPM in 2005. We note that in a report prepared by Second Sight in April 2015 (in connection with the possibility of mediation), the appellant is recorded as saying:
“she was surprised to find that discrepancies occurred on each day of her onsite training, particularly as the trainer had watched every transaction she carried out that week. She adds that in the second week, an unexplained shortfall of approximately £200 occurred whilst balancing, and that the trainer rang the Helpline for assistance. She says that the trainer followed the Helpline’s instructions, which had the effect of causing the shortfall to double, after which the trainer told her “we have to make the till good now and you might get an error notice”. She says that this ‘doubling’ of a loss also occurred on another unspecified occasion in relation to a £2,000 discrepancy. Post Office states that there are no records in the NBSC call logs of the call that the Applicant asserts was made by the trainer and that ‘due to the time that has elapsed there are no transaction logs available for the Applicant’s training period’.”
We observe that this appears to be a striking instance of a problem with Horizon, of which independent evidence was or should have been available from the person who was training the appellant in its use
Trial Evidence Verses Further Concoctions
The court of appeals paragraph 92 has been written off the back of Seema Misra, and her enablers, post trial concoctions.
Second Sight’s statement “she was surprised to find that discrepancies occurred on each day of her onsite training” is contrived.
During her trial Seema Misra only ever described two alleged “discrepancies” occurring at the end of each of her first two weeks “onsite training” during weekly balancing.
Tap on the button below to read thief and fraudster Seema Misra’s evidence in chief and cross examination;
Seema Misra also said nothing about Second Sights’ “£200” figure during her trial, and she most definitely did not say anything about any “shortfall” doubling (p.52c here).
The only time she used the words “200” during her evidence was when she chose to remind the jury, and everyone else, how much she had paid for the West Byfleet costcutters shop and post office (p.106e here).
Seema Misra also chose to lie to the post office Horizon IT inquiry on 25th February 2022 and attempted to re-write history. Referring to Michael the trainer she stated “…on Wednesday he was there with the balancing and all that, and there was a shortfall. It was in hundreds, I think a couple of hundred pounds. He called the helpline said he had been here whole week watching each and every transaction, me doing it correctly, but still there’s a shortfall. So the helpline asked him to do some procedure on the system and the figure doubled up” (p.44 & 45 here).
Seema’s evidence at trial was an alleged “£150” figure at the end of her first weeks “onsitetraining” (Wednesday 6th July 2005) and an alleged “£400shortfall” figure at the end of her second weeks “onsite training” (Wednesday 13th July 2005)..
Seema Misra also said nothing about the trainer ringing the helpline for assistance.
What she told the jury about trainer Michael was that “he made a phone call from office, I don’t know where” (p.52g here).
All call logs to the Horizon helpline number were disclosed and addressed during Seema Misra’s trial, and neither Michael the trainer or Seema had phoned the helpline during her second weeks trading and onsite training.
June 2005 Trainer Junaid
Seema Misra got the keys for the West Byfleet post Office branch on 29th June 2005 and started serving customers on 30th June 2005.
Although she had completed two full weeks training in a “classroom” setting in March 2005, during her first two weeks “live” in the branch, she was also supported by two trainers (p.117e here).
Junaid was the name of the trainer who supported Seema during her first week, from Thursday 30th June to weekly “balancing” on Wednesday 6th July 2005.
July 2005 Trainer Michael
Michael was the name of the trainer who apparently supported Seema in her second week, from Thursday 7th July 2005 to the weekly “balancing” on Wednesday 13th July 2005.
On 25th July 2005 a request was received for the West Byfleet branch to receive “ad hoc” training in relation to “balancing procedure”.
The request stated “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”.
August 2005
Trainer Michael was allocated to return to the West Byfleet branch on Wednesday 27th July and Wednesday 3rd August 2005 to carry out this “ad hoc” training.
Seema Misra chose to lie by concealment to the jury about Michael’s return for “ad-hoc” training to her branch.
During the weekly ad-hoc training balancing in August 2005, it was established that Seema Misra’s post office was “holding a loss of £466.73 and an over of £96.80” which amounted to around £400.
Seema Misra chose to conflate her “onsite training” with trainer Michael, which apparently took place between Thursday 7th July to Wednesday 13th July 2005, with Michael’s return to her branch a few weeks later, on Wednesday 27th July and Wednesday 3rd August 2005 for “ad hoc” training on “balancing procedures”.
This “£400 short” figure, which Seema Misra pretended during her trial had been the “£400shortfall” figure at the end of her second weeks training on Wednesday 13th July 2005, was not flagged until 3 weeks later in August 2005, following the “ad-hoc” training (Source p.52e here).
According to Intervention manager Alan Ridoutt “That was put into the suspense account by the trainer ‘Michael”, who had told Seema Misra “that a voucher would be issued to clear it”.
Seema Misra was then “warned” by Alan Ridoutt that unless an error came back, she would be liable for the “losses”.
The jury in the 2010 trial were told by judge Stewart;
In early 2010 Jon Longman spoke to the trainers Michael and Junaid and to Timiko Springer about their dealings with the defendant.
They all said they had no recollection of events so long ago. There are no written reports to refresh their memory
Excerpts by Judge Stewart from 18th October 2010 trial transcripts p.15f here
Second Sight’s Concocted £2,000 Figure
Regarding the “£2,000” figure referred to by Second Sight in their report, on the day of her suspension, Seema Misra’s husband Davinder made a hand written statement which had included a name that looked like “Sarah”. It was stated during trial “I would say that is “Sarah” but I don’t know” (Source p.65 here). This appears to have been Shakia Suksener.
Davinder Misra’s statement read “We have around £2,000 short in the stock unit due to staff theft. It was more than what we have now. We did put some money in this stock unit to make it good. This is what we left, owed £2,000 which we need to put this money is taken out by Sarah” (P.65 here & p.83 here).
A few months before her trial finally began in October 2010, Seema dropped her false allegations of theft against Shakia.
Prosecutor Warwick Tatford addressed Seema Misra’s false allegations relating to Shakia Suksener to the jury stating “..detailed defence statement that was served “on the 21st January 2010 “..there are references to the thieves that Mrs Misra thought she had found. Paragraph (c) says in fact that she was satisfied that Shakia Suksener was not accountable, not a theft, which does not tie in with the earlier letter where her identity is set out as a thief…” (p.18 here).
The aim of the public post office horizon IT inquiry should not ‘only be to establish the truth – what happened, why, and where accountability may lie – but also to alleviate public concern and restore confidence.
It should ‘provide an independent account of the facts and a mechanism for recommendations so that a reoccurrence of such events does not happen.
Is Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry, a post conviction activist or an independent inquirer? He is described here as “Smooth, cerebral and reliable, with impeccable judgement. He is unbeatable on the law and very good in appellate cases and in public law”.
On 11th May 2023 during the inquiry, Jason Beer stated to Rod Ismay;
Did it erm
ever occur to you
or anyone else that applied their brain to the issue
On 15th November 2023 during Warwick Tatford’s evidence, referring to calls made to the Horizon helpline number, Jason Beer wrongly stated of the Seema Misra case “We know that there were 135 calls that she made” (inquiry transcripts here).
Warwick Tatford had clarified the actual number of calls made to the helpline with Andrew Dunks, just before he was cross examined by Keith Hadrill (p.70c here).
The total number of calls made throughout Seema Misra’s time at the West Byfleet post office was 105, not “135”.
Below is a copy of extracts from trial transcripts relating to this correction of the error (p.70c here).
Warwick Tatford: Your Honour, can I just ask Mr Dunks some further questions to clarify a matter that there may have been an error this morning?
Judge Stewart: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Mr Dunks, could I just ask you to have a look at page 41 in that statement bundle, please?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: You have listed and given a number to each call. You have said that it was 135 calls in the period up to 15th January 2008. In fact do you want to just look at page 41? Call number 105 is dated, is it not, 17th December 2007?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: There the description of the call is “PM states CP on no 2 is not working“
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Can you help us as to what that means?
Andrew Dunks: “CP” is “counter printer” and “no 2” will be counter 2
Warwick Tatford: So another problem with the printer it would appear?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: That in fact is the last call by the postmaster in the period that we are concerned with. Is that not right? Call 106 for 14th January 2008 refers to an auditor, Keith Noverre. Is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Then you do list calls going into 2008 which do in the end add up to 135, but in fact looking strictly at the period you were asked to look at, the last call is number 105 from the postmaster in that period you were asked to look at. Would that be right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes. It is actually, yes
Warwick Tatford: So it is not 135. 105 calls to the helpline in that period?
Andrew Dunks: Mmm mm
How would Warwick Tatford have known about the 30 extra calls being related to locum sub-postmaster Ramprakash Vasarmy, and his time at the branch, towards the end of January 2008, unless the Horizon call log data history had been disclosed?
Warwick Tatford did not correct Jason Beer on this incorrect, but relevant detail. Why?
And why didn’t Jason Beer know about Warwick Tatford’s clarification on this error with Andrew Dunks during trial?
The following extracts are copied from the inquiry transcripts related to Warwick Tatford’s evidence, in which Jason Beer referred to “Network manager” Alan Ridoutt (inquiry transcripts here);
Jason Beer: Thank you. Can we turn to a new topic, please, disclosure of training material. Can we just turn up your witness statement, please, at paragraph 50, which is on page 25 – in fact, it’s the second part of paragraph 50 on page 26. You’re referring to Mrs Misra’s interview and you say: “On the contrary, she said that she had been able to find the cause of the losses – her dishonest employees. Her interview had not made mention of her suffering losses right from the beginning, in the presence of her trainers while they were training her, before any possible theft was involved, which was something that she later relied on heavily in her evidence at trial”. So the point that you’re making here, is this right, that at trial Mrs Misra relied on an occasion or occasions where a loss was suffered whilst a trainer was in the premises with her, in the post office with her?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You’re making the point: but, hold on, that’s not something she relied on interview?
Warwick Tatford: Well, I think she – I dealt with this. I specifically went – well, normal practice is to go specifically to the questions to see whether it is a matter that could legitimately be raised at that time. But I’m trying to remember exactly how it was. I appreciate I made the point and – that I made that point in my speech and then persuaded the judge that there was a potential adverse inference on that point.
Jason Beer: : So a Section 34 inference
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Against her. But, in any event, you’re making the point here that Mrs Misra relied significantly on the fact that some of the losses occurred in the presence of her trainer?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : I just want to look at what was disclosed in the trial, as against material that the Inquiry has now uncovered?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, right. All right
Jason Beer: The Post Office has disclosed to us the following document. It’s called a “Request for Ad Hoc Training”, specifically in relation to balancing procedures. Can we look at it, please. POL00047578. Can you see it’s called “Request for Ad Hoc Training”?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : Name of the outlet, West Byfleet, and its identification code. “Agent’s name”, misspelt Mrs Misra.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we scroll down: “Ad Hoc Training Required … “Balancing procedures.”
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: “Training Delivery Team to complete”, at the foot of the page. Request received, 25 July 2005; days allocated, 27 July and Wednesday, 3 August 2005. The trainer Michael Opebiyi, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we just look at the rest of the page, “Balancing Procedure”, this is for the field trainer to complete. “Balancing procedure”, topic covered: “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”. So it looks like there’d been a request for ad hoc training, specifically in relation to balancing procedures, that looks like it led to Michael Opebiyi being allocated to perform training on 27 July and 3 August. So, overall, this is a request for training relating to Mrs Misra specifically relating to balancing, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00065114, an “Intervention Manager Visit Log”. This looks like it’s completed by the Intervention Manager for the area, called Alan Ridoutt, and he’s recorded: “This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units. I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup as well as arranging ad hoc training. “The [subpostmaster] is still new and is looking for support on many issues – she has the capability but needs occasional guidance”. Then this, if we can just scroll down and highlight it: “This branch is currently holding a loss of £466.73 and an over of £96.80. That was put into the suspense account by the trainer ‘Michael’. Who told the [subpostmaster] that a voucher would be issued to clear it. I have spoken to Michael who confirmed that he did this. I have warned the [subpostmaster] that unless an error comes back they could be liable”. Would you agree that this appears to be a record that, whilst a trainer was there, he agreed that an amount of £466.73 and an over of £96.80 could be put in a suspense account.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it does. Can I just clarify, it’s me not understanding this: was this something that was disclosed in the trial or it has come forward more recently?
Jason Beer: More recently
Warwick Tatford: Well, it rather looks like I’ve made an error and a bad, unfair point.
Jason Beer: You’re ahead of me because I think you’re thinking ahead to the cross-examination of Mrs Misra
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: When, essentially, you said that what she was saying wasn’t true
Warwick Tatford: Yes, and it looks like a bad point. I’m sorry about that. My understanding was, from what I remember, the training records were disclosed.
Jason Beer: Well, let’s before we get ahead of ourselves
Jason Beer: Just see how disclosure unfolded at the trial. Can we look, please, at POL00058503. Can we see at the foot of this page an email from 28 November 2009 from Keith Hadrill to you: “Hi Warwick “Sorry to disturb your weekend. However, herewith the further disclosure request drafted by Issy. “Call me if you need any further clarification”. Then if we can look at the disclosure request, next page, please. Look under the foot of the page, under the cross-heading “Training”, copy of the training manual, when it was supplied, all records provided to the defendant qualifications of the trainer. Then this at paragraph 5: “During the second week of the Defendant’s tenure as a subpostmistress at West Byfleet the trainer was present during the weekly reconciliation. He called the helpline to request explanation as to a loss as, in his opinion, the Defendant had at all times followed procedure. No explanation was given and the Defendant made good the loss. Please provide the following information: “a) The name and contact details of that trainer (to assist in identification the defendant recalls his name was Michael and he was black).“b) What enquiries were made, bearing in mind the request came from a trainer, as to the cause of this loss.” If we go back to page 1, please. You forwarded this, so you were getting it directly from defence council. You forwarded it that night, so the following night, to Jon Longman and Phil Taylor: “Dear Jon & Phil, “Please find yet another disclosure request from the defence, albeit, to an extent, a rehash of what has gone before”. Does the language you’ve used there reflect your frustration at the defence making disclosure requests?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Not the act of making disclosure requests; that’s not a problem. The problem was their wideness and they were very wide, and they – well, the trouble with very wide defence requests that don’t focus on matters is that it’s possible to be distracted by some things and not concentrate on other more important things. That’s a potential danger. A good prosecutor should be able to deal with everything. But there were a lot of disclosure requests, as I think is clear from the paperwork, and they were very wide.
Jason Beer: That one we’ve looked at was pretty specific, wasn’t it, in the
Warwick Tatford: Oh yes, it’s one of the ones and I think I’d dealt with that in my advice and I think Jon Longman was providing information on that. It maybe that he – he wasn’t aware of the full information when he made disclosure but I’m sure we’ll come to that.
Jason Beer: Can we look at what happened at trial, please, UKGI00014845. So this is the transcript of the trial for 18 October 2010. If we can turn up page 52, please. I’m jumping right in here, this is her evidence-in-chief: “What happened whilst Michael was there? Did he also sit behind and watch what you were doing?” Mrs Misra says: “Yeah, he was sitting behind me, but I mentioned to him – as he come in ‘how is it going?’ I said ‘not good. I am having to put money in every day to the post office’. He was more concerned than Junaid. He said ‘that should not be happening. Let us see how it goes’. Question: “Did it get any better?” Answer: “No. I have to again put money in every day and then when balancing with Michael it came round at £400 short” Question: “At the end of the week?” Then scroll down. End of D: “… second balancing in office with Michael” Question: “So the first day with Michael on the second week?” Answer: “That is right – no – yeah. That is right”. Question: “It is £400 short?” Answer: “No, no, no, that is on the second balancing £400 short” Question: “So that is the end of the second week?” Answer: “End of second week”. Question: “Did you get any error corrections there?”. Answer: “No. Michael said ‘it is a bit unusual. I know you have been doing the transaction correctly’. Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office … he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly … they have been putting the money in every day to balance the till and he can’t understand why the £400 shortfall is”. So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we go towards page 132, please, Question: “It is this interview I am looking at. All right? This is you cross-examining Answer: “Okay” Question: “In this interview you have not mentioned Michael, Junaid, what auditor threatened you with, the £500 and then you will lose the post office. You don’t mention Timiko Springer. Yes? All those things are missing from this interview. Do you accept that?” Answer: “I accept I gave answer to the questions what they asked for” Question: “Right what I want to understand is why these things are missing because in fact you have just given us another potential reason. Is it because you were not asked the question or is it because you had not realised how important these things were at the time of interview?” Answer: “I can’t remember, basically … Question: “If you cannot remember, Mrs Misra…” Question: “in an interview in 2008 how is it you remember your dealings with Michael and Junaid in 2005?” Answer: “It happen. It happen in my post office”. Question: “If it happened why didn’t you tell the Post Office this in interview?”. You were suggesting here, not directly, but by implication, through the use of the word “if”, followed up by the failure to mention something in interview, that what she was saying was false, weren’t you?
Warwick Tatford: Well, yes, that would follow from the not being mentioned there that I’m not sure I was that piece of more recent disclosure. But it may – if I’m wrong about that and I’ve made a mistake, I’ll let you go to where we need to go
Jason Beer: If it’s the case, which appears to be the case that those records were not disclosed to the defence or disclosed to you, relating to the trainer Michael’s experience, when he was in branch, that led you to cross-examine Mrs Misra on a false basis, didn’t it?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it was a bad point. My understanding was that the training records had been disclosed and that they couldn’t remember the details but I’m trying to remember where that was from. But it certainly appears clear and it’s unfortunate, if there’s a piece of disclosure I didn’t have that’s caused me to take a bad point then it’s an unfair point. It’s not Mrs Misra’s point it’s the fault of the prosecution as a whole
Seema Misra, Her Guile & Enabling Innocence Fraud
As previously referred to in Part 34 of this blog series, Warwick Tatford had asked Seema Misra “You have a clear memory as I understand of what happened between you and Junaid and Michael in 2005 when losses were occurring from the very beginning?”.
Seems Misra had indicated her memory was clear and confirmed this by stating “Yeah” (p.114a here).
Jason Beer chose to read out a cherry picked section of Seema Misra’s trial evidence, where she had referred to trainer Michael and a “£400shortfall”.
He then stated to Warwick Tatford “So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?”
Intentional Deception
Whilst Seema Misra may have showed “quite a good recall for the figures”, her recall regarding dates was intentionally deceptive.
Seema Misra’s evidence in chief was that trainer Michael Opebiyi had gone into her branch during her second week of trading on “Thursday” 7th July 2005 (p.51h here).
She clarified this by stating “End of – yeah, end of the balancing Wednesday. That is my first balance –second balancing in office, first with Michael” (p.52d here).
Defence lawyer Keith Hadrill had also clarified this point by asking her “So the first day with Michael on the second week?” to which Seema almost slipped up, when she replied “That is right – no – yeah. That is right” (p.52e here).
Seema Misra knew her dates were not “right”.
Conflating Two Separate Events
She knew trainer Michael had returned to her branch on Wednesday 27th July, and again on Wednesday 3rd August 2005 – neither days being a “Thursday”.
Seema Misra chose to intentionally conflate these two separate events ie; her two weeks training (between 30th June to 13th July 2005), with the two single dates where Michael had returned to the branch for “ad-hoc” training on “balancing procedures”.
She told the jury she had gone along to her “local stationer Eltons” with Alan Ridoutt, but she also chose to omit his name, and did not refer to the actual dates of when exactly this event had occurred.
Seema Misra also omitted these facts intentionally in an obvious attempt to confuse the jury.
Just as Keith Hadrill would also have done in relation to Alan Ridoutt and his “visits log”.
Keith Hadrill would have known, if he questioned Seema Misra in any real detail on Alan Ridoutt, and more specifically around dates, she could have slipped up and blown her defence regarding her allegations about her pretend “losses”, during her first two weeks trading.
Seema Misra did not want the jury to know that Alan Ridoutt had gone to her branch to help her sort out the “mess”. She obfuscated through out her evidence.
She had stated of Alan Ridoutt “Then I remember a guy came in, somebody from Network something” (p.57h here).
Disclosure Of Visits Log & Keith Hadrill’s Knowledge
Keith Hadrill had also asked her “Somebody was sent in from Network to help you and through that you managed to set up the separate tills”, to which Seema was keen to point out “Not to set up” (p.58ab here).
Jason Beer and Warwick Tatford discussed disclosure of Alan Ridoutt’s visits log, with Jason Beer claiming this log was only disclosed “more recently”.
How then would Keith Hadrill have known about Alan Ridoutt’s visit to help with setting up “the separatetills”, unless he had seen Alan Ridoutt’s visits log?
The visits log had stated;
This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units
I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup
Copies of some of Alan Ridoutt’s visit log notes
Seema Misra was adamant during her trial evidence that Alan Ridoutt did not help her set up “separate tills” and even stated she told him “let us leave it” (p.58f here).
The Phantom Helpline Call During First 2 Weeks Trading
Jason Beer also read out a 29th November 2008 email from Keith Hadrill in which it had stated “During the second week of the Defendant’s tenure as a subpostmistress at West Byfleet the trainer was present during the weekly reconciliation. He called the helpline to request explanation as to a loss…”.
This was concocted by Seema Misra.
The “£400 shortfall” did not come about until August 2005, when Michael had returned to the branch after being allocated to do so by intervention manager Alan Ridoutt.
When Jason Beer read out some of Seema Misra’s evidence relating to Michael, he omitted to read out the fact that Seema had stated she “didn’t know where” Michael had phoned.
Jason Beer intentionally chose to not read out all of what Seema Misra had stated, which was;
Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office, I don’t know where he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly”
Seema Misra – Source trial transcripts from page 52g here
The aim of the public post office horizon IT inquiry should not ‘only be to establish the truth – what happened, why, and where accountability may lie – but also to alleviate public concern and restore confidence.
It should ‘provide an independent account of the facts and a mechanism for recommendations so that a reoccurrence of such events does not happen.
Hamilton & Others Judgement
Warwick Tatford criticised the judgement inHamilton & Others Vs The Post Office Ltd, in his 25th October 2023 witness statement to the inquiry in relation to Carl Page.
At paragraph 16, on page 6 of his statement here Warwick Tatford states;
There seems to have been a misunderstanding in the court of appeal in Hamilton & others as to the facts of count 2.
Paragraphs 277-285 seem to be incorrect in a number of important respects, unless other information was presented to the court of appeal which does not appear in the judgement
Warwick Tatford – Excerpts from witness statement for post office horizon inquiry dated 25th October 2024 here
Then in paragraph 20 he stated;
It follows from all this that the criticisms made by Holroyd LJ in Hamilton & others [at 279] about the crown changing its case between the 2 trials, are, perhaps, I am afraid, incorrect.
I do not know how the court of appeal came to this view…
Warwick Tatford – Excerpts from witness statement for post office horizon inquiry dated 25th October 2024 here
At paragraph 22 he also stated;
…the post office received information to suggest that Carl Page may have perjured himself in an aspect of his evidence in the trial.
He had spent some time in his evidence in his first trial setting out his military record and he claimed he had served in a secret capacity which he could not divulge.
Rather naively we had not considered that he might have been telling lies on this point….
Warwick Tatford – Excerpts from witness statement for post office horizon inquiry dated 25th October 2024 here
Mr Justice Fraser’s Judgement
Anne Chambers, a former systems specialist for Fujitsu, also told the inquiry on 3rd May 2023 that she disagreed with a point made by Mr justice Fraser in Bates (and others) Vs Post Office Ltd stating;
It wasn’t a consequence of the correction, I know that Mr justice Fraser considered some of this…. ..but his view was that there had been two different corrections done, and one of them was for the wrong amount….I disagree with that strongly, in that the correction that he thought was for the wrong amount, didn’t affect the branch accounts at all
Anne Chambers – 3rd May 2023 (from around 1:12:35 here)
Court Of Appeal Does NOT Determine Factual Innocence
Paragraph 32 of the 2019 supreme courts judgement in Hallam v Secretary of State for Justice states “It should be made clear that the CACD does not posses any power to make any formal findings or declarations of innocence. Nothing in the Lord Chief Justice’s judgement in Adam’s suggested that it did. It is not the CACD’s role to determine whether an applicant is factually innocent. The question that it determines is whether the conviction is unsafe”.
Who within the government, or the inquiry deemed any of the subpostmasters and subpostmistresses “factually innocent”?
The Inquiry About Page
The inquiry about page here for the post office horizon IT inquiry states in part;
The Inquiry will gather relevant evidence from affected persons, previous and current subpostmasters and subpostmistresses, Post Office Ltd, UK Government Investment (UKGI), Fujitsu, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), amongst others. It will also consider whether Post Office Limited has learned the lessons and embedded the cultural change necessary from the findings in Mr Justice Fraser’s judgments and the impact on affected postmasters.
Seema Misra Case & Campaign Has Hallmarks Of Innocence Fraud Phenomenon
Innocence Fraud Watch has carried out a deep dive into the case against Seema Misra and has concluded her public relations spin campaign is yet another example of the very real innocence fraud phenomenon. Read more by tapping on the button below;
Jonathan Longman, the post office investigator, assigned to Seema Misra’s case contacted Surrey police regarding crime reports.
He established that on 8th April 2006 Davinder Misra, Seema Misra’s husband, had contacted the police to report former employee Nadia Badiwalia for allegedly being “an illegal immigrant”.
Jonathan Longman told the jury in October 2010 “The report says that this female, Nadia, is suspected of being an illegal immigrant and that she is causing a nuisance at the post office, that she is in the office shouting and screaming” (p.9 here).
However when the police attended the post office, it turned out to be a waste of time.
Nadia had never been in the post office, she was allegedly on the telephone and it was seemingly Seema Misra who was “shouting and screaming”.
The Misra’s were given the telephone number for “customs”, however it is not known what the outcome of these allegations were.
On 20th January 2020, the Metropolitan police service (MPS) received a letter from judge Peter Fraser via the crown prosecution service (CPS).
“The letter concerned high court proceedings relating to Bates and others v Post Office Ltd which concluded in December 2019”.
Judge Fraser’s 14th January 2020 letter to Max Hill, then director of public prosecutions, can be read in full here
Under the header Prosecution of Mrs Misra, Judge Fraser stated in part;
Mrs Misra was a SPM at West Byfleet in Surrey who was charged both with theft from her branch, and also false accounting. The sums in question in her case which formed the subject matter of the charges amounted to approximately £74,000. Mrs Misra pleaded not guilty, and her defence was that the Horizon system was to blame.
Excerpt from Mr justice Fraser’s 14th January 2020 letter to Max Hill
Seema Misra pleaded guilty to false accounting and her defence was initially that her former employees had stolen “£89,000” to “£90,000” in/around November-December 2006.
Her defence regarding Horizon only came about after she apparently read a Computer Weekly article the night before her trial was due to begin on 2nd June 2009.
To date (13th February 2024) Seema Misra has not retracted her false allegations against her former employees.
The contents of judge Fraser’s letter was “subsequently assessed and a criminal investigation was opened by the MPS”.
The police investigation into alleged criminal activity at Fujitsu and the Post Office has been named Operation Olympus.
The MPS will not be providing a running commentary on the criminal investigation which remains ongoing, but can confirm we are aware of the Criminal Case Review Commission’s referral to the Court of Appeal and subsequent proceedings. It can be confirmed that a man and woman, both in their 60s have been interviewed under caution earlier in September and October. No arrests have been made and enquiries continue.
To confirm the Met does not identify any person who may, or may not be, subject to an investigation. Being given this statement is not a confirmation of any name or profession media may attribute, or wish to attribute. It is given on the basis of being requested for information on the incident, on the date stated and at the location stated. Should media attribute a name or profession to the victim or the person under investigation this will not have been confirmed by the Met.
The MPS continues to be an interested party in the public enquiry and will be supporting the inquiry.
Hornswoggler Nick Wallis stated in his 18th November 2020 blog here
Although Mr Justice Fraser didn’t name Anne Chambers or Gareth Jenkins at the time, he did in his confidential letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated 14 January 2020. We know this because it is in the appendix of the CCRC’s Statement of Reasons, circulated to journalists today. In his letter, Mr Justice Fraser sets out what Mr Jenkins and Ms Chambers knew and concludes:
“in order to give fully truthful evidence to the court… namely the prosecution of Mrs Misra and the civil claim against Mr [Lee] Castleton, both Mr Jenkins and Mrs Chambers respectively should have told the court of the widespread impact of (at the very least) the bugs, errors and defects in Horizon that they knew about at the time that they gave their evidence.”
This letter was sent by the DPP to the Metropolitan Police, who immediately started investigating. Last week, Computer Weekly was told the Met had turned their ten month investigation into a criminal investigation. Today we have discovered the names of at least two of the individuals involved.
After some discussion, Lord Justice Holroyde decided there was no need for any need for any reporting restrictions to be imposed on the Court of Appeal proceedings in the light of the Met’s criminal investigation, but reminded the media of the “general need on their part to avoid reporting anything which may prejudice the ongoing investigation or any charges which may flow from it.”
Excerpts by Nick Wallis – Fujitsu staff under criminal investigation named dated 18th November 2020
The aim of the public post office horizon IT inquiry should not ‘only be to establish the truth – what happened, why, and where accountability may lie – but also to alleviate public concern and restore confidence.
It should ‘provide an independent account of the facts and a mechanism for recommendations so that a reoccurrence of such events does not happen.
Is Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry, a post conviction activist or an independent inquirer? He is described here as “Smooth, cerebral and reliable, with impeccable judgement. He is unbeatable on the law and very good in appellate cases and in public law”.
On 11th May 2023 during the inquiry, Jason Beer stated to Rod Ismay;
Did it erm
ever occur to you
or anyone else that applied their brain to the issue
On 15th November 2023 during Warwick Tatford’s evidence, referring to calls made to the Horizon helpline number, Jason Beer wrongly stated of the Seema Misra case “We know that there were 135 calls that she made” (inquiry transcripts here).
Warwick Tatford had clarified the actual number of calls made to the helpline with Andrew Dunks, just before he was cross examined by Keith Hadrill (p.70c here).
The total number of calls made throughout Seema Misra’s time at the West Byfleet post office was 105, not “135”.
Below is a copy of extracts from trial transcripts relating to this correction of the error (p.70c here);
Warwick Tatford: Your Honour, can I just ask Mr Dunks some further questions to clarify a matter that there may have been an error this morning?
Judge Stewart: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Mr Dunks, could I just ask you to have a look at page 41 in that statement bundle, please?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: You have listed and given a number to each call. You have said that it was 135 calls in the period up to 15th January 2008. In fact do you want to just look at page 41? Call number 105 is dated, is it not, 17th December 2007?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: There the description of the call is “PM states CP on no 2 is not working“
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Can you help us as to what that means?
Andrew Dunks: “CP” is “counter printer” and “no 2” will be counter 2
Warwick Tatford: So another problem with the printer it would appear?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: That in fact is the last call by the postmaster in the period that we are concerned with. Is that not right? Call 106 for 14th January 2008 refers to an auditor, Keith Noverre. Is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Then you do list calls going into 2008 which do in the end add up to 135, but in fact looking strictly at the period you were asked to look at, the last call is number 105 from the postmaster in that period you were asked to look at. Would that be right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes. It is actually, yes
Warwick Tatford: So it is not 135. 105 calls to the helpline in that period?
Andrew Dunks: Mmm mm
How would Warwick Tatford have known about the 30 extra calls being related to locum sub-postmaster Ramprakash Vasarmy, and his time at the branch, towards the end of January 2008, unless the Horizon call log data history had been disclosed?
Warwick Tatford did not correct Jason Beer on this incorrect, but relevant detail. Why?
The following extracts are copied from the inquiry transcripts related to Warwick Tatford’s evidence, in which Jason Beer referred to “Network manager” Alan Ridoutt (inquiry transcripts here);
Jason Beer: Thank you. Can we turn to a new topic, please, disclosure of training material. Can we just turn up your witness statement, please, at paragraph 50, which is on page 25 – in fact, it’s the second part of paragraph 50 on page 26. You’re referring to Mrs Misra’s interview and you say: “On the contrary, she said that she had been able to find the cause of the losses – her dishonest employees. Her interview had not made mention of her suffering losses right from the beginning, in the presence of her trainers while they were training her, before any possible theft was involved, which was something that she later relied on heavily in her evidence at trial”. So the point that you’re making here, is this right, that at trial Mrs Misra relied on an occasion or occasions where a loss was suffered whilst a trainer was in the premises with her, in the post office with her?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You’re making the point: but, hold on, that’s not something she relied on interview?
Warwick Tatford: Well, I think she – I dealt with this. I specifically went – well, normal practice is to go specifically to the questions to see whether it is a matter that could legitimately be raised at that time. But I’m trying to remember exactly how it was. I appreciate I made the point and – that I made that point in my speech and then persuaded the judge that there was a potential adverse inference on that point.
Jason Beer: : So a Section 34 inference
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Against her. But, in any event, you’re making the point here that Mrs Misra relied significantly on the fact that some of the losses occurred in the presence of her trainer?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : I just want to look at what was disclosed in the trial, as against material that the Inquiry has now uncovered?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, right. All right
Jason Beer: The Post Office has disclosed to us the following document. It’s called a “Request for Ad Hoc Training”, specifically in relation to balancing procedures. Can we look at it, please. POL00047578. Can you see it’s called “Request for Ad Hoc Training”?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : Name of the outlet, West Byfleet, and its identification code. “Agent’s name”, misspelt Mrs Misra.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we scroll down: “Ad Hoc Training Required … “Balancing procedures.”
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: “Training Delivery Team to complete”, at the foot of the page. Request received, 25 July 2005; days allocated, 27 July and Wednesday, 3 August 2005. The trainer Michael Opebiyi, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we just look at the rest of the page, “Balancing Procedure”, this is for the field trainer to complete. “Balancing procedure”, topic covered: “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”. So it looks like there’d been a request for ad hoc training, specifically in relation to balancing procedures, that looks like it led to Michael Opebiyi being allocated to perform training on 27 July and 3 August. So, overall, this is a request for training relating to Mrs Misra specifically relating to balancing, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00065114, an “Intervention Manager Visit Log”. This looks like it’s completed by the Intervention Manager for the area, called Alan Ridoutt, and he’s recorded: “This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units. I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup as well as arranging ad hoc training. “The [subpostmaster] is still new and is looking for support on many issues – she has the capability but needs occasional guidance”. Then this, if we can just scroll down and highlight it: “This branch is currently holding a loss of £466.73 and an over of £96.80. That was put into the suspense account by the trainer ‘Michael’. Who told the [subpostmaster] that a voucher would be issued to clear it. I have spoken to Michael who confirmed that he did this. I have warned the [subpostmaster] that unless an error comes back they could be liable”. Would you agree that this appears to be a record that, whilst a trainer was there, he agreed that an amount of £466.73 and an over of £96.80 could be put in a suspense account.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it does. Can I just clarify, it’s me not understanding this: was this something that was disclosed in the trial or it has come forward more recently?
Jason Beer: More recently
Warwick Tatford: Well, it rather looks like I’ve made an error and a bad, unfair point.
Jason Beer: You’re ahead of me because I think you’re thinking ahead to the cross-examination of Mrs Misra
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: When, essentially, you said that what she was saying wasn’t true
Warwick Tatford: Yes, and it looks like a bad point. I’m sorry about that. My understanding was, from what I remember, the training records were disclosed.
Jason Beer: Well, let’s before we get ahead of ourselves
Jason Beer: Just see how disclosure unfolded at the trial. Can we look, please, at POL00058503. Can we see at the foot of this page an email from 28 November 2009 from Keith Hadrill to you: “Hi Warwick “Sorry to disturb your weekend. However, herewith the further disclosure request drafted by Issy. “Call me if you need any further clarification”. Then if we can look at the disclosure request, next page, please. Look under the foot of the page, under the cross-heading “Training”, copy of the training manual, when it was supplied, all records provided to the defendant qualifications of the trainer. Then this at paragraph 5: “During the second week of the Defendant’s tenure as a subpostmistress at West Byfleet the trainer was present during the weekly reconciliation. He called the helpline to request explanation as to a loss as, in his opinion, the Defendant had at all times followed procedure. No explanation was given and the Defendant made good the loss. Please provide the following information: “a) The name and contact details of that trainer (to assist in identification the defendant recalls his name was Michael and he was black).“b) What enquiries were made, bearing in mind the request came from a trainer, as to the cause of this loss.” If we go back to page 1, please. You forwarded this, so you were getting it directly from defence council. You forwarded it that night, so the following night, to Jon Longman and Phil Taylor: “Dear Jon & Phil, “Please find yet another disclosure request from the defence, albeit, to an extent, a rehash of what has gone before”. Does the language you’ve used there reflect your frustration at the defence making disclosure requests?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Not the act of making disclosure requests; that’s not a problem. The problem was their wideness and they were very wide, and they – well, the trouble with very wide defence requests that don’t focus on matters is that it’s possible to be distracted by some things and not concentrate on other more important things. That’s a potential danger. A good prosecutor should be able to deal with everything. But there were a lot of disclosure requests, as I think is clear from the paperwork, and they were very wide.
Jason Beer: That one we’ve looked at was pretty specific, wasn’t it, in the
Warwick Tatford: Oh yes, it’s one of the ones and I think I’d dealt with that in my advice and I think Jon Longman was providing information on that. It maybe that he – he wasn’t aware of the full information when he made disclosure but I’m sure we’ll come to that.
Jason Beer: Can we look at what happened at trial, please, UKGI00014845. So this is the transcript of the trial for 18 October 2010. If we can turn up page 52, please. I’m jumping right in here, this is her evidence-in-chief: “What happened whilst Michael was there? Did he also sit behind and watch what you were doing?” Mrs Misra says: “Yeah, he was sitting behind me, but I mentioned to him – as he come in ‘how is it going?’ I said ‘not good. I am having to put money in every day to the post office’. He was more concerned than Junaid. He said ‘that should not be happening. Let us see how it goes’. Question: “Did it get any better?” Answer: “No. I have to again put money in every day and then when balancing with Michael it came round at £400 short” Question: “At the end of the week?” Then scroll down. End of D: “… second balancing in office with Michael” Question: “So the first day with Michael on the second week?” Answer: “That is right – no – yeah. That is right”. Question: “It is £400 short?” Answer: “No, no, no, that is on the second balancing £400 short” Question: “So that is the end of the second week?” Answer: “End of second week”. Question: “Did you get any error corrections there?”. Answer: “No. Michael said ‘it is a bit unusual. I know you have been doing the transaction correctly’. Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office … he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly … they have been putting the money in every day to balance the till and he can’t understand why the £400 shortfall is”. So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we go towards page 132, please, Question: “It is this interview I am looking at. All right? This is you cross-examining Answer: “Okay” Question: “In this interview you have not mentioned Michael, Junaid, what auditor threatened you with, the £500 and then you will lose the post office. You don’t mention Timiko Springer. Yes? All those things are missing from this interview. Do you accept that?” Answer: “I accept I gave answer to the questions what they asked for” Question: “Right what I want to understand is why these things are missing because in fact you have just given us another potential reason. Is it because you were not asked the question or is it because you had not realised how important these things were at the time of interview?” Answer: “I can’t remember, basically … Question: “If you cannot remember, Mrs Misra…” Question: “in an interview in 2008 how is it you remember your dealings with Michael and Junaid in 2005?” Answer: “It happen. It happen in my post office”. Question: “If it happened why didn’t you tell the Post Office this in interview?”. You were suggesting here, not directly, but by implication, through the use of the word “if”, followed up by the failure to mention something in interview, that what she was saying was false, weren’t you?
Warwick Tatford: Well, yes, that would follow from the not being mentioned there that I’m not sure I was that piece of more recent disclosure. But it may – if I’m wrong about that and I’ve made a mistake, I’ll let you go to where we need to go
Jason Beer: If it’s the case, which appears to be the case that those records were not disclosed to the defence or disclosed to you, relating to the trainer Michael’s experience, when he was in branch, that led you to cross-examine Mrs Misra on a false basis, didn’t it?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it was a bad point. My understanding was that the training records had been disclosed and that they couldn’t remember the details but I’m trying to remember where that was from. But it certainly appears clear and it’s unfortunate, if there’s a piece of disclosure I didn’t have that’s caused me to take a bad point then it’s an unfair point. It’s not Mrs Misra’s point it’s the fault of the prosecution as a whole
Seema Misra, Her Guile & Enabling Innocence Fraud
As previously referred to in Part 34 of this blog series, Warwick Tatford had asked Seema Misra “You have a clear memory as I understand of what happened between you and Junaid and Michael in 2005 when losses were occurring from the very beginning?”.
Seems Misra had indicated her memory was clear and confirmed this by stating “Yeah” (p.114a here).
Jason Beer chose to read out a cherry picked section of Seema Misra’s trial evidence, where she had referred to trainer Michael and a “£400shortfall”.
He then stated to Warwick Tatford “So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?”
Intentional Deception
Whilst Seema Misra may have showed “quite a good recall for the figures”, her recall regarding dates was intentionally deceptive.
Seema Misra’s evidence in chief was that trainer Michael Opebiyi had gone into her branch during her second week of trading, on “Thursday” 7th July 2005 (p.51h here).
She clarified this by stating “End of – yeah, end of the balancing Wednesday. That is my first balance –second balancing in office, first with Michael” (p.52d here).
Defence lawyer Keith Hadrill had also clarified this point by asking her “So the first day with Michael on the second week?” to which Seema almost slipped up, when she replied “That is right – no – yeah. That is right” (p.52e here).
Seema Misra knew her dates were not “right”.
Conflating Two Separate Events
She knew trainer Michael had returned to her branch on Wednesday 27th July, and again on Wednesday 3rd August 2005 – neither days being a “Thursday”.
Seema Misra chose to intentionally conflate these two separate events ie; her two weeks training (between 30th June to 13th July 2005), with the two single dates where Michael had returned to the branch for “ad-hoc” training on “balancing procedures”.
She told the jury she had gone along to her “local stationer Eltons” with Alan Ridoutt, but she also chose to omit his name, and did not refer to the actual dates of when exactly this event had occurred.
Seema Misra also omitted these facts intentionally.
Just as Keith Hadrill would also have done in relation to Alan Ridoutt and his “visits log”.
Keith Hadrill would have known, if he questioned Seema Misra in any real detail on Alan Ridoutt, and more specifically around dates, she could have slipped up and blown her defence regarding her allegations about her pretend “losses”, during her first two weeks trading.
Seema Misra did not want the jury to know that Alan Ridoutt had gone to her branch to help her sort out the mess. She obfuscated through out her evidence.
She had stated of Alan Ridoutt “Then I remember a guy came in, somebody from Network something” (p.57h here).
Disclosure Of Visits Log & Keith Hadrill’s Knowledge
Keith Hadrill had also asked her “Somebody was sent in from Network to help you and through that you managed to set up the separate tills”, to which Seema was keen to point out “Not to set up” (p.58ab here).
Jason Beer and Warwick Tatford discussed disclosure of Alan Ridoutt’s visits log, with Jason Beer claiming this log was only disclosed “more recently”.
How then would Keith Hadrill have known about Alan Ridoutt’s visit to help with setting up “the separatetills”, unless he had seen Alan Ridoutt’s visits log?
The visits log had stated;
This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units
I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup
Copies of some of Alan Ridoutt’s visit log notes
Seema Misra was adamant during her trial evidence that Alan Ridoutt did not help her set up “separate tills” and even stated she told him “let us leave it” (p.58f here).
When selectively recalling her March 2005 training, Seema told the jury about “different kind of post offices”. She re-iterated during her evidence in chief, that she “had done the individual tills myself”, as the following copies of trial transcripts, referring to October 2005, extracts show (p.55c here);
Keith Hadrill: So after the audit of 5th October did you reorganise the sub-post office in regard to accounting procedures?
Seema Misra: Yeah. After the audit which was not helpful(?) to buy me money then I recall for my training, two week classroom training there were different kind of post offices, crown, individual, shared, and what I had that time was shared. I thought if I got individual then at least I can pinpoint where the error coming for or which staff is not doing an input correctly
Keith Hadrill: So you decided to do what?
Seema Misra: Do the individual tills. Spoken to my manager
Keith Hadrill: Who is that?
Seema Misra: Timiko Springer, said still does not help, still losing money
Keith Hadrill: So anyway you want to create individual tills, responsibility for each till?
Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
Keith Hadrill: Did Timiko Springer tell you how to get it done and help you?
Seema Misra: No. She said she will find out how to set up individual
Keith Hadrill: And it was done, was it? They are individual tills?
Seema Misra: Yeah. I done the individual tills myself
The Phantom Helpline Call During First 2 Weeks Trading
Jason Beer also read out a 29th November 2008 email from Keith Hadrill in which it had stated “During the second week of the Defendant’s tenure as a subpostmistress at West Byfleet the trainer was present during the weekly reconciliation. He called the helpline to request explanation as to a loss…”.
This was concocted by Seema Misra.
The “£400 shortfall” did not come about until August 2005, when Michael had returned to the branch after being allocated to do so by “intervention” manager Alan Ridoutt.
When Jason Beer read out some of Seema Misra’s evidence relating to Michael, he omitted to read out the fact that Seema had stated she “didn’t know where” Michael had phoned.
Jason Beer intentionally chose to not read out all of what Seema Misra had stated, which was;
Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office, I don’t know where he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly”
Seema Misra – Source trial transcripts from page 52g here
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 