Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Vs “Miscarriage of Justice” Phenomenon

Embezzler and fraudster Seema Misra’s appeal and public relations spin campaign has all the hallmarks of the very real innocence fraud phenomenon.

Questions should be asked of the criminal cases review commission (CCRC) as to why, when they made their referral to the court of appeal (CoA), they chose to lump Seema Misra’s convictions in with other cases.

During the post office horizon IT inquiry in May 2023, Anne Chambers, a former system support specialist from Fujitsu, disagreed with a point made by Mr justice Peter 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 – from around 1:12:35 here

Hornswoggler Nick Wallis stated in a November 2020 blog;

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 from his blog headed Fujitsu staff under criminal investigation named dated 18th November 2020 here

Bizarrely Nick Wallis stated in his November 2021 book The Great Post Office Scandal “In his opening speech, the Post Office prosecuting counsel Warwick Tatford told the jury, ‘Computer problems should be obvious to the user.’ Yet the Post Office knew the Receipts and Payments Mismatch error was not obvious to the user. In fact it was impossible for the user to spot because, when it happened, Horizon informed the user each event had taken place correctly. Mr Tatford told the court that Seema Misra’s failure to call the helpline and alert them to any Horizon problems wasn’t because she couldn’t see those problems, but because those problems didn’t exist.

Paragraph 13 of the court of appeal’s (CoA) April 2021 judgement in Hamilton & Ors v Post Office Ltd states in part; “There was no facility within the Horizon system for SPMs to dispute Horizon’s figures: they were required instead to contact the Helpline. If at the end of a trading period there was a discrepancy or shortfall between the cash on hand and the figures generated by Horizon…..”

If Seema Misra was allegedly having any “shortfalls” during her time as sub-postmistress and couldn’t allegedly get her accounts to balance, why did she only telephone the horizon helpline (Aka Horizon help-desk) 4 times at the end of February 2006 regarding alleged discrepancies?

And why for example, did she wait 2 months before telling the Horizon helpline about the “missing” 4000 euros from December 2005?

Receipts & Payments Mismatch (RPM) Bug

Warwick Tatford, the lawyer who prosecuted Seema Misra, states in his witness statement to the Horizon inquiry of the receipts and payments mismatch bug (RPM);

This RPM bug didn’t affect Legacy Horizon, so strictly speaking it could not have affected Mrs Misra’s case.

Excerpt from Warwick Tatford’s 25th October 2023 witness statement to the post office Horizon IT inquiry – Source p.55 para.100 here

Warwick Tatford also states, in relation to embezzler and fraudster Carl Page and his case;

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.

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…

…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….

Excerpts from Warwick Tatford’s 25th October 2023 witness statement to the post office Horizon IT inquiry – Source from p.6 para.16,20 & 22 here

At paragraph 92 of his 2022 supplemental submission to the inquiry here, lawyer Paul Marshall states that disclosure of the “receipts and payment mismatch bug” was “of possible importance to Mrs Misra..”, yet he does not state what this alleged “possible importance” might be.

Interestingly at paragraph 3(1) of his same supplemental submission, Paul Marshall states “The essence of fraud is dishonest concealment and withholding of known material facts – i.e. truth, and the assertion of facts that the withheld facts falsify”.

Why The Confusion Around Trial Start Date?

Questions should also be asked about how and why the CoA judges made fundamental errors in their April 2021 judgement relating to this case. Paragraph 200 in Hamilton & Ors v Post Office Ltd states;

Her first trial in May 2009 for theft was aborted at the start, when she raised issues of Horizon reliability and suggested that errors in the system accounted for some of the losses, albeit she continued to assert there had been staff thefts.

Excerpts from para’ 200 of April 2021 judgement in Hamilton & Ors v Post Office Ltd

Lawyer Jason Beer repeated this falsehood on 25th February 2022, through the “human impact” evidence of Seema Misra during the public inquiry. This can be heard at the beginning of the following video;

Seema Misra only had one trial which was due to begin on the 2nd of June 2009.

How and why did this falsehood in the CoA’s judgement come about?

In his The Great Post Office Scandal book, Nick Wallis states “As Seema’s trial date of 1 June 2009 approached, various preparatory hearings took place.”

Enablers Second Sight & Falsehoods In Court of Appeal (CoA) Judgement

At paragraph 92 of their judgement in Hamilton & Ors v Post Office Ltd, the CoA judges referred to Seema Misra and enablers Second Sight’s post trial lies and concoctions.

“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.”

Second Sight’s statement “she was surprised to find that discrepancies occurred on each day of her onsite training” was and is contrived.

Seema Misra also said nothing about Second Sights’ “£200” figure during her trial and she most definitely did not say anything about any of her alleged shortfalls doubling during any training (p.52C here).

The only time she used the words “200” during her trial 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).

Excerpts from Nick Wallis’s book The Great Post Office Scandal state “During our interview I asked Davinder if he had seen any discrepancies appear on the West Byfleet branch Horizon terminal. ‘Yeah. In front of the trainer. He don’t have any answer. And then the second time, when the other trainer came there’s £500 or something missing and we’re like “What’s happening?” and even he had no clue what was happening”.

Seema Misra’s alleged “£400 shortfall” figure evidence given at trial, which she had intentionally conflated with network manager Alan Ridoutt’s visits to her branch, was changed by husband Davinder Misra to “£500” when he spoke to Nick Wallis. Then the original figure given by Seema during her trial, was halved by Second Sight 5 years later, in their biased and disingenuous 2015 report.

A footnote in Nick Wallis’s book The Great Post Office Scandal demonstrates that “forensic investigators” Second Sight were also concocting new theories regarding Seema Misra’s 3 former falsely accused staff members.

It states “In Seema’s case, the independent investigators tasked with looking at what happened concluded the losses were probably down to a combination of systemic problems, mistakes being made by the Misras and employee theft of activated scratchcards”.

It also wasn’t until October 2006 that the discovery of the £23,374.50 lottery money “misappropriation” was discovered, some 8 months after the 3 falsely accused staff members had left the post office.

No amount of “independent evidence” will make any difference to the fact that no telephone call was made to the Horizon help-desk, during trainer Michael Opebiyi’s time at Seema Misra’s post office branch – from 6th July to 13th July 2005.

The court of appeal should explain to the public why they chose to include these obvious post trial lies and concessions in their judgement.

These post trial lies and concoctions have had arms and legs added to them over the years, including by the time of Seema Misra’s appearance at the post office IT Horizon inquiry in February 2022.

No Evidence Of Theft If You Ignore The Evidence Of Theft

In his November 2021 book The Great Post Office Scandal Nick Wallis states “The Post Office did not have any evidence that Seema stole £74,000, but a theft conviction by a jury would make a confiscation order application more likely to succeed.”

The post office had Seema Misra’s own evidence.

An excerpt from Seema Misra’s 14th January 2008 handwritten statement read in part;

I confirm in office audit there will be around 60k shortage due to staff theft.

It was around £89k and we bring it down to 60….

Seema Misra – 14th January 2008 – Source p.46 here

On 6th February 2024 Karl Flinders stated in an article for Computer Weekly here “Seema Misra, who was sent to prison after being found guilty of theft due to unexplained accounting shortfalls in her branch, despite there being no evidence against her.

Seema Misra never stated the “shortage in the accounts of 89,000” from “around November or December 2006” were from “unexplained accounting shortfalls”, she insisted they were down to alleged staff thefts.

An excerpt from Seema Misra’s first defence statement read;

The defendant denies dishonestly appropriating money belonging to the Post Office and will assert that the theft was undertaken by other employees working at the post office at the time the monies went missing

Excerpts from Seema Misra’s first defence statement – Source p.17C-D here

To date Seema Misra has not retracted these allegations – which is another massive red flag.

Open & Shut Case of Theft & False Accounting

Seema Misra’s case is an ‘open and shut’ example of theft and false accounting.

The facts of a case do not disappear because a conviction, or convictions, have been deemed “unsafe” by the appeal courts.

Furthermore paragraph 32 of the 2019 supreme courts judgement in Hallam v Secretary of State for Justice states of the court of appeal criminal division (CACD);

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.

Excerpts from para’ 32 of the 2019 judgement in Hallam v Secretary of State for Justice

Seema Misra’s convictions were wrongly deemed “unsafe” by the court of appeal.

The evidence when viewed in its entirety is that Seema Misra was “cooking the books” and embezzling the post offices’ money.

The alleged “thefts” by the falsely accused former employees were “central to the issues at trial”.

Warwick Tatford told the jury during his summing up;

Thefts, first of all.

This was the only issue raised by Mrs Misra not only in her interview but when she handed that handwritten note over.

She has thought about what she wants to say.

She gives the information she wants to to the auditors and she fails to mention that she had losses from the very beginning.

She fails to mention that she might have been incompetent.

The only pillar she gives any indication of in her handwritten note and in her interview are of thefts.

So until a very recent stage in these whole proceedings she was only relying on one pillar, not three

Excerpts from prosecutor Warwick Tatford’s closing speech – p.21D-F here

Attempting To Pervert The Course Of Justice & Perjury

Seema Misra’s trial for theft was meant to start on 2nd June 2009, “nearly sixteen months” before it actually did (p.25A here).

The reason for the delay was because Seema Misra had allegedly read a Computer Weekly media article by Rebecca Thomson about “a potential IT problem” (here), and was able to get a stay on proceedings.

Nick Wallis states in his The Great Post Office Scandal 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!’ He also states “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.”

Why did Nick Wallis think Seema Misra’s trial was due to start on the 1st June 2009? He states “As Seema’s trial date of 1 June 2009 approached….”

In her 2022 witness statement for the public inquiry, Seema Misra references Nick Wallis’s book (p.7 here), yet the book contains false allegations, lies, concoctions and contradicts Seema Misra’s evidence at trial and other facts of the case.

Moreover, according to Josephine Hamilton’s evidence to the inquiry, she states;

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 page 2 of Josephine Hamilton 10th February 2022 “statement of truth” to the post office horizon IT inquiry – Watch more here

Also on page 2 of her statement, Josephine Hamilton states;

On 8 November 2009, 17 postmasters met at the Fenney Compton village hall”

Excerpt from page 2 of Josephine Hamilton 10th February 2022 “statement of truth” to the post office horizon IT inquiry – Watch more here

Seema Misra confirmed, during a BBC interview with Jon Kay, which aired on 8th April 2024 (from around 2:00:42 here) that she attended the 8th November 2009 Fenney Compton meeting.

There is no doubt that Seema Misra got ideas for her defence from other former sub-postmasters and attempted to tailor her trial evidence based on what she had heard from these people.

Prosecuting lawyer Warwick Tatford had asked Seema Misra during cross examination about her “research”. For some context, below is an extract from trial transcripts (p.135A here);

• Warwick Tatford: You had old solicitors, didn’t you?
• Seema Misra: Yeah, that is right
• Warwick Tatford: They served a defence statement on your behalf. I accept people change solicitors for perfectly good reasons every now and again, but in that document…and I will pass them up to you.. there were two documents, a defence statement and also a letter. Have a look at those. I have marked it slightly but only to say it is an old defence statement. It is probably some time since you have seen those things so do take your time. (handed) (Pause) Have you had a chance to refresh your memory? In those documents setting out your defence, albeit documents when you were instructing your former solicitors, those documents set out that your defence is that employees have stolen from you. Yes?
• Seema Misra: Yeah
• Warwick Tatford: You don’t mention the other theories at all, do you?
• Seema Misra: No
• Warwick Tatford: And your solicitors even wrote a letter to the prosecution giving the names and addresses of these other thieves?
• Seema Misra: Yeah
• Warwick Tatford: There are three pillars to your defence, theft by employees, my own competence, computer error.  Can you help us as to why you only mention the first pillar in that defence statement and the letter that was sent as well?
• Seema Misra: This is, I think all this was done by my previous solicitor
• Warwick Tatford: Yes
• Seema Misra: When that problem with the system was raised before mid 2006 I knew there could be a system problem, when I caught Javed and Nadia red handed as I be them making the money, so like I said I probably have put stop on to it. It was the day before my first trial which was back in June when we were…
• 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

“Calendar Square Problem” Was & Still Is Complete Red Herring

On the day her trial eventually began on the 11th October 2010, and before the jury were sworn in, Keith Hadrill, Seema Misra’s defence lawyer, raised the “Calendar square problem”. He stated;

I think it was corrected in March 06, but the indictment runs from October 05 and so there is a five or six month period there that this problem could be reflected in West Byfleet. Quite rightly we wish to raise it but there is a problem and there is the Calendar Square problem which was not criminal and if it was occurring within West Byfleet in that period of time in 05/06 it could explain some or all of the deficiencies.

Keith Hadrill – Source p.18C-E here

However prosecutor Warwick Tatford described the “Calendar square problem” as “a complete red herring” (p.22C here). Warwick Tatford also informed the court that;

It is also perhaps worthwhile bearing in mind that the full deficiency cannot possibly be explained by Calendar Square because the inflations, the false figures admittedly put into the computer system by the defendant, they continued to rise after the problem had been solved, so at its very highest the defence could say it may be part of the deficiency but they would perhaps be hard pushed to say it was the whole deficiency. One wonders why if that was the cause of the problem, why everything was not made better quite frankly when the problem was solved in March 2006, but it would appear the hole in the accounts appeared to grow, not become smaller.

Warwick Tatford – Source p.23A-C here

Judge Stewart stated;

In March of this year Mr Recorder Bruce heard full submissions on the issue of abuse of process, and in a meticulous ruling which I have read he decided that the trial could continue and later hearings took place before the resident judge, Judge Critchlow, and he ruled that the trial must proceed today.

I am quite satisfied that the trial can and should proceed today. Any issue relating to the Calendar Square branch can be explored in the course of the evidence in this trial” (p.26A here). He also stated “The time comes when trial management issues require a judge to say there must be no more delay. A vast quantity of material has been disclosed and considered and the defence have ample material I am quite satisfied to test the integrity of the Horizon system.

Judge Stewart – Source p.25A-B here & p.26D here

When the jury were finally sworn in Warwick Tatford stated (in part) during his opening speech;

A post office within a shop is an entirely separate entity and post office money in the post office part remains in the post office. Shop money should remain in the shop, and the prosecution’s case is this defendant had her fingers in the till. It is as simple as that. It was over a long period of time because of course you cannot steal £75,000 in one go from a post office because of course you cannot keep that amount of money in a post office overnight. It is a security risk. But the Crown say that over a long period – and we have included a period in the indictment of the whole course of her time as sub-postmistress – the Crown say over a long period she was stealing money, and she had to hide her thefts by cooking the books, not written accounting records but computer records. She filled the computer system with dishonest information which hid the hole in the accounts.

Excerpts from Warwick Tatford’s opening speech to the jury – p.31A-C here

He also told the jury;

....there are all sorts of ways you can cook the books – but one thing you can do, and there is clear evidence of this, is say to the computer “I want to send out £13,000” and print off something but then don’t send it off and in fact reverse the transaction once you have balanced everything up at the end of the month, and it appears that that is what one of the tricks the defendant was using, and here the Crown say she is caught in the moment. Here the auditors go in and here are two empty bags with pieces of paper in it that say money should be in and there is no money there. So you have got the admissions that the defendant was cooking the books and I will come to that more in some detail in a moment, but you have got physical evidence of the dishonesty going on – empty bags that should have money in them. The computer has been told the money is going out. It is a fiction

Excerpts from Warwick Tatford’s opening speech to the jury – p.36D-G here

More Crucial & Highly Relevant Facts

Seema Misra appears to have used lottery monies, and other post office monies, to subsidise her and her husband Davinder Misra’s adjacent shop and living expenses, similar to the case of Kevin Howells, reported here in April 2007.

It’s also possible Seema Misra was loaning post office monies to other family members, to help them set up their own business for example, or the money was being used to enable a family member who had an addiction, like gambling.

In September 2006 Seema and her husband Davinder Misra went on a luxury trip to Munich, which the post office had given her for her “hard work”.

Then in November 2007 she went on holiday to India, which was a month and a half before she was suspended as sub-postmistress.

Just 9 days before this holiday, Seema Misra had made an “unusual pouch transaction“ for £18,000.

Seema Misra had also claimed during her trial she was “away” in December 2005 (p.82A here).

The former employees who Seema Misra chose to falsely accuse of stealing “£89,000 to “£90,000”, and who she alleged she had “caught red handed”, had stopped working for her in February 2006, which was way before her large “shortfalls” began accruing.

By 2007 Seema Misra was having to pay back around £2,000 each month from her salary, for monies she had previously misappropriated in relation to £23,374.50 lottery and scratch cards.

Seema Misra’s misappropriation of the post office’s money spiralled by the end of 2006 and throughout 2007, which was outside of the date range given by Keith Hadrill in relation to any June 2005 to March 2006 “Calendar square problems”.

It was known in August 2006, through a media article here that Seema Misra only had problems with staff “leaving” up to this point. She could not have suspected any of her staff of stealing around this time, because she would surely not have wanted to “reward” any alleged thieves, or leave any alleged thieves in charge of her post office when she went away.

TIMELINE March 2005 Hampstead Training

Warwick Tatford asked Andrew Bayfield during the 2010 trial “What does the training of a sub-postmaster involve, please?” to which he stated;

After appointment and before they actually go to their branch they are offered classroom training. We have 44 classrooms geographically spread around the United Kingdom. That classroom training, depending upon the size and the type of work that that particular post office branch undertakes would be either a minimum of one week in the classroom or two weeks if they did some of the more complex transactions like the checking centre(?) and passport applications or motor vehicle licences and things like that so…

It is a minimum of actually one week in a classroom or two full weeks in the classroom. Week one of that every sub-postmaster gets from the very tiniest rural community post office to the busiest ones. The second week would be dealing with the more complex transactions. Following either week one or week two when they go to their branch and it is transferred across to their responsibility we have on site with them one of our training team who spends their full first working week with them, supporting then and standing behind them, coaching them through some of the transactions that we might not have covered in masses of detail in the classroom.

One of the things that we do in our first week with them in the training school is sub-postmasters are made fully aware that they are responsible for the cash and stock in a branch and we encourage them to do regular snap checks of their staff if they have got staff employed – not all sub, you know, some sub-postmasters are the only employee – and we encourage them to do random checks of that, and they can come along at any time if they have staff and ask them to declare their cash which should then indicate whether or not there are surpluses or shortages within that particular stock unit.

Andrew Bayfield – Source p.7 here, p.8 here & p.18 here

Seema Misra completed her two weeks post office training in a “classroom” style setting in Hampstead, London in March 2005. She commuted by train each day from Luton to Hampstead for a 9am start, and told the jury she would be back in Luton most days “by about 2-3” (p.45C here).

When asked by Warwick Tatford “What did they teach you“ she told the jury;

Starting with the products, stamps, different kind of stamps, different products, how to increase sales and on Wednesday we supposed to do balancing.

We were showed to put transaction into the Horizon and watch DVD’s on sales.

Seema Misra – 18th October 2010 Source p.45H & 46A here

On 23rd February 2022 lawyer Jason Beer, asked Seema Misra here about her training. Below are copies of some extracts from the transcript of her “human impact” evidence, in which Seema Misra alleging she couldn’t remember the details (p.42 here);

• Jason Beer: How long did that training last?
• Seema Misra: It was two weeks. It was supposed to be two weeks
• Jason Beer: Did that relate to all aspects of running a post office?
• Seema Misra: No, it was most cross-selling. So if somebody coming for, like, a DVLA, how can we promote the extra products and everything. If somebody did Recorded Delivery, how can we tell them the benefit of a Special Delivery and all that
• Jason Beer: Did the training include training on using the Horizon system?
• Seema Misra: Probably just can’t remember. Probably, just the basics like the stamps and all that, but, no it wasn’t like a proper, proper one
• Jason Beer: Did you get any on-site training back at the post office after you took it over on Horizon?
• Seema Misra: Yes. Not training, training – the trainer was there, so just watching us, what we do and everything, and all that

May 2005 Sales Account Manager Tamiko Springer

Tamiko Springer began her role as “business development manager/crown’ area manager” for the post office in May 2005.

Tamiko Springer’s online bio read “Building individual relationships, design and delivery of training modules. Developing, leading, influencing and managing teams. Achieving business targets, managing a diverse workforce across large geographical areas and ensuring that robust people processes were in place. Responsible for recruiting and developing customer focused teams”.

Seema Misra was asked by Warwick Tatford who her “area manager” was, to which she claimed it was Tamiko Springer, however Elaine Ridge appears to have been her area manager, Tamiko Springer was the “sales accounts manager”? (p.53C here).

Mr Shakal, Javed & Nadia & Staff Training

Keith Hadrill asked Seema Misra during her evidence in chief “Did you have some staff which you inherited from the former post office master?” to which she replied “yes one” (p.59E here).

In reality Seema Misra had “inherited” two staff members, one in the post office and one in the adjacent costcutters shop.

Javed was already working in the costcutters shop and the “one” staff member in the post office, was Mr Shakal Aka Shakia Suksener Aka “Sarah”.

Mr Shakal left the post office at some point between August 2005 and February 2006.

Seema Misra had trained Javed to use the Horizon computer system and she had “promoted” him to work in the post office. Seema also trained Javed’s sister-in-law Nadia to work in the post office and use Horizon, therefore demonstrating in her first 8 months of trading, she was competent in using the computer system and training others in its use.

The following is an extract from trial transcripts, where her defence lawyer Keith Hadrill asked Seema Misra about training her staff (p.60 here);

• Keith Hadrill: Who trained him as to how to carry out procedures in the post office?
• Seema Misra: I did
• Keith Hadrill: Shakia was already working in the post office?
• Seema Misra: That is right
• Keith Hadrill: You continued to employ him there?
• Seema Misra: That is right
• Judge Stewart: He or she?
• Seema Misra: He
• Judge Stewart: He
• Keith Hadrill: And Nadia Badiwalia, who is Nadia Badiwalia?
• Seema Misra: Nadia is Javed’s sister in law
• Keith Hadrill: How did she come to be employed?
• Seema Misra: It was later on. I was looking for staff
• Keith Hadrill: You were looking for staff?
• Seema Misra: I was looking for staff. Shakia was left by then. I was looking for staff and Nadia often came in so I took her on board
• Keith Hadrill: The sister in law of?
• Seema Misra: Javed
• Keith Hadrill: Javed who was already employed in the shop, so you then move him into the…
• Seema Misra: The post office
• Keith Hadrill: Nadia was working in which part?
• Seema Misra: She was working in post office, straight in the post office
• Keith Hadrill: Who trained her
• Seema Misra: I did

On the day of her suspension, Seema Misra’s husband Davinder Misra also made a hand written statement, which had included a name that looked like “Sarah”.

It was stated during the 2010 trial “I would say that is “Sarah” but I don’t know” (p.65G here). This appears to have been Mr Shakal. 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

Davinder Misra – written statement made on 14th January 2008 (wrongly dated the 13th January – Source p.65E here & p.83H here

Seema Misra’s deception was, and still is, apparent through out her evidence at trial.

Warwick Tatford picked up on this and stated to the jury during his closing argument;

…..did you find it frustrating listening to her yesterday afternoon because her evidence when I was cross-examining her, maybe it is my fault, but it took a long time, partly at least because she would not answer a straight question.

Did you notice that about her evidence, how she would come up with an answer that bore no obvious relation to the question at all?

Why did she do that?

Was she trying to help you or just trying to duck the questions she didn’t want to answer?

Warwick Tatford during Seema Misra’s October 2010 trial – p.33G-34A here

Warwick Tatford also addressed some of Seema Misra’s false allegations relating to Mr Shakal 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, but the incident with Javed Badiwalia is set out and also Nadia “Bakliwalia” it is spelt” (p.18E-F here).

Warwick Tatford during Seema Misra’s October 2010 trial

Warwick Tatford also stated;

You may recollect that at the plea and case management hearing on 20th March, his Honour Judge Critchlow directed that the further amended defence case statement be served which identified those persons working at the post office which Ms Misra suspected of having been responsible for the thefts of the monies.

Rather than file a further defence statement it is probably easier if we provide you with their details which are as follows”, and then you can see the three names set out with their addresses

Warwick Tatford during Seema Misra’s October 2010 trial – Source p.17F-G here

The “three names” (and addresses) were Mr Shakal, Javed and his sister-in-law Nadia.

29th June 2005 Obtained Keys To Post Office

Seema Misra got the keys for the West Byfleet post office on Wednesday 29th June 2005 (p.47E here).

The audit , which took place on the 29th June 2005, found a shortfall of £1.88 “which the outgoing sub-postmaster would have made good so that the incoming sub-postmaster would have had a zero balance, a clear balance” (p.5F here).

Seema Misra began trading with post office “cash, stocks and vouchers” totalling £65,426.68.

As well as the West Byfleet costscutters shop, in which the 3 counter post office was situated, Seema and Davinder Misra had “another property” in Finsbury Park which they rented out (p.131B here).

30th June – 6th July 2005 “Onsite” Trainer Junaid Tanveer

Seema Misra told the jury that trainer Junaid Tanveer had been at her West Byfleet post office branch between Thursday 30th June and Wednesday 6th July 2005.

Asked by Keith Hadrill “How many days was Junaid there for” Seema Misra stated “Till Wednesday one week until balancing, following balancing, first balancing” (p.51A & 51B here).

Below are extracts from trial transcripts, in which Seema Misra alleged during her evidence in chief that she was “exactly £150 short” on her first day trading (p.48A here);

• Keith Hadrill: Tell us what happens during the course of that first week?
  Seema Misra: Well, very first day, 30th June, Junaid arrived. He showed me how to set up the counters and put the bags out, put everything, he helped me, showed me how to basically like a set up should be because that was the first live day, and he asked me where is the certain like allowance and everything, he goes through me about the 40 minute safe, four minute safe and he asked me about my manuals which I didn’t have
• Keith Hadrill: So basically he goes through the time delay lock on the safe with you?
• Seema Misra: Yeah, and —
• Keith Hadrill: He shows you how to set up your tills?
• Seema Misra: Yeah, like check the ID and then let people in and —
• Keith Hadrill: That is the password, is it – to check ID to let them through the door?
• Seema Misra: No, for ID and let the people in
• Keith Hadrill: To let them through the door into the secure area of the post office?
• Seema Misra: Yeah, and then just start serving
• Keith Hadrill: Did you have an operational manual?
• Seema Misra: No
• Keith Hadrill: Did you ask for one?
• Seema Misra: Auditors who transfer the office to me they mentioned this in the inventory as well, no manuals
• Keith Hadrill: Right. So when it is transferred in the audit it shows no manuals?
• Seema Misra: Yes
• Keith Hadrill: Did you ask for manuals?
• Seema Misra: When Junaid came in next day he said I need to order them
• Keith Hadrill: Did they ever arrive?
• Seema Misra: Late 2005. I had this – I didn’t have any information how to order them and all that, so I had to get help on it on later stage
• Keith Hadrill: I have shown some cards which the jury have some photocopies of in regard to balancing and so on. You had these little easy step cards?
• Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
• Keith Hadrill: Did you have those at the time?
• Seema Misra: That is right. That is my training, two weeks training
• Keith Hadrill: In March?
• Seema Misra: Yeah
• Keith Hadrill: So you kept those and took them to the post office on 30thJune and that was your documentation in regard to how to operate the computer system?
• Seema Misra: That is right
• Keith Hadrill: Is that what you relied on?
• Seema Misra: And a trainer to start with
• Keith Hadrill: So what happens? Junaid is the trainer there. Did you get on well with Junaid or not?
• Seema Misra: Junaid was like, three counter. He was sitting behind me observing how to do transaction, telling me what to, basically how to start with because after three months I was doing it first time and during daytime he just like over there. In the evening just before the close which was half past five he has gone through a card with me for the dailies, how to do dailies, so gone through the dailies
• Keith Hadrill: The daily reconciliation?
• Seema Misra: The daily cut-offs like AP’s and checks and last count the cash. When we did the cash declaration we were exactly £150 short
• Keith Hadrill: Sorry?
• Seema Misra: We were £150 short
• Keith Hadrill: So he having sat there and observed and you serve customers, at the end of the day when you come to balance up, £150 short?
• Seema Misra: That is right
• Keith Hadrill: What about the second day?
• Seema Misra: When on the – can I say something?
• Keith Hadrill: Yes
• Seema Misra: I ask – when Junaid asked me to balance the till he said I need to put it right. I said “it is my first day. Where has this 150 gone?” His reply was “you had a balance. You had a transfer yesterday, audit came in and it is never penny to penny, so it could be just miscounting or something.” So I have to get 150 from shop and put it into the post office in front of Junaid
• Keith Hadrill: So that is the first day. You want a balance and you balance by taking £150 from the shop, putting it into the till in the post office. The second day Junaid is there?

11:years after Seema Misra’s 2010 trial, hornswoggler Nick Wallis manufactured the following in his The Great Post Office Scandal book; “At the end of the first day’s trading, Seema was told by Junaid to request a snapshot balance. Seema pressed the relevant buttons and found her counter was just under £100 down”.

Then by February 2022, during the inquiry, Seema’s “£150” trial figure, had dropped to “around 80 something, under 100 short”, with inquiry lawyer Jason Beer enabling this further concoction (p.48 here);

A September 2022 magazine article by Positive.News, written by Hannah Partos, also chose to perpetuate these lies and manufactured narratives stating “from the very first day, while she was still being trained to use the Post Office’s Horizon accounting software”, “The system showed a shortfall of around £80, which her trainer shrugged off” (Source here).

7th – 13th July 2005 “Onsite” Trainer Michael Opebiyi & The Phantom Horizon Help-Desk Call

Seema Misra and in turn her enablers, attempted to conflate her second week of “onsite” training with Michael Opebiyi, between Thursday 7th to Wednesday 13th July 2005, with Michael’s time when he returned to her branch a few weeks later for two separate days, on Wednesday 27th July and Wednesday 3rd August 2005 for “ad hoc” training.

Seema Misra’s evidence was an alleged “£150” figure at the end of her first days trading, which was Thursday 30th June 2005, and an alleged “£400 shortfall” figure at the end of her second weeks onsite training, which was Wednesday 13th July 2005.

All call logs to the Horizon help-desk were disclosed to Seema Misra and her legal team before her trial. These call logs were addressed in detail and there were only 3 calls made between 30th June and 26th August 2005.

The 1st of these calls was made on 9th July 2005 by Seema Misra, who stated that her branch “cannot access training”.

The 2nd call was made on 29th July by “clerk” Mr Shakal, who stated “there was no power to Horizon” and the 3rd call was made on 26th August 2005. Below are copies of summaries of these 3 calls;

There was no call made by either trainer Michael Opebiyi or Seema Misra to the Horizon help-desk on Wednesday 13th July 2005.

There was, and still is, zero evidence of any calls by trainer Michael, or anyone else, to the help-desk to query any alleged transaction or balancing issues during this time period.

Referring to Thursday 7th to Wednesday 13th July 2005, Keith Hadrill asked Seema Misra during her evidence in chief “Did you get any error corrections there?” (p.51G, p.52F here) to which she stated;

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 office, I don’t know where

Seema Misra evidence during October 2010 trial – p.52G here

As sub-postmistress it was Seema Misra’s responsibility to telephone the Horizon help-desk if she had any problems with any transactions or balancing procedures, not trainer Michael’s.

During cross-examination Warwick Tatford asked Seema Misra further questions about trainers Junaid and Michael. Below are extracts from transcripts (from p.133G here);

• Warwick Tatford: Did it ever cross your mind to say to the Post Office investigators “I have had these losses from the beginning and Junaid knows about it and Michael knows about it and Timiko Springer knows about it?”
• Seema Misra: Like the Post Office knew in October 2005 anyway when they came to do the audit. It was on top of what I was putting money in or this was plus 3,000 on top
• Warwick Tatford: All right. Let us go back to that audit. In that audit, because you have not told us this so far at least, in the audit did you say to the auditors “I have been having losses from day one. Ask Michael. Ask Junaid.” Did you tell them that?
• Seema Misra: I welcomed them. I was waiting for the audit as I welcomed them in basically so they can – they were like, at least they can – it was put forward that they will come in and find out if we do something wrong, any transaction or do anything wrong in the system
• Warwick Tatford: Did you tell the auditors….
• Seema Misra: I tell the – about the losses that we having, that I have to put the money in
• Warwick Tatford: Right. Did you say “Junaid knows about this. Michael knows about this.” Did you mention them at all?
• Seema Misra: I did mention about the losses. I can’t recall if I said name or not
• Warwick Tatford: Can I suggest to you why there are these inconsistencies, and it actually ties in I suggest with the questions I asked you at the beginning about those figures going up. You realised after your interview that it didn’t make sense to say it is all down to thefts by other people. There had to be other reasons, and so you I suggest have added some false extra reasons….
• Seema Misra: No
• Warwick Tatford: ….to bolster up what you said in interview which does not explain the loss?
• Seema Misra: No. It is, everything is truth. I am not lying

As part of his closing argument to the jury, Warwick Tatford stated;

…..the Crown say she was not trying to help.

She was trying to be obstructive in her evidence.

She fails to mention things in her interview, in her notes which were handed over to Mr Noverre, and she mentions them at a late stage, one matter in particular only in the course of this trial.

Why didn’t she talk about Junaid and Michael and Timiko Springer and the fact that the losses were accruing from the very beginning?

Why didn’t she mention any of that in her post office interview?

Was it because she had not made it up then, because you would have thought it would have been an obvious thing to mention.

It has happened to her.

She is not a trainer who has to try and remember all the different offices they have been to.

She just has to remember what has happened to her, but she completely seems to forget about that.

It is not because she was not asked the question because she hands over some notes giving her account and she fails to mention any of those things on which she now relies.

The fact is it is easy to invent things five years later and it is quite a good trick if you are a liar because there is a decent chance that the people who you are talking about will not remember because of the length of time that has passed

Statements made by Warwick Tatford during Seema Misra’s October 2010 trial – Source p.34B here

Since her October 2010 trial Seema Misra’s stories about trainers Junaid Tanveer and Michael Opebiyi have morphed. This includes her manufactured narrative of Michael phoning the horizon help-desk on Wednesday 13th July 2005.

Below is an extract from inquiry transcripts where lawyer Jason Beer again chose to go along with Seema Misra’s lies and concoctions, which is surely in breach of his legal and professional commitments to the inquiry and the rule of law (p.45 here);

• Jason Beer: Just tell us that bit again. He was getting some instructions down the phoneline from the helpline?
• Seema Misra: Correct
• Jason Beer: They said to do something with the system?
• Seema Misra: Correct
• Jason Beer: And that caused the shortfall to double?
• Seema Misra: Double
• Jason Beer: So what happened with the doubled shortfall?
• Seema Misra: Nothing. He said, like, you know “Just keep an eye”. I can’t remember exactly how was it dealt with but he said “Keep an eye, if there’s any issues there’s a helpline number, call them up”. But he was shocked. He said “I can’t” – I ask him can he stay over another week or something. He said he can’t, he’s supposed to here (sic) for one week only

Seema Misra also alleged during the inquiry, that her manufactured Horizon help-desk phone-call by trainer Michael was “erased”.

The clip at the beginning of the following video shows Seema Misra blatantly lying and alleging trainer Michael’s phantom phone-call was “erased”;

105 Calls To Horizon Help-Desk

Between 30th June 2005 and 14th January 2008, which was the time Seema Misra worked as sub-postmistress at the West Byfleet post office branch, there were a total of 105 calls made to the Horizon help-desk number. Only 4 of these calls were related to monies. These 4 calls were all made toward the end of February 2006.

During Warwick Tatford’s evidence to the post office inquiry on 15th November 2022, Jason Beer wrongly stated “We know that there were 135 calls that she made”.

Warwick Tatford had clarified the actual number of calls with Andrew Dunks during the 2010 trial, just before he was cross examined by Keith Hadrill (inquiry transcripts here & trial transcripts p.70 here).

25th July 2005 “Ad-Hoc” Training Request

On 25th July 2005 a “request” was made for the West Byfleet branch to have “ad hoc” training with regards “balancing procedure”. The request stated “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”.

Trainer Michael Opebiyi was allocated to return to the branch, weeks after he had first visited the West Byfleet post office.

During her evidence in chief, Seema Misra was asked if she had heard from trainer Michael Opebiyi after 13th July 2005. She lied and chose to omit the two days “ad-hoc” training. Below are extracts from transcripts (p.53A);

• Keith Hadrill: Right. So that gets to the end of the week. Did you get any more training?
• Seema Misra: Not after Michael, no, but he said he will look into it
• Keith Hadrill: Was that the last you heard of him?
• Seema Misra: That is right

27th July 2005 “Ad-Hoc” Training

Trainer Michael Opebiyi was allocated for one day of ”Ad-Hoc” training at Seema Misra’s West Byfleet post office on Wednesday 27th July 2005.

3rd August 2005 “Ad-Hoc” Training

Trainer Michael Opebiyi was again allocated for one day of ”Ad-Hoc” training on Wednesday 3rd August 2005.

10th, 17th & 27th August 2005 Alan Ridoutt & “£400 Shortfall”

Seema Misra chose to lie by omission and not tell the jury about network support manager Alan Ridoutt arranging for trainer Michael Opebiyi to return to her post office branch for two “ad-hoc” training days.

The following extracts from trial transcripts show what Seema Misra chose to tell the jury about Alan Ridoutt (p.57G here);

• Seema Misra: First of all I was struggling with the one unit anyway and I didn’t get any help to set up our four units. When Timiko ring around she came with an answer saying that there is no set procedure to follow to transfer from share two individual. She still looking into it. Then I remember a guy came in, somebody from Network something, in from the post office, and I said to him “the reason I want to go” – he asked me why I wanted to create more trouble for myself
• Keith Hadrill: Anyway what happened, you have got assistance. Somebody was sent in from Network to help you and through that you managed to set up the separate tills, AA, BB, CC and OOH and so on?
• Seema Misra: Not to set up
• Keith Hadrill: How were they created then? They were kept separate, were they, on the ledgers?
• Seema Misra: Yeah. Basically he came in and say like, I am just gone through basically why I want the individual, said like isn’t it, I recall that isn’t it easier to pinpoint where the, who is doing an error? He said “yes”. He said “that is why I want you to”, because I am losing money, he said “okay. That is fine. You can create the stock unit” and I asked how? He said “you go one stock at the moment. Just imagine three times more.” Said there is no set procedure or set process to do it, so while he was there I say like “what, how do we” because I was struggling already. He came with an option. He says “there is separate the stock is, either have the electronic drawers” so when somebody starting they bring the drawers and start working and then pull it and put it back or either the, any bags. Electronic was like expensive, losing money anyway, so I said “let us leave it” and then he went with me to the local stationer Eltons to show me the bags, what sort of bags I can use

By the time Nick Wallis published his The Great Post Office Scandal book, he had again re-written history and contradicted himself, similar to what Seema Misra did during her trial testimony.

Referring to the time just after Michael the trainer left, Nick Wallis states “The area manager put Seema into contact with someone from network support to help Seema convert one master stock unit into four”, “According to Seema’s trial transcript, the first thing the network support manager asked was why she ‘wanted to create more trouble’ for herself”, “By 2005, running separate stock units for each member of staff was part of the Post Office’s standard operating procedure, but it clearly wasn’t happening under the previous regime at the West Byfleet branch”.

Seema Misra was adamant during her evidence in chief that Alan Ridoutt from network support did not help her set up “separate tills”, and she told the jury she had said to him “let us leave it” (p.58F here) and claimed “I done the individual tills myself” (p.56A here).

The following is a record made by network support manager Alan Ridoutt;

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.

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.

September 2005 Flood & Post Office Shut

In September 2005 there was a “power cut” seemingly due to a flood. The West Byfleet post office closed for 3 days from Saturday 24th-26th September, opening again on Tuesday 27th September.

It is not clear whether or not Seema Misra also closed her and her husbands costcutters shop at this time, and whether or not the flood caused any damage to their shop and stock.

Keith Hadrill told the jury “Here it is a call on Friday 23rd September 2005 at 5.32 p.m. “P.m. postmaster states her power went down, is getting power company to sort out” and then we get the next one, number 9, 24th September 09, “post office closed due to flood.” (p.72F here).

He also stated “24th September 05. So clearly the post office has been closed but it is going to re-open again on the 27th, 05” (p.72G here).

October 2005 Audit

Below are extracts from trial transcripts where Warwick Tatford asked Seema Misra about the October 2005 audit (p.120D here);

• Warwick Tatford: The first audit was a surprise, was it not?
• Seema Misra: No. There was —
• Warwick Tatford: It was a stock take audit?
• Seema Misra: The first audit was in October.
• Warwick Tatford: Yes
• Seema Misra: The first audit in October. When I say, like when I gave up in three months time when the losses, the money, I physically put from shop to post office at 3 and a half thousand. I said to Timiko “I can’t carry on.” Then she said, it is a bit unusual, she has spoken to her area manager, Angela James, and I was told “you will get the audit done.” I said “when that will be?” and she said “no, there is no date. It will be surprise”
• Warwick Tatford: Yes. That is the whole point of an audit. It is meant to be a surprise. So when did you tell Timiko Springer that you had thieves in the office? When was it in 2006?
• Seema Misra: That is when the Nadia and Javed case
• Warwick Tatford: So about April?
• Seema Misra: Yes
• Warwick Tatford: The audit does not happen until 14th October?
• Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
• Warwick Tatford: So does nothing happen? You tell the Post Office there are thieves in the office and nothing happens, because this was a very important piece of information you were giving to Timiko Springer?
• Seema Misra: Nobody from the Post Office came in?
• Warwick Tatford: Were you surprised by that?
• Seema Misra: No
• Warwick Tatford: Didn’t you think they would want to come and investigate if people were stealing from the Post Office?
• Seema Misra: Yeah. I am, it is my responsibility. I have to make it good, so I don’t know
• Warwick Tatford: So you thought they would not bother investigating anything?
• Seema Misra: I have got no clue. I don’t know
• Warwick Tatford: Because you didn’t mention in your interview that you had told your area manager about thieves in the office, did you?
• Seema Misra: I said what I have been asked

The 6th October 2005 audit found a “shortfall” of £3,184 (p.51G here).

Seema Misra lied about the October 2005 shortfall figure in her defence statement, inflating it from £3,184 to “£5,000”.

Why didn’t Seema Misra’s legal team pick up on the fact she had inflated this figure, before they submitted her defence statement on her behalf?

The following extracts from transcripts are from when Warwick Tatford asked Seema Misra questions about her defence statement (p.124D-F here);

• Warwick Tatford: ……But you talk about Timiko Springer in your defence statement. “In October 2005 the defendant’s line manager was Miss Timiko Springer to whom the defendant requested assistance in using the Horizon computer and also an audit. An audit check was carried out in October 2005 which resulted in a £5,000 loss for which the defendant had to settle on monthly instalments” So you are talking in your defence statement about speaking to Timiko Springer, but you didn’t mention there that you told her that you had thieves in the office. Why is it missing from this document?
• Seema Misra: (inadaudible)
• Warwick Tatford: Do have a check. If I am missing something then of course I must be put right. (Pause) Is it there, Mrs Misra?
• Seema Misra: No
• Warwick Tatford: It is not there, is it? It is quite an important point, isn’t it? “I phoned up my area manager about the thefts.” But this document that you have got, can you just hold it up so the jury can just get a feel for the document? It is six pages, isn’t it?
• Seema Misra: Yeah
• Warwick Tatford: We can see the font used. There are five full A4 pages, are there not?
• Seema Misra: Yeah
• Warwick Tatford: It is a very detailed document, isn’t it, and as I say, it includes your dealings with Junaid. It includes Michael. It includes the audit in October. But nowhere in that document do you say you told Timiko Springer that there were thieves in the office?
• Seema Misra: Yeah
• Warwick Tatford: So why did you leave that out?
• Seema Misra: I can’t remember why
• Warwick Tatford: You cannot remember why. That document I think there was signed –there is a signed copy. That is not signed, but I understand there is a signed copy – 21st January this year. All right?
• Seema Misra: Mmm mm
• Warwick Tatford: And the document, you agreed with it. Presumably that is why you signed it?
• Seema Misra: That is right
• Warwick Tatford: Why is it for the first time we hear today that you told your area manager, that you told her about the thieves in the office? Is it because you have made it up today?
• Seema Misra: No
• Warwick Tatford: Can you help us as to why it does not make its presence felt in interview or defence statement?
• Seema Misra: I really can’t remember why didn’t I mention. I can’t remember, sorry
• Warwick Tatford: Yes. Mrs Misra, let me make it clear. If in fact this is simply a drafting error and if there is a document that can be shown to me to show that this is something you have mentioned earlier then I will withdraw the point. You understand? So the offer is open to you because sometimes there are errors of drafting, but it is not there in the defence statement, is it?
• Seema Misra: It is not, no
• Warwick Tatford: But you do talk about speaking to Timiko Springer?
• Seema Misra: About the theft
• Warwick Tatford: Not about the theft. You say you spoke and went through it. “In October 2005 the defendant’s line manager was Miss Timiko Springer to whom the defendant requested assistance in using the Horizon computer and also an audit.” That is all there is about her, isn’t there?

“I knew I would get suspended if short of £500” ~ Seema Misra (March 2008) & Area Manager Elaine Ridge

Seema Misra also went on to allege during her trial, that this auditor (who was not Keith Noverre), told her “if she was found to be short by £500 she would be suspended” (p.4A here).

However, after checking Seema Misra’s March 2008 interview with her area manager Elaine Ridge, in which she was formally suspended, Warwick Tatford highlighted to the court;

I have checked the interview.

What she actually says is “I knew I would get suspended if short of £500.”

That clearly may be a reference to the warning by the auditor but there is no explicit mention of the warning itself, unless I am misreading something.

Statements by Warwick Tatford during October 2010 trial – Source p.10H here

Warwick Tatford asked Seema about the October 2005 auditor. The following are extracts taken from trial transcripts (p.126E here);

• Warwick Tatford: Do you remember you saw Keith Noverre give evidence. Was he there?
• Seema Misra: He was not

In his November 2021 book The Great Post Office Scandal, Nick Wallis falsely accuses auditor Keith Noverre and concocts another fictitious narrative. He states “On 5 October 2005 Seema was visited by a Post Office auditor, Keith Noverre, who ran the rule over Seema’s accounts and concluded there was a £3,000 discrepancy at the West Byfleet branch. Noverre told Seema to either make good the £3,000 immediately or she would have the money taken out of her salary. The auditor allegedly then told Seema that if she went as much as £500 down in future, she would be sacked. A casual, but chilling reminder of the power the Post Office had over Seema’s livelihood and investment. Neither Seema nor the Post Office retain any record of Mr Noverre’s comment, but Seema is adamant it is what she was told”.

During Seema Misra’s February 2022 “human impact” evidence to the inquiry here, Seema Misra referred to having spoken to her area manager Elaine Ridge and how Elaine Ridge had apparently agreed that the £3,184 “shortfall” could be deducted from her salary. Below are extracts from inquiry transcripts (p.48 & 49 here);

• Jason Beer: Yes, go back to where you were, the audit that was going to be a surprise and you welcomed it
• Seema Misra: Yes, I welcomed them in and I was so happy that it will be all sorted and everything. They were done in a good couple of hours and they told me there’s a shortfall of – I don’t know the exact figure but it was just under £4,000 and they asked me how I’m going to pay that. I said “I want to know where the money’s going. Why are we losing money?” And he said “I need to make a phone call”. Then he made a phone called (sic) to Elaine Ridge, my area contracts manger, and she said “Oh, well, thankfully they agreed to take this time” – they agreed to take it out of my salary. But any – they’re like – how I describe then, they’re like “it’s a “so called audit”. They call them like auditor but like a bouncer, you see them like auditor but like a bouncer, you see them. They’re like big. I’m tall as well. They’re like bigger than – they look down on you big, and they give – he gave me warning, that particular auditor gave me warning. He said “Mrs Misra, any time you are £500 short, we’ll take the Post Office away”. And that was it
• Jason Beer: Did they take money from your salary?
• Seema Misra: They did, yes. So, technically, I was still under six months probation period, so paying money in and they deduct money from my salary as well

The following video includes a clip from Seema Misra’s February 2022 “human impact” evidence to the inquiry, where she referred to Elaine Ridge;

Seema Misra only mentioned her area manager Elaine Ridge during her trial evidence, in relation to her March 2008 disciplinary interview.

It was not until her evidence during the February 2022 inquiry, that Seema Misra alleged Elaine Ridge had told her “It’s just your post office we’re having issues with”.

She stuck to a version of this story in a 9th August 2022 video for The Times & Sunday Times headed How the Post Office ruined my life, and again alleged it was her area manager Elaine Ridge who had said “Oh Mrs Misra we have so many post office, they’re doing fine, it’s just your post office we’re having issue with”. The video below includes a clip of Seema Misra referring to “my manager” Elaine Ridge;

However a September 2022 article by Hannah Partos for Positive.News magazine, printed more bare faced lies told be Seema Misra. The article stated “Misra was visited by Post Office auditors who found a £4,000 discrepancy and deducted the money from her salary. Towering over her, the auditors acted “like bouncers”, she says, warning that her franchise could be removed. “They said: ‘We have so many post offices that are doing fine. It’s just [yours] that we have an issue with” (Source here).

Then in a January 2024 BBC article here Seema Misra was quoted as having stated “They say they have so many other post offices who are doing fine, ‘it’s you having an issue”.

Seema Misra said nothing during her trial about this auditor allegedly phoning her area manager Elaine Ridge.

In an 11th January 2024 interview with Sarah-Jane Mee for Sky news, Seema Misra chose to conflate the alleged 2005 auditor who allegedly told her “if she was to be found to be short by £500 she would be suspended”, with post office investigators. A clip from that interview can be seen in the following video;

19th December 2005

The post office agreed Seema Misra could repay the £3,184.53 “shortfall”, and a letter dated 19th December 2005 stated in part “Outstanding debt to be deducted from remuneration we now intend to authorise deduction from the remuneration of £3,184.53” (p.51 & 52 here).

23rd December 2005 Why Did Seema Misra Wait 2 Months Before Reporting 4000 Euros “Shortage”?

Following a series of 4 calls Seema Misra had made to the Horizon help-desk between the 20th-23rd February 2006, Anne Chambers made a note which stated in part;

The loss in euros in TP9 appears genuine – the declared quantity was 4000 fewer than the system expected. It is not clear from the information above whether anyone found out why this happened (there were several rem outs, and a rem in, on 23rd Dec – did the pouches contain the declared number of euros?

Excerpts from Anne Chambers 27th February 2006 note – Source at around 1:50:22 here

Why did Seema Misra choose to wait two months before speaking to the Horizon help-desk about the 4000 euros “shortage” from 23rd December 2005?

A 23rd February 2006 note made by the Horizon help-desk stated that Seema Misra had alleged she had “made good” the 4000 euros;

However in Seema Misra’s handwritten statement, which she made on the day she was suspended, she stated;

We took over the staff from previous owner for about one to one and a half.

They were running the post office with us as we thought they would, they run it for so many years they ought to be better than us but after a while when we learned more and more we noticed that things weren’t right.

I think we noticed there were 4000 euros missing

Excerpts from Seema Misra’s handwritten statement from 14th January 2008 – Source p.81C here

If Mr Shakal was still working for Seema Misra as a post office clerk in December 2005, then he had only worked for her for around 6 months by this time.

Why did Seema Misra pretend to the post office Mr Shakal had worked for her “for about one to one and a half” years?

According to Seema Misra’s evidence in chief, Mr Shakal had left by the time she had trained Nadia.

During her trial Seema Misra also referred to “euros down while we were away”. Below is an extract from transcripts in which Keith Hadrill asked her about the “missing” 4000 euros (p.82 here);

• Keith Hadrill: “—because things were not right. Things we notice there were 4,000 euro missing.” What is this about?
• Seema Misra: That is the rem came in and the, I don’t know exact what they was, like they was like a euros down while we were away. There was like euros down
• Keith Hadrill: So whilst you were away some euros were meant to have come in and you were down?
• Seems Misra: Yeah
• Keith Hadrill: So that is 4,000 euros and that caused a currency problem, did it?
• Seema Misra: That is right
• Keith Hadrill: A reconciliation problem?
• Seems Misra: Can recall the actual amount which was like should be on the in pouch. It is a bit less than 4,000 euro lesser

If Seema Misra went away in December 2005, where did she go and did she include this admission in her January 2010 defence statement?

7th February 2006 Compliance Audit

On 7th February 2006 there was a compliance audit, which was made by “appointment”, meaning Seema Misra would have known about the auditors visit in advance, therefore giving her time to make sure she was seen to be “complying with regulations”.

The “appointment” would also have given Seema Misra time to ensure she did not have an alleged “illegal immigrant” working in the post office on 7th February 2006.

Complying with post office regulations was part of Seema Misra’s duty as a sub-postmistress (p.66 here). “A compliance audit is to make sure that the office is complying with different regulations such as money laundering, whether they are keeping password control within the office as it should be, dealing with all Royal Mail aspects like making sure that the letters and parcels are kept behind the secure area and not on the public side” (p.13 here).

According to Seema Misra’s evidence, these audits were carried out to also ensure when she sold “car” or “travel insurance” she was “using the correct wordings” (p.67 here).

February 2006 Staff Losses

By sometime in February 2006, around 8 months after Seema and her husband Davinder Misra had taken over at the post office and adjacent shop, staff members Mr Shakal, Javed and Nadia had left.

It was after these 3 falsely accused former staff members had left, that Seema Misra’s thefts began to “go skywards pretty rapidly” (p.22 here).

During her taped interview under caution, Seema had stated;

Money transferred to AA was shorter than actual money.

Lottery money was being taken from shop but never entered on horizon.

Even on the shop side was low as well, so we got rid of them.

They refused to pay and we kept quiet.

Seema Misra 14th January 2008 – Source p.46 here

Seema Misra also inflated dates and attempted to suggest these 3 former staff member’s had worked for her in the post office, longer than they actually had.

Referring to Tamiko Springer, Seema Misra told the jury “I didn’t have any staff to run the post office and she arrange a locum to come in to help me out serving” (p.120 here).

It is not clear from the available evidence who this “locum” was.

Below are extracts from transcripts, where Warwick Tatford had asked Adrian Morris, one of the post office investigators, to tell the jury some of what Seema Misra had said during her recorded interview, whilst under caution. The statements were an “agreed summary of the recording” (p.70 here);

• Warwick Tatford: Then if you could pick it up at the bottom of the page, please?
• Adrian Morris: Okay. “Discussion regarding staff who took money where SM says they were not sacked but left. One person owed 300 to 4,000 losses from the till. Others had left the country”
• Warwick Tatford: Mrs Misra says that “one left in February 2006.” She points out that she had taken over the shop in June 2005. “Three of the staff were family members. Others left at the end of 2006. One lady worked only in the shop”
• Adrian Morris: I asked “how much was missing at the end of 2006 when the staff left?”
• Warwick Tatford: Mrs Misra says “it was around 89,000 to £90,000”
• Adrian Morris: “Explains that husband informed him that the police had been notified of the losses but the police were only made aware of £1,000”
• Warwick Tatford: So in fact that has been put down as “AM” but in fact that must be Mrs Misra saying that. Would that be right?
• Adrian Morris: I think it may be the way that that has been written. I think the husband may have told me that
• Warwick Tatford: I am so sorry, my misunderstanding. So you think Mrs Misra’s husband had told you the police had been notified of the losses but the police were only made aware of the £1,000
• Adrian Morris: Only just reading that now that is how it looks
• Warwick Tatford: I see. Thank you. Then Seema Misra, she goes on to say she found the difference later and they were expecting some repayment
• Adrian Morris: “Confirmed that around November or December 2006 there was a shortage in the accounts of 89,000. Recaps that the staff were sacked or resigned or left the country and since November only SM and her husband work in the post office assisted by Malina and Ali”
• Warwick Tatford: “Mrs Misra confirms that since 2006 they received further transaction corrections relating to them, no further large unexplained discrepancies. She confirms she completes the balance paperwork and there are six stock units. The staff declare the stamps and cash in the tills” and she went on to say that when they took over there were combined tills and because they could not identify who was having losses they changed the system to individual units, and then there was a discussion, was there not, on the way the cash is declared. What does it mean by “the cash figures are given to Seema Misra”, please?
• Adrian Morris: When the clerks will declare the cash at the end of the day normally they would put it into the Horizon system which is the post office computer system. The clerks would normally put it into the system themselves. Seeing that, the cash figures are given to Seema Misra to put in on their behalf
• Warwick Tatford: So do I have this correctly, Mrs Misra was saying that the cash figures by other members of staff were given to Mrs Misra and then she would enter them on the system?
• Adrian Morris: That is how it looked, yes.
• Warwick Tatford: Thank you. “Mrs Misra explained they were trying to pay back some money each week to reduce the shortage, so she also received a 20,000 Lottery error for which she was paying 2,000 a week back into the till” Then you recapped and you explained that you had been told by her that she inputs the cash figures from the tills and you asked her how the rest of the cash is completed and Mrs Misra said this: “Just make it up like how much it should be and then try to balance and I can’t —” –and would you pick up your direct words, please
• Adrian Morris: “So how do you find out how much should be there?”
• Warwick Tatford: “The snapshot, when we do the office snapshot for the, says how much it should be”
• Adrian Morris: “You rolled over the counter stocks, do an office snapshot and it says there should be this amount of money in the office and you put that there is that amount although in reality there isn’t that amount there”
• Warwick Tatford: “Okay, and JL —” –that is Jon Longman who was another investigator in the interview with you. Is that right
• Adrian Morris: Yes, that is correct
• Warwick Tatford: If you would read out his question as well?
• Adrian Morris: “Asked when the £89,000 occurred was there a shared stock?” and SM says that “all the people did the balance and SM didn’t check anything. Shows branch trading statement dated 14th November to 15th December 2007

The alleged “staff who took the money” and who “were not sacked but left“ appear to have been Mr Shakal, Javed and Nadia.

It is not clear who the 3 “family members” were, or who the staff member was who allegedly “left at the end of 2006”.

The staff member who allegedly “owed 300 to 4,000 losses from the till” appears to have been falsely accused Mr Shakal.

Seema Misra dropped her false allegations against Mr Shakal just before her trial was due to begin in 2010.

Mr Shakal, Javed and Nadia could not have been responsible for the alleged “89,000 to £90,000” theft, because all 3 had been left for around 8 months by the time this loss had accrued.

Ali Raza appears to have began working for Seema before November 2006. It is not known exactly when Ali Raza started working in the post office.

On 23rd February 2022 inquiry lawyer Jason Beer asked Seema Misra here how many staff she employed to work in her branch. Below is a copy of extracts from the transcript of her evidence (p.39 here);

• Jason Beer: Who else worked in the branch?
• Seema Misra: We had a staff, which we took over from the previous subpostmaster as well
• Jason Beer: How many staff were there?
• Seema Misra: There were like one person and then we had employed two more
• Jason Beer: So three, other than you and Mr Misra?
• Seema Misra: Correct, yes

The clip in the video below shows Seema Misra lying during her February 2022 “human impact” evidence to the inquiry;

Seema Misra named 5 staff members during her trial. They were Mr Shakal, Javed, Javed’s sister-in-law Nadia, as well as Ali Raza and Malina.

Seema Misra did not falsely accuse Ali Raza or Malina of any alleged theft.

In a May 2009 email to Phil Taylor, regarding the addresses of Mr Shakal, Javed and Nadia, which Seema Misra had given her legal team and alleged had been responsible for her “£89,000” to “£90,000” thefts, Warwick Tatford stated “It may be we have been given false details which may strengthen our case”.

20th – 23rd February 2006 Horizon Helpline Calls

Seema Misra told the jury “When I got Javed and Nadia red handed my assumption was like they are the ones who is taking money out, taking the money from the post office. That is why I was having all these losses” (p.131 here).

Andrew Dunks from Fujitsu gave evidence during Seema Misra’s trial in relation to the Horizon help-desk call logs. He stated “Most of the calls are to do with printer failures, bar code readers. 85% 90% of them are to do with hardware faults like that” (p.60 & 62 here).

Andrew Dunks also confirmed that none of the Horizon help-desk calls struck him as “unusual”. In one call made on 15th September 2005 for example, it stated that Seema Misra had called the helpline and said of the back office printer “is printing faintly and has changed toner and it is only a bit better” (p.63 here).

At 10:42am on Monday 20th February 2006 the help-desk received a call in which it was recorded “the postmaster states that showing £6,000 down from balance” (Source p.66 here).

There were two more calls made on 20th February, one recording “PM states showing 6,000 down from balance” (p.85 here).

Then at 12:45pm on Tuesday 21st February another call log recorded “the postmaster stated that the system is showing her as being down every day. She has been advised by NBSC and the postmaster was advised to follow the advice” (Source p.66 here).

At 8:59am on Thursday 23rd February 2006 there was a call log which had recorded “The postmaster was getting discrepancies. They have been investigated and the postmaster has been advised that the NBSC will take a second look at this as the office stock units appear to be in a mess” (Source p.66 here).

Prosecutor Warwick Tatford put it to Seema Misra about these calls;

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?

Statements by prosecutor Warwick Tatford during cross-examination of Seema Misra on 18th October 2010 – Source p.138D/E here

27th February 2006 Anne Chambers Note

Seema Misra made no further calls to the horizon help-desk about these matters after the 23rd February 2006 call.

John Simpkins, a Fujitsu team leader within the software support centre for the Horizon computer system, stated;

By way of background, in the Horizon IT system, each branch counter had its own database, known as a message store. The individual counters message stores recorded each transaction carried out on that particular counter (along with other data). The data from the message store would be replicated to the other counters in the branch, meaning that each counter had a complete copy of all the data from the other counters in that branch.

Because the data from the individual counters was replicated to the correspondence server, which my team could access, we were able to review the counter data across the entire estate, identify any problems and potentially rectify them.

Excerpts from John Simpkins 1st witness statement to the post office horizon IT inquiry – Source from para.40 p.12 here & para.43 p.14 here

Anne Chambers from Fujitsu investigated Seema Misra’s 20th-23rd February 2006 calls and made a note of her findings on 27th February 2006. It stated;

I have checked very carefully and can see no indication that the continuing discrepancies are due to a system problem.

I have not been able to pin down discrepancies for individual days or stock units because the branch does not seem to be operating in a particularly organised manner.

In particular I have noted

1. There are 6 stock units in this 3 counter branch, which seems a bit excessive.

2. The loss in euros in TP9 appears genuine – the declared quantity was 4000 fewer than the system expected. It is not clear from the information above whether anyone found out why this happened (there were several rem outs, and a rem in, on 23rd Dec – did the pouches contain the declared number of euros?).

3. Stock is sometimes transferred out of a stock unit where it is not held.

In particular there were several transfers out of stock unit SM1 in TP10. At the end of the period the stock figures were corrected back up to zero via adjust stock. This gave a gain of over £2000 in SM1. Equivalent negative stock adjust in AA gave a corresponding loss in AA.

4. I am not confident that the stock declarations are always correct eg. at the….

Anne Chambers notes from 27th February 2006 – Source at around 1:50:22 here

During Warwick Tatford’s evidence to the inquiry, on 15th November 2023, Jason Beer only chose to display part of Anne Chambers note. It is not known what else Anne Chambers had noted.

Who Was The Mystery Locum?

According to Seema Misra’s evidence at trial, she referred to a post office locum apparently being arranged by sales manager Tamiko Springer, to go in to the post office to help her, after Javed and Nadia had left in February 2006.

Referring to after Mr Shakal, Javed and Nadia had left, Seema Misra attempted to dupe the jury, similar to how she had attempted to dupe the post office investigators in January 2008. Below are extracts from trial transcripts for some context (p.119A here);

• Warwick Tatford: ….You say you told your area manager about the thefts. Was it her you told?
• Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
• Warwick Tatford: So you phoned up Tamiko Springer one day?
• Seema Misra: That is right
• Warwick Tatford: In April 2006?
• Seema Misra: Yeah
• Warwick Tatford: What did you tell her?
• Seema Misra: That I caught Javed – when I first caught Javed red handed because I caught Javed red handed, the transfer is not enough, so I just – I am not letting him in the post office. I am not letting him in the post office any more. That was it, and the same thing with Nadia as well. I did ring her and mention that and Nadia done the same thing, and then she mention at me to cancel these Western Union money gram, the password thing. Then I was told to cancel the passwords
• Warwick Tatford: Did you tell Tamiko Springer how much had gone missing?
• Seema Misra: Definitely before first audit I was telling her every figures. When the – when I got a sort of warning from auditors that any time if you lose more money we will take your post office away
• Warwick Tatford: I will come to that in a moment. Did you tell Tamiko Springer that “I am having heavy losses because of thefts by my employees?”
• Seema Misra: I can’t recall
• Warwick Tatford: All right. But what happened after you phoned Tamiko Springer saying “I have got thieves in the office?”
• Seema Misra: That is – the impression round about that time I am going to have to get rid of Javed and Nadia. It is mean didn’t have any staff. Then it was arranged for a locum to come in
• Warwick Tatford: Right. So I want to really find out what Tamiko Springer did because you have phoned her up and said “I have got thieves in the office.” What happened from her end?
• Seema Misra: I don’t know. She – I have to get rid of the staff which mean I didn’t have any staff to run the post office and she arrange a locum to come in to help me out serving
  Warwick Tatford: Are you saying that Tamiko Springer must have kept it to herself that there were thieves in the office at West Byfleet?
• Seema Misra: Well, she arranged the first audit. When I said I can’t carry on she arranged the first audit with her area manager
• Warwick Tatford: The first audit was a surprise, was it not?
• Seema Misra: No. There was —
• Warwick Tatford: It was a stock take audit?
• Seema Misra: The first audit was in October
• Warwick Tatford: Yes
• Seema Misra: The first audit in October. When I say, like when I gave up in three months time when the losses, the money, I physically put from shop to post office at 3 and a half thousand. I said to Tamiko “I can’t carry on.” Then she said, it is a bit unusual, she has spoken to her area manager, Angela James, and I was told “you will get the audit done.” I said “when that will be?” and she said “no, there is no date. It will be surprise”
• Yes. That is the whole point of an audit. It is meant to be a surprise. So when did you tell Tamiko Springer that you had thieves in the office? When was it in 2006?
• Seema Misra: That is when the Nadia and Javed case
• Warwick Tatford: So about April?
• Seema Misra: Yes
• Warwick Tatford: The audit does not happen until 14th October?
• Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
• Warwick Tatford: So does nothing happen? You tell the Post Office there are thieves in the office and nothing happens, because this was a very important piece of information you were giving to Tamiko Springer
• Seema Misra: Nobody from the Post Office came in.
• Warwick Tatford: Were you surprised by that?
• Seema Misra: No
• Warwick Tatford: Didn’t you think they would want to come and investigate if people were stealing from the Post Office?
• Seema Misra: Yeah. I am, it is my responsibility. I have to make it good, so I don’t know
• Warwick Tatford: So you thought they would not bother investigating anything?
• Seema Misra: I have got no clue. I don’t know

Staff Members Ali Raza, Malina & More Obfuscation & Contradictions

Between the time Mr Shakal, Javed and Nadia left, Seema Misra chose to not make it clear to the jury who was working in the post office during the 8 months from February 2006 to November 2006.

Seema Misra had told the jury that Ali Raza had been trained by the post office and that “since November” 2006 only her and her husband Davinder had worked in the post office “assisted by Malina and Ali” (p.74 here).

Keith Hadrill asked her who she employed, below are extracts from trial transcripts (p.72 here);

• Keith Hadrill: Did you employ other persons to help behind the post office?
• Seema Misra: I did, yeah
• Keith Hadrill: Who trained those persons?
• Seema Misra: It was just one person Ali who was trained by Post Office, Ali Raza. Ali was trained by Post Office, all other was I trained them

3rd March 2006

The resolution for the 4 horizon help-desk calls at the end of February was dated Friday 3rd March 2006 (p.86 here).

6th April 2006 £16,000 Bank Transfer By Sister-In-Law Omika Kalia

Jusge Stewart asked Seema Misra “Roughly how much money from those sources did you put into the post office in 2007?” to which she replied “My sister in law gave me 16,000 but that was towards mid 2006 and I owe her about 22,000 plus” (p.163 here). When the judge asked her if “Other friends or family” had given her money she stated “It is Omika is main” (p.164 here).

On 6th April 2010 Omika Kalia, the sister-in-law of Seema Misra (Davinder Misra’s sister) transferred £16,000 into the Misra’s Nat West bank account (p.172 here).

Omika Kalia told the jury “I gave her 16,000 altogether once“ and “It was somewhere around May, April or May, May” (p.169 here).

Paragraph 205 in Hamilton & Ors v Post Office Ltd states “During her own evidence, Mrs Misra maintained there had been staff thefts but also that there had been unexplained losses that had continued after the staff in question had been dismissed, which she had reported to the Helpline. She stated that she had borrowed money from friends and family to put into POL’s funds. Mrs Misra’s sister-in-law gave evidence that she had lent her £22,000 for that purpose.”

There was, and still is, zero evidence that Seema Misra reported any “unexplained losses” to the Horizon help-desk after the 4 February 2006 calls.

Nick Wallis went on to claim in The Great Post Office Scandal “The moment Seema began – to use a technical term – artificially inflating her cash holdings, she was a hostage to fortune. If Seema pressed a button on Horizon agreeing there was £25,000 in physical cash in her branch, the Post Office was entitled to think it was there. They were equally entitled to request she rem out a portion of that cash, so that her ‘onch’ sum was not too high. Seema got round the onch problem by borrowing cash from Omika and sending that straight to the Post Office”.

If the April 2006 £16,000 money transfer by Omika Kalia was for the post office, she only transferred enough to the Misra’s to make up one £10,000 “rem” pouch.

Seema Misra’s evidence was “If I like send down the bag for 10,000 but I only manage to put like 9,000 in there, so I will not send the bag” (p.149 here).

Omika Kalia also told the jury “I used the money but I bought the business and I used my saving then” (p.170 here). Gov UK have a listing for SSN foods ltd having been incorporated on 6th May 2009, a year before the trial. The business was dissolved on 11th January 2011.

8th April 2006 Surrey Police “Illegal Immigrant” Allegation

Jonathan (Jon) Longman, the post office investigator, also established that two days after Omika Kalia had transferred £16,000 into the Misra’s bank account, there had been an allegation made to Surrey police about former staff member Nadia (p.3 here).

The crime report stated that Davinder Misra had contacted Surrey police on 8th April 2006. “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.

However when “the police were asked to attend” it turned out that “the person was not at the office, that is was a telephone conversation that Mrs Misra was having with Nadia” (p.9 here).

If someone was “in the office shouting and screaming” surely this must have been Seema Misra?

Jonathan Longman also told the jury “the female is not at the location as stated, the abuse was via a telephone call ” and “she thinks Nadia is illegal and she was Mrs Misra was passed the telephone number of customs” (p.9 here).

In The Great Post Office Scandal, Nick Wallis quoted hypocrite and bully Davinder Misra, as saying “To give you an understanding of my cultural background – as an Indian, we don’t mess with somebody else’s woman”.

Seemingly this did not apply to former staff member Nadia.

Warwick Tatford asked Seema Misra about the alleged staff thefts stating “You didn’t report the thefts at all to the police?” to which she again lied and stated “I reported when I caught Nadia red handed with 1,000 transfer”.

He then reminded her “The first time the police were told anything about thefts it was not you reporting it. It was Mr Badiwalia reporting it”.

Seema Misra lied again stating “I reported it by mid, round about April 2006, £1,000 by Nadia”,

Warwick Tatford again reminded her that “the April call went to the police from your husband because according to the printout at least Nadia was causing a nuisance of herself and she was an illegal immigrant?”.

In response to this Seema Misra confirmed “Officer came as well and I remember definitely the officer came as well on that occasion” (p.107 here).

12th April 2006 Surrey Police Told Of Misra Harassment

Jonathan Longman also told the jury about a second crime report. He stated “the suspect on this crime report was Mr Kumar Davinder Misra” and that it “is because 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” (p.18 here).

Javed and his sister-in-law Nadia were no longer working for the Misra’s in April 2006.

On 12th April 2006 Javed had made a complaint to the police and subsequently made a sworn police witness statement the following day (13th April) because he was “being harassed” by Davinder Misra.

Therefore by April 2006, Davinder Misra was attempting to project his and his wife’s theft onto Javed and Nadia.

Warwick Tatford also reminded Seema Misra “are you not bound by your contract to tell both the police and the Post Office even if you have a suspicion that there is some dishonesty going on at the office?” to which she claimed “I didn’t, I didn’t know that I have to inform both of them. I didn’t know that” (p.108 here).

Part of Seema Misra’s sub-postmistress contract stated;

If a theft or burglary is committed or attempted at sub-post office, whether or not official cash or stock is stolen the fact must be reported at once to the police and to the regional general manager by the person who first made the discovery.

Source p.113 here

During her sentencing in November 2010, judge Stewart made reference to “a letter from the superintendent of Surrey Police thanking” Seema Misra “for assisting in preventing a crime against another gentleman” (p.11D here).

The date of when exactly she had received the letter was not made clear. However based on all available evidence in the public domain, it appears this letter was in relation to “a crime” that occurred sometime before August 2006, referred to in a Surrey live news article here.

Seema Misra did not report any alleged staff thefts to either the police or the post office during her entire time at the West Byfleet post office. That is until she was “caught red handed” for her false accounting and theft when the auditors turned up on 14th January 2008.

Warwick Tatford told the jury during his opening argument;

The defendant did say in her interview that she had called the police about the thefts albeit she had only told the police there was a theft of a thousand pounds, and now the investigator in the case has checked police records because the police keep records of complaints and no such record of a complaint by the defendant has been found.

Warwick Tatford during his opening argument to the jury during Seema Misra’s October 2010 trial – p.48 here

Seema Misra Alleged She Had “Lost The Interest” Around This Time

She reiterated this and stated “I didn’t do any balancing as of mid 2006. I didn’t do a proper balancing” (p.99 here).

Referring to mid April 2006, Seema Misra went on to tell the jury “Well, I basically stopped doing a proper, proper check like counting and entering it as of mid 2006. All I was doing to get this natural figure, checking the amount it should have been there and that is it entering” (p.90 here).

Referring to Seema Misra’s March 2008 disciplinary interview with Elaine Ridge, Warwick Tatford asked her “Did you in that interview at any stage say you were not competent to run the post office? By all means look through it. I have marked elements— “ to which Seema told the jury “I did to Elaine. I said like as of mid April I just a bit lost the interest and all I doing, I didn’t do the balance properly. I was just doing a snapshot and just putting the figures in“ (p.117 here).

However Anne Chambers 27th February 2006 note suggests Seema Misra was not completing legitimate stock declarations before February 2006.

Also referring to around April 2006, chief innocence fraud enabler Nick Wallis chose to attempt to re-write history via his The Great Post Office Scandal book stating “The Misras redoubled their efforts. In his first phone call to me, Davinder Misra tearfully related the nights of mounting panic he and Seema experienced, printing off the day’s transactions on Horizon’s crappy till roll, staying up to ‘one … two in the morning’, going through the lengths of paper line by line, desperately trying to find some clue as to what might be causing them to lose so much money”.

On 17th January 2024 fraudster Seema Misra was quoted by the BBC here as having stated “I used to be on the floor until the early hours of the morning trying to find out what went wrong, but [I] couldn’t find”.

August 2006 Post Office Gold Award

On the 31st August 2006 Seema Misra was quoted in a news article here as having stated “I feel brilliant”, ergo no signs of having “lost the interest“ or of any problems at the post office.

The news article was headed Seema is jewel in crown at post office and stated that Seema Misra’s West Byfleet post office “business runs smoothly”.

The article also stated that Seema Misra’s “hard work has been recognised — on Thursday she was awarded with a Crown” and that “business has been turned around since she joined”.

Seema Misra was also quoted as stating “We have all worked really hard”, which was also not reflective of her going onto claim, 4 years later during her trial, that she was not doing “proper balancing” around this time.

This was also not reflective in The Great Post Office Scandal book. Referring to this time period, Nick Wallis stated “For the Misras, the latter half of 2006 was a spiral of misery”.

Further excerpts from the Surrey live article read “Sales account manager Tamiko Springer, who presented Seema with her (sic), said: “I nominated her myself. She came on board in July 2005 and she has been absolutely great. She knows how to appreciate customers and when she joined the post office, she made a massive difference. She has been quite exceptional, the customers don’t see half of it. “We had lots of problems with people leaving but she has dealt with it. The team is now 10 times better, she has made the office tidy and organised everything.” Tamiko said Mrs Misra is a very pro-active member of staff and is very positive towards everyone she works with. She saved one elderly pensioner from sending £15,000 off to a fraudulent recipient and has also been able to advise customers on ebay scams she is aware of (Source here).

September 2006 Luxury Munich, Germany Trip

Elaine Ridge “was appointed to the position of agents’ contract manager” for the post office “in September 2006” (p.2F here).

On 15th September 2005 Seema Misra called the Horizon help-desk in relation to the back office printer. The call log stated that the printer “is printing faintly and has changed toner and it is only a bit better” (p.63 here).

Nick Wallis stated in The Great Post Office Scandal book “The West Byfleet shop was large. It was established. It had staff (which meant the Misras might one day be able to take a holiday)..”.

Nick Wallis chose to omit Seema Misra’s trip to Munich, her holiday to India as well as the “missing” euros saga.

On Saturday 16th September 2006 Seema and Davinder Misra went on a “luxury weekend trip” to Munich, Germany, which the post office had paid for. Seema also received a £500 high street voucher, along with a chocolate hamper to share with her staff.

Seema Misra had stated two weeks earlier “I am looking forward to my trip to Munich on September 16 and I will be taking my husband Davinder with me” (Source here).

October 2006 Failure To Transfer £23,374.50 Lottery Monies

Not long after returning from her trip to Munich, it was discovered in October 2006, that Seema Misra had failed to transfer £23,374.50 cash from her shops tills into the post office account.

On 26th October two “transaction corrections” were sent to Seema Misra, one was for £10,208 and another was for £13,166.50 (p.10 here).

Warwick Tatford reminded Seema Misra about this and asked;

Were you surprised you were not suspended at that point?

It is a lot more than £500

Were you surprised they didn’t shut you down after what you were apparently told by the auditor? The two things don’t sit together very well, do they?

Warwick Tatford – Source p.127 here

Seema Misra’s failure to transfer the £23,374.50 cash from her shop to the post office, was also not down to any bug with the Horizon computer system.

Andrew Bayfield stated to the jury;

A transaction correction is where the branch have incorrectly dealt with the accounting of a particular transaction.

A simple example might be with something like a giro business deposit, a giro account business deposit where a customer who runs maybe a small business or something has come in to pay their takings into their bank account, either their own or their company bank account.

They have like a paying in book which would have a transaction receipt which we would retain and there would be counterfoils that we would stamp to give back to the customer to prove that we have accepted the money on their behalf or we would transact that money on their behalf.

If they input that amount of money into the system incorrectly and then send the paperwork away there will be a mismatch between what is recorded on the system and what is actually physically present on the slip and also the amount of money that they have put into their till.

Andrew Bayfield – Source p.11 here

Below are extracts from trial transcripts in which Warwick Tatford asked Seema Misra about “transaction corrections” (p.68G here);

• Warwick Tatford: During the course of 2006 were you receiving transaction correction error notices?
• Seema Misra: Yeah. The errors were coming in
• Warwick Tatford: What could you do about those
• Seema Misra: Basically by that time I was trying to ignore them. When it comes in I know the minute I accept it it is mean I am down with more money, so I was leaving it towards, some time towards the end of the next rollover because then I had no choice. I have to accept it
• Warwick Tatford: Were you in a position to refuse the corrections?
• Seema Misra: There was a – yeah, when there was like a big amount came in then I cushioned(?) it, like refusing the same, either accept or get evidence or I don’t know what was it, and then the final stage then there is no option. Either you put cash, cheque or send it centrally and you can’t just – so basically the only two option I have, paying by cash, paying by cheque, sent it centrally but I was told like only if post office agree then we do that

In a handwritten note initially passed to auditor Keith Noverre, on the day she was suspended (14th January 2008), Seema Misra stated in part “Lottery money was being taken from shop but never entered on horizon. Even on the shop side was low as well” (p.64D & 64F here).

21st November 2006 £23,374.50 “Settled Centrally”

Following the two October 2006 “transaction corrections”, the post office agreed to allow this misappropriated monies to be settled centrally on 21st November 2006. The £23,374.50 debt to the post office was to be paid back via monthly instalments (p.10 here & p.71 here).

December 2006 Warning to Struggling Post Offices

In December 2006 Seema Misra agreed to repay the two October 2006 “transaction corrections”, one for £10,208 and another for £13,166.50 – totalling £23,374.50 (p.10 here).

She agreed she would repay her debt to the post office via monthly payments direct from her salary’. From January to April 2007, she agreed to repay £843, £842, £654.47 and £2,000, then in May 2007 she agreed she would pay back the outstanding £19,034.03 in “nine instalments of £2,000” (P.11 here).

Postmasters protests, petitions and warnings were regularly being reported on throughout the UK by 2006, like for example Matt Weaver’s 2006 article for the Guardian here, which stated, ‘Britain’s postmasters are lobbying parliament in protest at the closure of thousands of post offices’ and ‘The Post Office has lost control of a number of revenue-generating services, including the TV licence contract. Last year, post office transactions fell by £168m’.

April 2007 Warning Over Struggling Postmasters

In April 2007 the East Anglian Daily Times reported here, under the header, Warning over struggling postmasters; “Struggling postmasters could be forced into desperate measures to keep their businesses afloat, it was warned last night. Beryl Keats, Suffolk secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, said that businessmen and women running struggling post offices – particularly in rural areas – could be tempted to dip their fingers into the till. She raised her concerns after Kevin Howells, former sub-postmaster at Acton, near Sudbury, pleaded guilty to stealing more than £15,000 by using lottery takings to subsidise the adjacent shop.

7th May 2007

A post office letter to Seema Misra, dated 7th May 2007, read;

We have previously written to you regarding debt that has been settled centrally and is to be deducted from your remuneration.

Further debt has been added to this amount and so it has now become necessary to revise your original repayments.

Your future repayments will be as follows commencing April 07 – one instalment of £2,000 followed by a further eight instalments of £2,000 per month, then a one off instalment of £1,034.03 in February 2008

Excerpts from Post Office leter dated 7th May 2007 – Source p.53 here

July 2007 Gareth Jenkins On The “Missing” £3,930 Euros & Pouch

On 7th July 2007 Seema Misra told the Horizon computer system that £3,930 worth of euros “were packed into a pouch”, however it was established that there was no “corresponding transaction for that pouch having been dispatched from the branch” (p.54B here).

The foreign currency and the money pouch had “literally disappeared“ (p.25E here). For some context, below are copies of extracts from trial transcripts in which Fujitsu’s Gareth Jenkins explained to the jury his analysis;

• Warwick Tatford: Are you aware of a situation occurring at West Byfleet where there were cash pouches that had gone through the system that did not, in fact, contain money?
• Gareth Jenkins: I’m told that that is something that has happened and there’s – it’s difficult for the system to know whether there had then – where money is being said to be put in pouches as to whether it has physically been put into the pouch or not but I am aware of some circumstances where money was put into a pouch on one occasion and then the pouch was emptied and the money put back into the system a few days later with the balance period in between those and that occurred on two occasions during the period that I looked at
• Warwick Tatford: Have you looked at – for your period, December 2006 to December 2007, have you looked for odd transactions in relation to cash in pouches?
• Gareth Jenkins: I did a – a quick analysis of the cash in pouches to see how they are moved during the period and I noticed that there was a pouch containing 3,900-odd pounds worth of euros that was packed on 7th July and there was no sign of that pouch ever having been dispatched from the branch
• Warwick Tatford: Pause there
• Judge Stewart: 07, was it?
• Gareth Jenkins: ’07, yes
• Warwick Tatford: Never sent to -?
• Gareth Jenkins: The – the – the euros were packed into a pouch and I couldn’t see any corresponding transaction for that pouch having been dispatched from – from the branch
• Warwick Tatford: So the computer had a record of €3,930 apparently being put in a pouch?
• Gareth Jenkins: 3,930 pounds worth of euros
• Warwick Tatford: Oh, I am so sorry. 3,930 pounds worth of euros being packed in a pouch on 7th July?
• Gareth Jenkins: Yes
• Warwick Tatford: But there was no record in the logs of that pouch actually being despatched?
• Gareth Jenkins: Correct
• Warwick Tatford: And was there – sometimes it is possible to reverse a pouch transaction, is it not? You put money in a pouch and then decide, in fact, you want to keep it rather than sending it out?
• Gareth Jenkins: And there was no – none of those transactions for that value either
• Warwick Tatford: So no reversal
• Gareth Jenkins: Correct

Keith Hadrill asked Seema Misra about the “missing” euros and “missing” foreign currency pouch towards the end of her evidence in chief. Below are copies of extracts from trial transcripts (p.161G here);

• Keith Hadrill: You have been asked about this euro currency pouch which was missing. I put it to Mr Noverre that in fact that you viewed that it was not missing and we have heard his answers. What is your answer to that euro currency pouch?
• Seema Misra: As he mentioned, it only came after Mr Jenkins that it has been sitting there since 7th July – it is from July 2007, my understanding was the currency he was talking about the currency which we send it back to Post Office as a special delivery and we check it has been received and it was still saying they have not received it, that he was enquiring about and it give him the specific special delivery numbers

Seema Misra went on to claim she had remembered this “special delivery” story after hearing Gareth Jenkins evidence. Gareth Jenkins had given his evidence on the previous Thursday (14th October 2010), giving Seema Misra the weekend to conjure up another of her stories. Below are copies of extracts from transcripts for some further context (p.147B here);

• Warwick Tatford: What happened to the bag of euros that Mr Noverre could not find, £3,000 worth of euros? Where was that?
• Seema Misra: Yeah, only recall that from Mr Jenkins when Mr Jenkins was doing a witness, that it has been sitting there since July 2007 if I am correct.
• Warwick Tatford: What was sitting there?
• Seema Misra: That bag of euro was sitting in the system since July 2007
• Warwick Tatford: An empty bag?
• Seema Misra: Not an empty bag. It was not – I would not do anything with currency. It says like Mr Jenkins mention that since July 2007 there is a rem pouch sitting in there. Till then I didn’t know that there is any currency pouch. There should have been more currency pouch as well
• Warwick Tatford: I am sorry. Mr Noverre asked you where is this pouch containing 3,000 euros and you were not able to explain to him?
• Seema Misra: No. I didn’t know that there was a currency pouch, actually it have to be pouch as well. The only pouches I knew of they were the two cash pouches which were stamped and dated which mean I am going to put the money in otherwise I would not stamp or date it. Why would I do that because I know I have been doing to put the money in. The currency pouch, I know they have asked me for the currency. First I told there was the – I don’t know what you say –the dispute over, there was some currency which – first rate(?) the post office that is because they supplied from for the currency getting special delivery pouch, there was some currency which we send it back to them and it was done by special delivery and they were still not recall it on the system that we returned it. When Mr Noverre asked for it I did mention is it that currency you are talking about? These are the special delivery numbers. I did get them to Mr Noverre that…
• Warwick Tatford: Was there a bag with currency in?
• Seema Misra: Not of I know. I only know the bag, there was an actual bag they were talking about. That was last week when Mr Jenkins said since July 2007 there is a bag sitting in there. Only then I came to know about there is a bag
• Warwick Tatford: Mr Noverre said he looked at the records and he has realised according to the records that you had put into Horizon, he found two empty pouches
• Seema Misra: Yeah, which I given it to him
• Warwick Tatford: Yes. He thought there might be another one containing euros. Where was that pouch which your records said contained euros? Where was it?
• Seema Misra: I don’t know. As I said, I only recall – on that time I thought that are they mentioning about the currency which we send it back already and the Post Office been saying they have not received it. On number of occasion I did give them special delivery number that is definitely going from here. Is that the currency they are talking about?
• Warwick Tatford: Do you think you sent it off and the Post Office…
• Seema Misra: Not at that time. I said is that the currency you are talking about? I given him the special delivery numbers as well that we do write it down and it was only just last week when Mr Jenkins was giving a statement then I realised and when he mentioned that there was a bag of 5,000 euros sitting there since July 2007
• Warwick Tatford: Yes. He said that he had spotted a bag of euros that was packed in a pouch on 7th July. There was no sign of the pouch being despatched or the pouch being reversed. So please help us. We need to understand it
• Seema Misra: Yeah
• Warwick Tatford: What happened to that pouch?
• Seema Misra: I really don’t know what happened. I don’t know like – I didn’t know there was a pouch of 5,000 euros. It might be only pouch in any of the premises was two currency pouches which I given it to Mr Noverre
• Warwick Tatford: So the answer is you don’t know where it is? Yes?
• Seema Misra: No. I don’t know like how they – that that bag is there

October 2007 Unusual Pouch Transactions

There was an “unusual pouch transaction” on the 10th October 2007, a month before Seema Misra went on holiday to India. “That was a case when a pouch for £15,000 was packed on 10th October in trading period 6 and then reversed out again on 22nd October” (p.54 here).

14th November 2007 Further Unusual Pouch Transaction & Holiday To India

An “unusual pouch transaction” happened again on 14th November where the Horizon computer was told by Seema Misra that “an £18,000 pouch” was going out, but she “reversed this on the 19th November 2007” – 9 days before she went on holiday to India (p.54 here).

28th November 2007

Seema Misra went on holiday to India on the 28th November 2007, she claimed “for about six or seven days” (p.83 here).

December 2007

On her return from her holiday to India, Seema Misra made her last telephone call to the Horizon helpline on the 17th December 2007. This was to report a problem with the printer on “counter 2” (p.69 here).

Warwick Tatford asked Andrew Dunks from Fujitsu during the trial “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?” to which Andrew Dunks confirmed this to be correct (p.70 here).

Husband Davinder Misra

The jury asked the court 5 questions, 3 of which related to the misappropriation of the £23,374.50 lottery monies and Seema Misra’s husband Davinder Misra.

Their first question was “When you buy a ticket for the Lottery is it on the till in the shop and how is it related to the Horizon system?” The judge told them “The evidence is that Lottery tickets or scratch cards, whatever it is, are bought in the shop on a shop till. There is a printout at the end of the day showing how many were sold and that is transferred over to the post office” (p.15 here).

Their second question was “Has Mrs Misra’s husband the authority by the Post Office to unlock the Horizon system and get into the post office section?” The judge responded to this with “The evidence is that the sub-postmaster or mistress is responsible for the post office. They train and employ their staff and staff have access to the Horizon system to undertake their duties.

The jury also asked “Was Mr Misra in charge of the Lottery till as well as Mrs Misra?” The judge stated “The answer to that is all shop employees, according to the evidence, operated the Lottery till including Mr Misra who was of course there on 14th January” (p.15 & 16 here).

Was Davinder Misra “caught red handed” stealing the post office’ lottery monies by Nadia and/or Javed in, or before February 2006, and was this the reason why Davinder chose to harass Nadia and Javed and spread malicious rumours allegeding that Javed had stolen “£1,000”-“£2,000”?

Or was it Seema Misra who caught her husband stealing and chose to side with him out of loyalty?

Why would the Misra’s choose to employ an alleged “illegal immigrant”?

14th January 2008 Audit & Precautionary Suspension

Auditor Keith Noverre arrived at Seema Misra’s post office branch on 14th January 2008 at around 8:30am. He didn’t leave until gone 6:45pm (P.87 here). The shop was already open but he had to wait until Ali Raza arrived at “approximately 8:40” to open up the post office. He stated “The shop was open but me and my colleagues, as far as I can remember, obviously it is about three years ago now, we waited at the back for somebody to turn up because the post office is at the back of the shop” (p.6 here).

Below are extracts from trial transcripts (from p.6A here);

• Warwick Tatford: When you arrived was there a member of staff present?
• Keith Noverre: There was a member of staff arrived just after we turned up
• Warwick Tatford: And that was a Mr Ali Raza. Is that right?
• Keith Noverre: That is correct, yeah
• Warwick Tatford: So you turned up first and then Ali Raza turned up to open up the shop?
• Keith Noverre: The shop was open but me and my colleagues, as far as I can remember, obviously it is about three years ago now, we waited at the back for somebody to turn up because the post office is at the back of the shop
• Warwick Tatford: So there is a shop, a convenience store shop?
• Keith Noverre: A convenience store, yeah
• Warwick Tatford: And one goes right to the back of the convenience store to the post office?
• Keith Noverre: That is where the post office is
• Warwick Tatford: So it was a Mr Ali Raza who turned up shortly after arrival to open up the post office?
• Keith Noverre: And we explained what we were there for, etc, and he let us in

Davinder Misra followed not long after and informed Keith Noverre that his wife was allegedly in Luton “visiting relatives”.

Nick Wallis falsely states in his The Great Post Office Scandal book “On the morning of 14 January 2008 at 8.30am two Post Office auditors, Adrian Norris and Keith Noverre, walked into the West Byfleet Post Office”.

Investigator Adrian Morris (not Norris) did not arrive at the post office until around 2:10pm.

Nick Wallis also states “The shop had been opened by an employee on the retail side of the branch. At 8.40am one of the Misras’ Post Office employees showed up and gave the auditors access to the counter. Then Davinder arrived. He gave the auditors access to the safe”.

Again, Seema Misra had told the jury during her trial that Ali Raza, who Nick Wallis claims was “an employee on the retail side”, had worked in the post office. Below are extracts from trial transcripts (p.72 here);

• Keith Hadrill: Did you employ other persons to help behind the post office?
• Seema Misra: I did, yeah
• Keith Hadrill: Who trained those persons?
• Seema Misra: It was just one person Ali who was trained by Post Office, Ali Raza. Ali was trained by Post Office, all other was I trained them

According to Seema’s evidence, she asked to speak privately to Keith Noverre when she eventually arrived. Warwick Tatford asked her about this “Was all that before the safe was opened?” to which she replied “Yeah” (p.77A here). However Keith Noverre told the jury that Davinder “..was in attendance while we started. He opened the safe up and was in attendance while we started checking the cash and stock” (p.8C here).

Keith Noverre had already discovered Seema Misra was not complying with post office regulations. He had found that a £1240 cash deposit had been made by a local business two days earlier, but Seema had failed to enter this cash transaction onto the Horizon computer system and had not bothered to put the cash in the post office safe.

Seema Misra confessed to the jury to having done this “many times” before, she also claimed that she had planned to sort it on the “Monday”, which was clearly another of her blatant lies because she didn’t go into work on the Monday, as she was allegedly “visiting relatives” (P.146B here).

The three stock units, which are drawers “made up of cash and stock” (p.8 here), also hadn’t been locked away in the safe, neither had three “date stamps” (p.41A here).

Keith Noverre stated the audit “didn’t get off to a good start” and said that if the stamps “got into the wrong hands somebody could do a lot of fraud” (p.41g here).

Nick Wallis states in his book The Great Post Office Scandal “Seema asked Keith Noverre if he would come into the back office. He did so. In private, Seema told Mr Noverre there was a problem – Horizon’s figures would not match the actual amount of cash being held at the branch. Seema expected the discrepancy to be anything between £50,000 and £60,000.”

Nick Wallis chose to omit the fact that Seema Misra had falsely accused her former staff of stealing £89,000.

Below are extracts from trial transcripts in which Warwick Tatford asked auditor Keith Noverre to explain what happened when Seema Misra arrived at the post office (p.9E here);

• Warwick Tatford: Mrs Misra arrived at around 10.45. Is that right?
• Keith Noverre: Around that time, yeah
• Warwick Tatford: When she arrived did she tell you anything?
• Keith Noverre: Yeah. She said “can I speak to you and have a word?” and we went out to the back, behind the back of the post office and then she told me the account would be, if I can just check the notes on here, about 50 to £60,000 short
• Warwick Tatford: Did she explain how the account had come to be 50 to £60,000 short?
• Keith Noverre: She explained that a member or maybe more than one staff member had taken 89K the previous year or so and that is where the missing cash had gone
• Warwick Tatford: So she said that, was it a member of staff or more than one?
• Keith Noverre: I am not 100% sure whether it was a member or more than one at the time. I can’t recall it to be honest
• Warwick Tatford: But they had taken how much?
  Keith Noverre: Approximately about £89,000
• Warwick Tatford: And this had been a year previously?
• Keith Noverre: Approximately about a year beforehand, yeah
• Warwick Tatford: I think in fact if we look at your notes, your report, you say that “Seema explained that over a year ago the theft had taken place“
• Keith Noverre: Yes. I think that was very, a rough estimate anyway
• Warwick Tatford: Yes, and just looking at that penultimate paragraph on page 8, your words: “Seema explained that over a year ago some previous staff had taken 89,000 from the branch”, does that help you, looking at the report, as to whether it was one person she was referring to or more than one
• Keith Noverre: I would say reading the report it means more than one person but I can’t recall the exact conversation at the time
• Warwick Tatford: Looking at your report, you go on to say “she explained she had not informed anyone from the Post Office as she was worried that the branch would be closed. She also explained that they had made some of the loss good and would look at ways at making the remaining outstanding amount good. Seema confirmed all balances had been adjusted to show a clear trading position at the end of each period“
• Keith Noverre: That is correct
• Warwick Tatford: What did you understand her to mean by that last sentence in your report?
• Keith Noverre: So every time we get a trading period which is approximately about four to five weeks work she would balance up her cash and stock, get the figure to whichever how much is short and then adjust the cash accordingly to make it balance
• Warwick Tatford: So she had done what to make it balance, just in layman’s language?
• Keith Noverre: Falsified her accounts
• Warwick Tatford: Did you need Mrs Misra’s assistance to help you with the audit?
• Keith Noverre: We did because the previous trading period had not been completed on the previous Wednesday
• Warwick Tatford: So the day you arrived was a Monday?
• Keith Noverre: A Monday, yeah
• Warwick Tatford: And the office should have been balanced the previous Wednesday?
• Keith Noverre: Yeah. The trading period should be completed every four weeks and it must be done over the Wednesday evening or at the latest Thursday morning and that is when all the stocks are rolled over into the next TP, trading period
• Warwick Tatford: So this had not fully been done. Is that right?
• Keith Noverre: No. Half the stocks had been and half the stocks had not been
• Warwick Tatford: And there are six stocks in total at the branch?
• Keith Noverre: That is correct yeah
• Warwick Tatford: So you asked Mrs Misra to do what?
• Keith Noverre: To complete the balance for the trading period because the office snapshot which gives a breakdown of the whole office was still in the previous TP, trading period, so we have to get them all into the same trading period so we get a true figure of the actual what is on hand at the branch
• Warwick Tatford: So you needed a true record of what should be on hand at the branch so that you could check to see if the record was right?
• Keith Noverre: Yeah. The office, because there was three stocks in TP9 and some were in TP10 we had to obviously get them all into TP10 to get a true reflection of exactly what we were checking on hand

It was Elaine Ridge who “precautionary suspended” Seema Misra (p.5 here) and by the time of her suspension, she was also still owing the post office £3,034.03 relating to her misappropriation of the £23,374.50 lottery monies.

Adrian Morris from the post office was originally the lead investigating officer. Jonathon Longman took “over the role of officer in the case”. Both officers were present during Seema Misra’s interview and both were involved in the voluntary search of her home.

Seema Misra made a written statement (dated 14th January 2008) which read;

I confirm in office audit there will be around 60k shortage due to staff theft.

It was around £89k and we bring it down to 60 and I want to make an arrangement to clear the balance.

I would appreciate it if I can have a chance to clear the shortage

Seema Misra’s 14th January 2008 handwritten statement – Source p.46 here

When asked “about any proposals she might have on repayment” of her theft she said “she cannot pay all of it straightaway but has to make arrangements with regard to salary and shop takings”. She also stated “We will try and get some money from family and friends” and that “they have another property which is rented out. A management company are holding the rent for three years” (p.85 here).

Seema Misra made a £475 cash payment towards her theft on the day of the audit (p.84 here & p.86 here).

Locum Postmaster Ramprakash Vasarmy

Ramprakash Vasarmy, the sub-postmaster who took over from Seema Misra following her suspension on 14th January 2008, told the jury in October 2010 that he did not have any problems with the Horizon computer system.

March 2008 Formal Suspension

On 12th March 2008 Seema Misra was interviewed by Elaine Ridge, following which she was formally suspended.

18th April 2008

Nick Wallis states in The Great Post Office Scandal “In April 2008 Seema received a letter from the Post Office informing her that her contract was going to be terminated. The NFSP rep told her that to avoid being sacked, she should resign, which she did. On 18 April 2008 Seema’s resignation was acknowledged and she was issued with a demand for £77,643.87, payable ‘immediately.’

NFSP stands for National Federation of SubPostmasters.

September 2008

Nick Wallis states in The Great Post Office Scandal “On 1 September 2008 Seema sent the Post Office a cheque for £500”.

November 2008

Nick Wallis stats in The Great Post Office Scandal “On 27 November 2008 Seema was summoned to court, charged with false accounting and the theft of £74,609.84”.

December 2008

”The defendant was summoned for the offences set out on the schedule of charges and appeared at Woking magistrates court on the 19th December 2008. The defendant gave no indication of plea. The magistrates declined jurisdiction and the case was adjourned for committal proceedings to take place on the 19th February 2009. The defendant was granted unconditional bail” (Source post office inquiry ref: POL00044585).

January 2009

Seema Misra was charged with theft from the West Byfleet post office.

February 2009

”On the 13th February 2009 the defendant was committed for trial under section 6(2) of the magistrates court act 1980, to a plea and case management hearing at Guildford crown court on the 20th March 2009” (Source post office inquiry ref: POL00044585).

March 2009

A plea and case management hearing was heard on 20th March 2009. Andrew Castle was Seema Misra’s solicitor.

Seema Misra’s defence team notified the prosecution that she would plead guilty to false accounting but not to theft.

Seema Misra was also directed to provide “better particulars” for the staff members who she was alleging were responsible for her thefts.

Warwick Tatford stated;

I have a recollection of being asked by Andrew Castle, the solicitor advocate for Mrs Misra, whether pleas for false accounting would be acceptable. I had anticipated being asked this question as it was obvious from the papers that such an offer was going to be made. I had formed a view, before the enquiry from Mr Castle, that such an offer should not be accepted, because the suggestion that Mrs Misra had been entering false figures over a considerable period, only to cover the thefts by members of staff, seemed clearly refuted by the fact that her false figures continued to rise long after the dismissal of the alleged thieves.

Warwick Tatford – 25th October 2023 – Source p.20 here

April 2009

On the 9th April 2009, Seema Misra supplied the prosecution with names and addresses of Mr Shakal, Javed and Nadia, who she alleged were responsible for “£89,000” to “£90,000” worth of theft from her post office.

11th May 2009

On the 11th May 2009 Computer Weekly published Rebecca Thomson’s article here.

22nd May 2009

On 22nd May 2009 Warwick Tatford emailed Phil Taylor stating;

I have spoken to Jon Longman about this case.

The case for theft is strong and we should not accept the pleas.

Confiscation would also be a non-starter if we did.

Jon is making some further enquiries about the “thieves” the defence have given us details for.

It may be we have been given false details which may strengthen our case.

Excerpts from Warwick Tatford email to Jon Longman – Source post office horizon IT inquiry ref: POL00051586

31st May 2009

Josephine Hamilton stated in her 10th February 2022 “statement of truth” 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.”

Nick Wallis indicates in his book The Great Post Office Scandal that Josephine Hamilton ran over to her neighbour and solicitor Issy Hoggs house on Sunday the 31st May 2009. He states “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.”

Nick Wallis also wrongly states “As Seema’s trial date of 1 June 2009 approached, various preparatory hearings took place.”

2nd June 2009

Seema Misra’s trial was due to start on the 2nd of June 2009.

In his 25th October 2023 witness statement to the inquiry, Warwick Tatford stated;

The defence eventually decided to adjourn the trial so that this new potential issue could be investigated by expert evidence. I decided not to oppose that application, even though this was a new defence that had not been raised in the defence statement or in Mrs Misra’s interview. Some prosecutors might have taken a more hardline view and some judges might have been persuaded not to allow an adjournment. I considered, however that the matter had to be properly investigated, even though it had been raised very late and without any warning. I thought that fairness to both sides required an adjournment. At that stage it appeared to me quite unclear as to whether the complaints set out in the Computer Weekly article were of relevance to Mrs Misra’s case or not. Prior to that day, from the papers I had, she had not been alleging unexplained deficiencies. 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 any losses right from the beginning, in the presence of her trainers, while they were training her, before any possible theft was involved, which is something she relied on heavily in her evidence at trial.

Statements by Warwick Tatford from his 25th October 2023 witness statement to the post office horizon IT inquiry – Source Para.50, p.25 here

6th November 2009

Lawyers Warwick Tatford and Keith Hadrill visited West Byfleet post office on 6th November.

8th November 2009

Josephine Hamilton stated to the inquiry that “On 8 November 2009, 17 postmasters met at the Fenney Compton village hall” (Source p.2 here).

Seema Misra confirmed she attended this meeting during a BBC interview with Jon Kay, which aired on the 8th April 2024 (from around 2:00:42 here). Watch clip below;

19th November 2009

Charles McLaughlin, instructed by the defence visited the branch on 19th November 2009 (Source p.26 & 27 here).

On Friday the 20th November 2009, Keith Hadrill, Seema Misra’s barrister “raised concerns in Guildford Crown Court…..about the Horizon system”.

Rebecca Thomson, from Computer Weekly, reported on Seema Misra’s pre-trial hearing on the 23rd November 2009. The article headed Post Office theft case deferred over IT questions stated in part;

Judge Christopher Critchlow allowed extra time for the final expert report to be produced, moving the case date to March next year. He asked, “This Horizon system is one which has caused enormous problems for the Post Office – technical problems?” 

Tatford replied, “We don’t agree with that at all. I have looked through two cases which are the subject of two of the complaints in that [Computer Weekly] article. There were no problems identified in those cases. Both defendants pleaded guilty.”

Critchlow said the Post Office must respond to requests for information within 14 days.

Tatford said the Post Office does not anticipate employing an IT expert, but that witnesses from IT company Fujitsu and “Post Office investigators who can deal with these matters” would be speaking in court.

Excerpts from Rebecca Thomson’s article headed Post Office theft case deferred over IT questions dated 23rd November 2009

Lawyers Jason Beer and Warwick Tatford did not mention the content of Rebecca Thomson’s 23rd of November 2009 article, during Warwick Tatford’s 15th of November 2023 evidence to the inquiry.

There was no mention by Warwick Tatford that in November 2009 he had indicated he “does not anticipate employing an IT expert”.

21st January 2010

Seema Misra’s 21st January 2010 defence statement was served to the prosecution.

October 2010

Seema Misra’s trial finally began on 11th October 2010.

Tap on the button below to read the full trial transcripts;

Nick Wallis states in The Great Post Office Scandal “Seema admits to being nervous when the trial started. She didn’t like being sat on her own in the dock, separated from Davinder and her supporters, one of whom was Jo Hamilton. Another former Subpostmaster had also come down from Preston. Her name was Jackie McDonald. She had been sacked with a Horizon discrepancy of £94,000 and was facing similar charges to Seema”.

According to a February 2011 article;

Jacqueline McDonald of Broughton Post office in Preston, Lancashire, pleaded guilty to theft and seven counts of false accounting dating back to March 2008. 

McDonald used the stolen money to pay bills that the convenience store had built up. 

Excerpts from Convenience store article headed Subpostmistress jailed after stealing from PO dated 11th February 2011

Seema Misra was found guilty of theft on 21st October 2010.

Following the guilty verdict and after the jury had left the court, Judge Stewart stated to Seema Misra “Now, Mrs. Misra, speak to that lady from the Probation Service who is just making herself known to you now before you leave so you know exactly what is expected of you next and you must be back here on Thursday 11th November when you will be sentenced” (p.7H here).

In The Great Post Office Scandal, Nick Wallis quoted Davinder Misra who stated “I literally wished I could take a gun and shoot everybody there”.

Nick Wallis also states “Shortly before the trial ended, Seema was told by her doctor she needed to go on medication. The medication was of a sort which could have serious side effects for pregnant women. For peace of mind, she was advised to take a pregnancy test. She did. It was positive”.

Seema Misra’s trial had ended when she found out she was pregnant, a couple of days before she was sentenced in November. Judge Stewart stated “That was a conception which took place as the trial was approaching and you conceived that child in full knowledge of the circumstances in which you found yourself” (p.12B here).

11th November 2010

Following pre-sentence reports, Seema Misra returned to court on Thursday 11th November to be sentenced.

Former sub-postmistress Jess Kaur attended Seema Misra’s sentencing, which she confirmed during a BBC interview with Jon Kay, which aired on the 8th April 2024 (from around 2:00:42 here). Watch clip below;

Defence lawyer Keith Hadrill told the judge “Can I say there has also been handed to me today a letter from the defendant’s general practitioner upon the information provided that she is now expecting what will be her second child…..” (p.4C here).

Keith Hadrill also bizarrely told the judge “Your Honour, general mitigation, can I proffer these: that the defendant is, and has been, a hardworking and industrious woman, trying to support her family and business. She was until her pleas of guilty to the false accounting in March of last year of good character. She has not tried to deflect the blame and responsibility for the totality of loss on to others (p.5H here).

Again, Seema Misra’s 14th January 2008 handwritten note stated in part;

I confirm in office audit there will be around 60k shortage due to staff theft. It was around £89k and we bring it down to 60….

Seema Misra – 14th January 2008 – Source p.46 here

Judge Stewart stated to Seema Misra, in part;

You are entitled to credit for the fact that you admitted the offences of false accounting at an early opportunity in this court, but there can be no such credit so far as count one is concerned for you maintained your statement that you had not appropriated any of that money dishonestly right through to the end of the trial, but the jury rejected your case so far as that was concerned and concluded that they were sure that you had stolen at least a substantial part of that £75,000. The fact that there was this money missing was discovered in January of 2008 when auditors came to the post office and conducted an audit of the records and it transpired that the shortfall existed. You had been performing a number of actions to obscure the shortfall over the preceding months. For example, putting figures in for cash in hand which were untrue and dealing with envelopes for remittances of cash out so as to make it appear that there was cash in the post office when it simply was not. This sequence of events had continued, as I have said, for a substantial period of time, two and a half years. It is right to say that there was no evidence of what became of the money that was stolen. No evidence of extravagant living or anything of that kind, but the jury were sure that you had appropriated the money for whatever purpose it might have been. When you were interviewed and when you came to give evidence you maintained that the money initially was missing because staff had stolen a very substantial sum, even more than the £75,000, and you also maintained that you were not competent and not sufficiently trained to operate the Post Office computer system and you tried to maintain that the losses continued as a result of mismanagement.

The guideline sets out a number of factors which have to be taken into account. Aggravating features that are present is a long course of offending. Mr. Hadrill submits that this is not a case where suspicion was deliberately thrown on others or where you deliberately left others to pick up the pieces of your offending because you are contractually bound to the Post Office to make good any shortfall in the accounts.

Well, you did not deliberately throw suspicion on any person who directly suffered by way of being arrested, but you did try to maintain that the theft was initially the responsibility of previous employees. I do not consider you, on the evidence that was available to the jury, to have been incompetent or incapable of running a sub-post office, the jury heard ample evidence as to the degree of training that is available and the amount of experience and skill that is required. They also heard about your education and employment history, which demonstrated a good deal of experience of computers and of positions of responsibility.

Judge Stewart – Source p.9G here & p.13B here

Nick Wallis states in The Great Post Office Scandal “I was working at BBC Surrey”, “On 16 November, less than a week after Seema had been sent to prison, I was in my usual seat, presenting the breakfast programme. Towards the end of the show, a tweet from ‘@SurreyCars’ popped up on the studio monitor. Surrey Cars wished to bid for BBC Surrey’s taxi account”, “I was bored, so I wrote, ‘Are you happy to come on air and tell us interesting stories?’ The response came back within a minute. ‘I have a story to tell you,’ it said. ‘Call me.’ I made a note of Surrey Cars’ number and called it after the show. Surrey Cars appeared to consist of a single person, whose name was Davinder Misra”, “We spoke for around 40 minutes. At times Davinder’s strong Indian accent made him quite hard to understand. He was erratic, but lucid. He explained what had happened to his wife, Seema”, “He sounded like a genuine person who thought the Post Office and a faulty computer system were responsible for his life falling apart”.

Nick Wallis stated on 7th February 2024 here “Thirteen years ago today I did my first piece for the BBC on the Post Office scandal. I interviewed Davinder Misra whilst his wife Seema was still in prison”.

Nick Wallis did not attend Seema Misra’s trial, nor had he read the full trial transcripts by the time he chose to promote the innocence fraud phenomenon spin of embezzler and fraudster Seema Misra and her husband Davinder Misra.

Link to Part 24 here