Widower of Post Office employee convicted of theft loses attraction combat

he widower of a Post Office employee jailed after being convicted of theft has misplaced a Court of Appeal combat.

Ian O’Donnell needed to posthumously clear the title of his spouse Joanne, who died seven years in the past, aged 64.

Three attraction judges lately thought of the case of Mrs O’Donnell, who labored at North Levenshulme Post Office in Manchester, and on Tuesday dismissed an attraction.

Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Picken and Sir Nigel Davis, who heard arguments at a Court of Appeal listening to in London in June, have been instructed that Mrs O’Donnell had been convicted of theft and given a seven-month jail sentence after a trial at Manchester Crown Court in 2007.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) had referred the case to the Court of Appeal after being contacted by Mr O’Donnell.

A spokesman stated the case had been referred within the wake of the Horizon IT scandal.

Lawyers representing the Post Office opposed the attraction.

This is just not one of many distinctive and uncommon instances by which it could be acceptable to conclude that Mrs O’Donnell’s conviction is unsafe on both of the abuse of course of grounds which have been superior on her behalf

Errors made by Horizon software program, which was made by tech agency Fujitsu and utilized by the Post Office, led to the wrongful convictions of dozens of individuals for false accounting and theft between 1999 and 2015.

Of some 700 convictions between 1999 and 2015, 132 instances have been by the appeals course of leading to 83 overturned convictions and 49 unsuccessful appeals, based on the Post Office.

Lord Justice Holroyde stated in a written ruling that attraction judges had beforehand thought of appeals in opposition to conviction by many former Post Office workers prosecuted a few years in the past after being convicted of dishonesty offences.

He stated these instances raised points about abuse of course of and the security of convictions, “having regard to concerns about the reliability” of Horizon.

Appeal judges had concluded that Mrs O’Donnell’s case was “not a Horizon case”, he stated.

Mrs O’Donnell had denied wrongdoing however been convicted by a jury after a five-day trial.

Judges heard that she had been an assistant working primarily at North Levenshulme Post Office.

Lord Justice Holroyde stated that, when prosecuted, she had 30 years’ expertise, her file had been “impeccable”, and she or he had been counseled for bravery when confronted by armed robbers.

In November 2004, the Department for Work and Pensions had knowledgeable the Post Office that, in April and May of that yr, pensions and allowance (P&A) funds had been paid on the North Levenshulme Post Office on books which had been reported as misplaced in transit, or as not having been handed to the client, and which have been subsequently topic to a “stop notice”, he stated.

Relevant funds had been made regardless of the “stop notice” being in pressure.

Counterfoils had been date stamped, and transaction logs indicated that almost all of the funds had been made with Mrs O’Donnell’s “user ID”.

The decide stated funds had been inputted manually into the Horizon accounting system, slightly than by way of a barcode scanner.

Lawyers had raised quite a lot of considerations in regards to the security of Mrs O’Donnell’s conviction.

They included a “material failure of disclosure”, “the unreliability of Horizon data that was essential to the prosecution”, and the “poor level of investigation”.

But attraction judges concluded that Mrs O’Donnell’s conviction was protected.

“In the present case, it is in our view clear that Horizon evidence was not essential to the prosecution of Mrs O’Donnell,” stated Lord Justice Holroyde.

“In the present case, it is in our view clear that Horizon evidence was not essential to the prosecution of Mrs O’Donnell”

“First, the fact that P&A dockets had been fraudulently encashed, and monies stolen, could be and was proved without reference to Horizon.

“As we have said, this is not a case in which there was an allegation of an unexplained shortfall based solely on Horizon’s figures: it was not in dispute that the relevant P&A books had been sent to the sub-Post Offices concerned; it was not in dispute that they were the subject of stop notices, which must have been issued following a report by an aggrieved customer; and the fact that payments had been made on vouchers from those books was proved by producing the paid dockets.

“The precise amount stolen was not a material averment, and therefore doubts about some of the suspected transactions would not mean that the allegation of theft could not be proved.”

He stated the “circumstantial evidence” that it was Mrs O’Donnell who had “stolen money by fraudulent encashments” didn’t rely on the reliability of Horizon.

“There was no suggestion that any of the customers who had reported their new P&A books missing, and so had been issued with replacement books, was implicated in any dishonest scheme,” he added.

“The dates and places at which dockets from the stopped books had been encashed could be and were proved by reference to the paid dockets.

“The fact that Mrs O’Donnell was working at the relevant branches at the relevant times, and the attribution to her of the date stamps used on the dockets, were not in dispute.”

He stated the “circumstantial evidence” implicating Mrs O’Donnell within the fraudulent transactions was, “moreover, very strong”, and added: “We are therefore satisfied that this is not a Horizon case, as that shorthand term has been used in other appeals, and that in reality the appeal is based on allegations of material non-disclosure.”

The decide stated, aside from a “brief reference” to Horizon throughout an interview, there “was never any suggestion on Mrs O’Donnell’s part” that Horizon performed any function in issues.

He stated Mrs O’Donnell’s case was not one of many “exceptional and rare cases” by which it “would be appropriate to conclude” that the “conviction is unsafe” on “abuse of process grounds”.

“We recognise, of course, that there were strong points to be made in Mrs O’Donnell’s favour, in particular relating to her good character and long record of service,” he added.

“The fact that she was in a comfortable position financially was also a point in her favour, and could be said to provide an answer to the financial motive suggested by the prosecution.”

But he stated these have been issues jurors “must have considered”.

He stated: “We have read a moving letter by Mr O’Donnell, which makes clear the distress which Mrs O’Donnell and her family suffered as a result of her conviction.

“We can well understand why he remains convinced of her innocence and wishes to clear her name.

“We must, however, decide this appeal in accordance with the law rather than on a basis of sympathy.”

He added: “We are satisfied that the conviction is safe. This appeal therefore fails and must accordingly be dismissed.”

Content Source: www.customary.co.uk

Widower of Post Office employee convicted of theft loses attraction combat

latest articles

Test

Test

Test

Fed Holds Rates Regular and Tasks Three Cuts This Yr

Cricket golf equipment instructed to cease utilizing plastic balls that might pose well being threat

Households set to be hit by 5% common council tax rise

Trending News

Ugandan President Indicators Anti-Gay Regulation That Includes Loss of life Penalty

Senegal Blocks Some Social Media After Ousmane Sonko Is Sentenced

Sudan Warfare Strikes a Blow to the Nation’s Rising Artwork Scene

No Disgrace. No Sorrow. Divorce Means It’s Social gathering Time in Mauritania.

Historical Human Kinfolk Buried Their Lifeless in Caves, New Theory Claims

Eusebius McKaiser, Acerbic South African Political Analyst, Dies at 44

POPULAR POSTS

Intercourse Assault Claims In opposition to Vince McMahon Shadow a W.W.E....

Simply Red star Mick Hucknall recreates the ‘cycle of genius’ with...

PlayStation Plus August 2023 free PS4 and PS5 video games reveal...

POPULAR CATEGORY