Widower of Post Office worker convicted of theft loses appeal fight

Ian O’Donnell wanted to posthumously clear the name of his wife Joanne, who died seven years ago, aged 64.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred the case to the Court of Appeal after being contacted by Ian O’Donnell (PA) (PA Wire)

The widower of a Post Office worker jailed after being convicted of theft has lost a Court of Appeal fight.

Ian O’Donnell wanted to posthumously clear the name of his wife Joanne, who died seven years ago, aged 64.

Three appeal judges recently considered the case of Mrs O’Donnell, who worked at North Levenshulme Post Office in Manchester, and on Tuesday dismissed an appeal.

Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Picken and Sir Nigel Davis, who heard arguments at a Court of Appeal hearing in London in June, were told 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 said the case had been referred in the wake of the Horizon IT scandal.

Lawyers representing the Post Office opposed the appeal.

This is not one of the exceptional and rare cases in which it would be appropriate to conclude that Mrs O’Donnell’s conviction is unsafe on either of the abuse of process grounds which have been advanced on her behalf

Lord Justice Holroyde, Court of Appeal

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

Of some 700 convictions between 1999 and 2015, 132 cases have been through the appeals process resulting in 83 overturned convictions and 49 unsuccessful appeals, according to the Post Office.

Lord Justice Holroyde said in a written ruling that appeal judges had previously considered appeals against conviction by many former Post Office staff prosecuted many years ago after being convicted of dishonesty offences.

He said those cases raised issues about abuse of process and the safety 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 said.

Mrs O’Donnell had denied wrongdoing but 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 said that, when prosecuted, she had 30 years’ experience, her record had been “impeccable”, and she had been commended for bravery when confronted by armed robbers.

In November 2004, the Department for Work and Pensions had informed the Post Office that, in April and May of that year, pensions and allowance (P&A) payments had been paid at the North Levenshulme Post Office on books which had been reported as lost in transit, or as not having been handed to the customer, and which were therefore subject to a “stop notice”, he said.

Relevant payments had been made despite the “stop notice” being in force.

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

The judge said payments had been inputted manually into the Horizon accounting system, rather than by the use of a barcode scanner.

Lawyers had raised a number of concerns about the safety 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 appeal judges concluded that Mrs O’Donnell’s conviction was safe.

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

Lord Justice Holroyde

“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 said the “circumstantial evidence” that it was Mrs O’Donnell who had “stolen money by fraudulent encashments” did not depend 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 said the “circumstantial evidence” implicating Mrs O’Donnell in 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 judge said, apart from a “brief reference” to Horizon during an interview, there “was never any suggestion on Mrs O’Donnell’s part” that Horizon played any role in matters.

He said Mrs O’Donnell’s case was not one of the “exceptional and rare cases” in 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 said those were matters jurors “must have considered”.

He said: “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.”