Post Office to Contest First Capture System Appeal in Landmark Case
The Post Office has confirmed it will oppose the first ever Court of Appeal case involving the faulty Capture accounting software, a system that predated the infamous Horizon scandal and is believed to have caused numerous accounting errors leading to wrongful convictions. This development marks a significant new chapter in the long-running Post Office miscarriage of justice saga.
Historic Legal Challenge Over Pre-Horizon Software
Sky News has learned that the Post Office will fight the appeal brought forward on behalf of former sub-postmistress Pat Owen, who was convicted of theft in 1998 based on evidence from the defective Capture computer system. Mrs Owen, who died in 2003, had her case referred to the Court of Appeal last year as a potential miscarriage of justice. The Post Office's decision to contest this appeal represents the first legal test for Capture-related convictions at this level.
A Post Office spokesperson stated that "the case needs to be fully considered by the Court of Appeal", emphasising their commitment to proper legal process. The organisation maintains it wants all unsafe convictions overturned while fulfilling its duties to the courts.
Capture Software: The Predecessor to Horizon
The Capture accounting software was rolled out to approximately 2,500 Post Office branches during the 1990s, immediately before the introduction of the Horizon system that subsequently became notorious for causing hundreds of wrongful prosecutions. A government-commissioned report in 2024 concluded that the Capture software was likely responsible for accounting discrepancies that led to convictions.
Former sub-postmaster Steve Marston, who was convicted in 1998 of stealing nearly £80,000 based on Capture evidence, expressed strong criticism of the Post Office's decision to oppose Mrs Owen's appeal. "I feel as if the Post Office are showing contempt for postmasters that have had their lives destroyed", he told Sky News, adding that there was "overwhelming evidence that the Post Office continued to intimidate and prosecute us even though they knew that the software was unfit for purpose".
Legal Delays and Family Anguish
Mrs Owen's Court of Appeal case had already been delayed in December when the Post Office requested an extension to respond to defence submissions. A new deadline of 30 January was established, with the Post Office informing Mrs Owen's family shortly before this deadline expired that they would oppose the appeal. The family, who have waited nearly three decades for this opportunity to challenge the conviction, have declined to comment while awaiting legal advice.
Mr Marston, who has become a leading campaigner for Capture victims, argued that the Post Office was not "doing the decent thing" by opposing the appeal and consequently failing to "give justice to victims in a timely fashion".
Post Office Position and Future Implications
In their statement, the Post Office acknowledged this as "the first Capture case to be referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal". The spokesperson added: "We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that appeals are considered as swiftly as possible in accordance with the law and our duties to the Courts. We have been co-operating fully with the CCRC on this case and other convictions which may have involved evidence from Capture."
The organisation emphasised that the time taken to prepare their submission reflected "a considered decision based on the reasoning and evidence referred by the CCRC and our duties to the Court of Appeal", while remaining open to reviewing their position should new evidence emerge.
Meanwhile, Sky News previously uncovered an expert report from 1998 that demonstrated the Capture software was faulty. This report, commissioned by Mrs Owen's solicitors in 1998 and served on the Post Office, may never have been presented to the jury during her original trial. Separately, a government redress scheme for Capture victims who were not convicted opened last year, providing some compensation for those affected by the defective system.
