CCRC refers second Post Office ‘Capture’ conviction because of real possibility the prosecution was an abuse of process

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has referred a second conviction to the Court of Appeal based on evidence that Capture, the accounting software used by the Post Office before the notoriously faulty Horizon system, could also generate errors.

Stephen Marston served as the sub-postmaster at Heap Bridge Post Office in Bury in the 1990s. In 1996, he was put under pressure by an area manager to adopt the Capture system. Shortly after installing it, he experienced large and unexplained shortfalls ranging between £5,000 and £10,000.

Believing the software to be reliable, Mr Marston assumed the errors were his own fault. He exhausted personal savings of around £23,000 to cover the apparent losses and resorted to inflating the cash figures in his weekly reports to balance the accounts.

After auditors unexpectedly arrived and closed Mr Marston’s branch, they excluded him from the audit process, contrary to what he understands was standard practice. He was informed that the issue was solely his responsibility.

Mr Marston was advised that pleading guilty could prevent a custodial sentence. He followed this advice and pleaded guilty to false accounting, theft, and concealing valuable securities. He received a 12-month probation order.

Mr Marston has never exercised his right of appeal against conviction. Whilst he maintained that he had not committed the offences, he was unable to account for the inaccuracies in the accounting figures and, for a long time, believed that he must have made an error.

Following concerns raised about Capture during the Post Office Horizon IT Enquiry, the Government engaged Kroll Associates UK Ltd to conduct an independent investigation into Capture, which found a reasonable likelihood that it could create accounting shortfalls for sub-postmasters.

A second report by the computing consultancy MFC Partnership, commissioned on behalf of sub-postmaster Patrica Owen by her solicitors in 1997, identified several faults with the software that would not be necessarily apparent to users. In October 2025, the CCRC referred Mrs Owen’s theft convictions to the Court of Appeal on the grounds her prosecution was an abuse of process.

Mr Marston applied to the CCRC in November 2024. Following a review of his case, the CCRC has found that, in light of the Kroll and MFC reports, there is a real possibility the Court of Appeal will conclude that it was an abuse of process to prosecute Mr Marston and will quash his conviction.

We continue to review cases from other sub-postmasters who were convicted of offences before and following the introduction of Horizon. So far, we have received 37 pre-Horizon applications.

Eight of these cases were determined by a committee of three Commissioners not to raise a real possibility that the conviction would be overturned, which is the CCRC’s statutory test for referral, and so they will not be referred to the Court. Three have now been referred. One case turned out to be a Horizon case, and so was already covered by legislation. The other 25 cases are being reviewed.

CCRC Chair Dame Vera Baird KC said: “Mr Marston’s conviction meant not only the loss of his business but the loss of his savings; he suffered significant reputational damage and had to relocate his family to another area all because of what appears to be flawed accounting software that he was under pressure to adopt.

“It will now be for the Court of Appeal to decide whether Mr Marston’s conviction is unsafe.”

(ENDS)

Notes to editors: 

1. The CCRC is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.     
2. There are currently ten Commissioners who bring to the CCRC considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.  
3. The CCRC usually receives around 1,600 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Since starting work in 1997, the CCRC has referred around 3% of applications to the appeal courts.     
4. The CCRC considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal.  Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.          
5. If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe.     
6. More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at www.ccrc.gov.uk. The CCRC can be found on X, Facebook, Instagram (@the_ccrc) and Linkedin.