CCRC Refers Third Post Office Capture Conviction to Court of Appeal

What has the CCRC referred?

In an announcement published on 12 November 2026, the Criminal Cases Review Commission confirmed that it had referred the theft convictions of Narinder Aujla to the Court of Appeal. Mr Aujla, now 61, operated the Caledonia Post Office branch in Dudley between June 1991 and April 1998.

He was convicted of five counts of theft following a trial at Wolverhampton Crown Court in March 1998 and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. The case arose after an audit identified a £10,000 shortfall in the branch accounts. Following his release, the Post Office pursued him for the money, which he repaid in instalments.

Mr Aujla had not previously exercised his right of appeal. He applied to the CCRC in June 2025 after concerns about the reliability of the Capture system came to light.

How did the Capture discrepancies arise?

According to the CCRC, Mr Aujla began noticing discrepancies on his branch balance sheets approximately a year after the Capture software was installed. He could not identify any errors in his own work that explained the losses.

When the amounts were relatively small, he attempted to balance the books by putting in his own money. As the shortfalls increased, this became unsustainable. The Post Office helpline advised him to carry the losses forward into the following week, but the amount recorded as missing continued to rise.

In autumn 1996, the branch was audited and a loss of £10,000 was reported. Mr Aujla was interviewed about the shortfall and said he did not know what had caused it. He was subsequently prosecuted and convicted.

1. June 1991 Mr Aujla begins operating the Caledonia Post Office branch in Dudley.
2. Approximately 1996 He begins noticing unexplained balance-sheet discrepancies after Capture is installed.
3. Autumn 1996 An audit identifies a reported shortfall of £10,000.
4. March 1998 Wolverhampton Crown Court convicts Mr Aujla of five counts of theft; he receives a four-month prison sentence.
5. June 2025 Mr Aujla applies to the CCRC for a review of his conviction.
6. 12 November 2026 The CCRC refers the convictions to the Court of Appeal.

Why was the conviction referred?

The referral follows concerns about the reliability of Capture, the accounting software used by the Post Office before Horizon. After issues with the system were raised during the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, the Government commissioned Kroll Associates UK Ltd to conduct an independent investigation. That investigation found a reasonable likelihood that Capture could create accounting shortfalls for sub-postmasters.

The CCRC also considered a report prepared by computing consultancy MFC Partnership in 1997 on behalf of former sub-postmaster Patricia Owen. The report identified several faults in the software which would not necessarily have been apparent to users. The CCRC referred Mrs Owen’s theft convictions to the Court of Appeal in October 2025 on the basis that her prosecution was an abuse of process.

In Mr Aujla’s case, the Commission considered the findings in the Kroll and MFC reports alongside new evidence contained in his witness statement. It concluded that there is a real possibility the Court of Appeal will find that prosecuting him was an abuse of process and quash his conviction.

What does the referral mean?

A CCRC referral does not itself overturn a conviction. It sends the case to the appeal court for determination. The Court of Appeal will decide whether the convictions are unsafe, taking account of the material referred by the Commission.

The CCRC’s statutory test is whether, because of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld if the case were referred. The Commission’s decision therefore reflects its assessment of the material available to it; the final decision remains with the Court of Appeal.

The referral adds to scrutiny of pre-Horizon Post Office prosecutions, in which accounting systems used before Horizon may have produced apparent losses that were attributed to branch staff.

How many pre-Horizon cases are under review?

The CCRC said it had received 40 applications relating to pre-Horizon cases. Of those, 21 had been considered by a committee of three Commissioners and were not found to meet the statutory test for referral. Four cases had been referred, although one of those was identified as a Horizon case already covered by legislation. Two applications had been withdrawn, while 12 remained under review.

The Commission also confirmed that four Horizon applications were under review. It said it continues to examine cases involving sub-postmasters convicted of offences both before and after the introduction of Horizon.

The latest referral is significant because Capture preceded Horizon but has also been linked to unexplained accounting shortfalls. The CCRC’s review process provides a route for individuals with potentially affected convictions to have their cases independently assessed.