The first Post Office Capture conviction has now been formally referred to the Court of Appeal, marking a major milestone in the IT scandal.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) made the decision to refer the case of sub-postmistress Patricia Owen back in July.

Mrs Owen was convicted of theft by a jury in 1998, based on evidence from the faulty IT software Capture.

She was given a suspended prison sentence and fought to clear her name afterwards – but died in 2003.

Capture software was used in 2,500 branches between 1992 and 1999.

It is the first time a conviction based on Capture – the predecessor to the Horizon system at the centre of the wider Post Office scandal – has reached the Court of Appeal.

It comes after Sky News revealed that a damning report into Capture, which could help overturn convictions, had been unearthed after nearly 30 years.

An investigation found the Post Office knew about the report at the time and continued to prosecute sub-postmasters based on Capture evidence.

Mrs Owen’s family submitted an application to the CCRC in January 2024 – her case has now been referred on the grounds that her prosecution was an “abuse of process”.

A ‘touchstone case’ for victims

Lawyers have said that if Mrs Owen is exonerated posthumously in the Court of Appeal, it may “speed up” the handling of others.

The CCRC is also continuing to investigate more than 30 other “pre-Horizon” convictions.

CCRC chair, Dame Vera Baird, also told Sky News in the summer it could be a “touchstone case” for other victims.

Juliet Shardlow, Mrs Owen’s daughter, has been fighting to clear her mother’s name for years.

She told Sky News the family were “so pleased” her case had finally been referred.

“This has been a very long journey for us as a family and we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel,” she said.

“It’s just sad that mum isn’t here to see it.

“The good news is that once mum’s case is heard in the High Court, it will pave the way for all the other Capture victims.”

The Post Office has previously said it is “determined that past wrongs are put right and continue to support the government’s work in this area as well as fully co-operate with the Criminal Cases Review Commission”.

Britain’s hopes of becoming a critical minerals superpower have been dealt a severe blow after one of its leading companies abandoned its plans to build a rare earths refinery near Hull.

Pensana had pledged to build a £250m refinery on the banks of the Humber, to process rare earths that would have then been used to make magnets for electric cars and wind turbines.

The plant promised to create 126 jobs and was due to receive millions of pounds of government funding.

However, Sky News has learnt that Pensana has decided to scrap the Hull plant and will instead move its refining operations to the US.

Pensana’s chairman, Paul Atherley, said the company had taken the decision after the Trump administration committed to buying rare earths from an American mine, Mountain Pass, at a guaranteed price – something no government in Europe had done.

“That’s repriced the market – and Washington is looking to do more of these deals, moving at an absolute rate of knots,” he said.

“Europe and the UK have been talking about critical minerals for ages. But when the Americans do it, they go big and hard, and make it happen. We don’t; we mostly just talk about it.”

The decision comes at a crucial juncture in critical minerals and geopolitics. China produces roughly 90% of all finished rare earth metals – exotic elements essential for the manufacture of many technology, energy and military products.

Last week, Beijing imposed restrictions on the exports of rare earths, prompting Donald Trump to threaten further 100% tariffs on China.

Pensana had been seen as Britain’s answer to the periodic panics about the availability of rare earths. The site at Saltend Chemicals Park was chosen by the government to launch its critical minerals strategy in 2022.

Visiting for the official groundbreaking, the then business and energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: “This incredible facility will be the only one of its kind in Europe and will help secure the resilience of Britain’s supplies into the future.”

He pledged a government grant to support the scheme. That grant was never received because Pensana never built its plant.

Read more from Sky News:
Analysis: China’s rare-earth controls
AirPods link to global trade war
Trump threatens extra China tariffs

Mr Atherley said he is optimistic about another project he’s involved with, to bring lithium refining to Teesside through another company, Tees Valley Lithium.

But, he said, rare earth processing is far more complex, energy-intensive and expensive, making it unviable in the UK, for the time being.

The decision is a further blow for Britain’s chemicals industry, which has faced a series of closures in recent months, including that of Vivergo, a biofuels refiner based in the same chemicals park where Pensana planned to locate its refinery.

Producers warn that Britain’s record energy costs – higher than most other leading economies – are stifling its economy and triggering an outflow of businesses.

The Government has vowed to pursue a company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone for millions of pounds paid for defective PPE at the height of the COVID pandemic after a High Court deadline passed without repayment.

Earlier this month, the High Court ruled that PPE Medpro, a company founded by Baroness Mone’s husband Doug Barrowman and promoted in government by the Tory peer, was in breach of contract and gave it two weeks to repay the £122m plus interest of £23m.

In a statement, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: “At a time of national crisis, PPE Medpro sold the previous government substandard kit and pocketed taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Money latest: How to add 24% to your home’s value

“PPE Medpro has failed to meet the deadline to pay – they still owe us over £145m, with interest now accruing daily.”

It is understood that is being charged at a rate of 8%.

“We will pursue PPE Medpro with everything we’ve got to get these funds back where they belong – in our NHS,” Mr Streeting concluded.

Earlier a spokesman for Mr Barrowman and the consortium behind the company said the government had not responded to an offer from PPE Medpro to discuss a settlement.

“Very disappointingly, the government has made no effort to respond or seek to enter into discussions,” he said.

During the trial PPE Medpro offered to pay £23m to settle the case but was rejected by the Department of Health and Social Care.

While Mr Barrowman has described himself as the “ultimate beneficial owner” of PPE Medpro, and says £29m of profit from the deal was paid into a trust benefitting his family including Baroness Mone and her children, he was never a director and the couple are not personally liable for the money.

PPE Medpro filed for insolvency the day before Mrs Justice Cockerill’s finding of breach of contract was published, and the company’s most recent accounts show assets of just £666,000.

Court-appointed administrators will now be responsible for recovering as much money as possible on behalf of creditors, principally the DHSC.

With PPE Medpro in administration and potentially limited avenues to recover funds, there is a risk that the government may recover nothing while incurring further legal expenses.

In June 2020, PPE Medpro won contracts worth a total of £203m to provide 210m masks and 25m surgical gowns after Baroness Mone contacted ministers including Michael Gove on the company’s behalf.

While the £81m mask contract was fulfilled the gowns were rejected for failing sterility standards, and in 2022 the DHSC sued. Earlier this month Mrs Justice Cockerill ruled that PPE Medpro was in breach of contract and liable to repay the full amount.

Mr Barrowman has previously named several other companies as part of the gown supply including two registered in the UK, and last week his spokesman said there was a “strong case” for the administrator to pursue them for the money.

One of the companies named has denied any connection to PPE Medpro and two others have not responded to requests for comment.

Insolvency experts say that administrators and creditors, in this case the government, may have some recourse to pursue individuals and entities beyond the liable company, but any process is likely to be lengthy and expensive.

Julie Palmer, a partner at Begbies Traynor, told Sky News: “The administrators will want to look at what’s happened to what look like significant profits made on these contracts.

“If I was looking at this I would want to establish the exact timeline, at what point were the profits taken out.

“They may also want to consider whether there is a claim for wrongful trading, because that effectively pierces the corporate veil of protection of a limited company, and can allow proceedings against company officers personally.

“The net of a director can also be expanded to shadow directors, people sitting in the background quite clearly with a degree of control of the management of the company, in which case some claims may rest against them.”

A spokesman for Forvis Mazars, one of the joint administrators of PPE Medpro, did not comment other than to confirm the firm’s appointment.