WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.Case No 202502210/B3Neutral Citation No. [2026] EWCA Crim 1048
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
SITTING AT ALDERSGATE HOUSE
Mr Recorder Malcolm Fortune
01JI1081923
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, LondonDate Tuesday 21 July 2026
Between
R EXCrown
WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
LADY JUSTICE ANDREWS
MR JUSTICE JAY
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
____________________
- v –
Between
MIKAIL JONES____________________Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)______________________________________SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENT
[1]We delivered our judgment dismissing the appeal against conviction on 3 June 2026: [2026] EWCA Crim 749. An application was subsequently made that the court should certify that this appeal raises an issue of law of general public importance and grant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The full court has considered the application and the written submissions made in support of it. We decline to certify on the basis that the case raises no such issue.[2]The question whether it is an abuse of process to prosecute a defendant on a criminal charge when there is sufficient evidence to do so is fact-sensitive, and the applicable principles have been established by cases such as R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48; [2011] 1 WLR 103.[3]The application in this case was made on the second limb recognised in Maxwell, namely that it would offend the court's sense of justice and propriety to try the defendant for robbery in the circumstances of this case. Those circumstances included the fact that his defence of mistaken identity had nothing to do with the factual basis of plea to a different offence committed on the same occasion of unlawful wounding (not charged on a joint enterprise basis), which the prosecution had earlier accepted from a co-defendant who had admitted his participation in the robbery, in circumstances where the victim had not appeared to give evidence at the co-defendant's trial.[4]The victim did appear and gave evidence at the appellant's trial, and therefore the circumstances in which the plea was accepted were materially different. The appeal was determined by applying established principles to those specific facts. ______________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________