R v Miguel Kakaie [2026] EWCA Crim 258

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 may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.[2026] EWCA Crim 258Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Friday 20 February 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKERHER HONOUR JUDGE MORELAND(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
MIGUEL KAKAIE__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________The Applicant appeared in Person. for in person for The Crown did not appear and was not represented._________JUDGMENT(Approved Transcript)
[1]The applicant, Miguel Kakaie (now 55 years old) renews, after refusal by the Single Judge, an application for leave to appeal conviction out of time. The conviction was on 10 May 2016 at the Central Criminal Court. The application for leave to appeal was lodged over 8 years out of time.[2]In the court below, the applicant was represented by solicitors and junior counsel. Some of his proposed grounds of appeal amount to or involve criticism of those legal representatives, or at least of trial counsel. In accordance with the normal proper practice of this Court in such a case, the applicant was invited to waive privilege so that observations in response to those criticisms could be obtained to inform any evaluation of them by the Court. The applicant did not respond to that invitation, and that disables us, as it did the Single Judge, from assessing whether those relevant criticisms give rise to any arguable ground of appeal( as in R v Frost-Helmsing [2010] EWCA Crim 1200 at [14]-[15]). We therefore dismiss immediately the renewed application to the extent that it relies on those particular criticisms.[3]The Single Judge described the application for leave to appeal as “massively out of time” without proper explanation, and stated that he would have refused leave on that basis, even if some arguable ground of appeal was raised. We agree, and we also agree with the submission in the Respondent’s Notice that on any assessment of the proposed grounds of appeal it is not arguable that a significant injustice will occur if the extraordinary extension of time required for an appeal is not granted. That is sufficient to dismiss the renewed application in its entirety.[4]In attempting to explain the huge delay in this case, the applicant has said that his legal representatives did not advise him about appealing. As the applicant expressed that point in writing – “I lacked the guidance to pursue an appeal as my lawyer had not discussed this option with me” – it seemed to be a complaint that the applicant was given no advice at all. That is not a complaint we can entertain since privilege has not been waived.[5]The Court has experience of unrepresented parties saying that they received no advice where, under waiver of privilege, the truth emerges that they were given advice but it was negative advice, i.e. advice that there were no viable grounds for an appeal. Were that the reality of this case, it would not without more be reason for delay of any length, and it certainly could not be a good reason for delay of over 8 years.[6]The applicant has said that he attempted upon release from custody in December 2016, but without success, to obtain fresh representatives, and that he has suffered years of physical and mental ill-health. He elevated the latter point, in writing, to a claim that he was advised by his doctor to delay pursuing any appeal in order to protect his health. The applicant has disclosed medical records that provide some evidence of mental health issues treated through doctors’ appointments and medication between January 2017 and August 2018. That evidence provides no support at all for the proposition that there is good reason why no appeal was attempted until late October 2024. Even for the period up to August 2018, covered by the medical evidence, it does not in fact provide support for the general claim that the applicant’s health impeded the pursuit of a meritorious appeal, if there was a meritorious appeal to pursue. Furthermore that evidence contradicts the specific claim that the applicant was advised on health grounds not to pursue an appeal. There is no record of any such advice and, to contrary effect, the first appointment record from January 2017 notes the applicant as having reported to his GP that he was then appealing his conviction, stating that the process for that appeal was underway.[7]In those circumstances, and meaning no disrespect to the applicant, who has taken the trouble to appear in person before us today, we shall take the supposed merits of any appeal relatively briefly, as did the Single Judge.[8]The conviction was for theft (count 1) and fraud (counts 2 and 3). The sentence was 2 years’ imprisonment. There were also confiscation proceedings which continued until late 2017, finally completing with an amendment to an original confiscation order such that the final amount confiscated matched an amount that the applicant had paid.[9]In early 2013, for a hire charge of £6,000, the applicant hired £180,000 worth (or thereabouts) of specialist cameras and related equipment usually used in the film and television industry. As required by the hire contract he took out an insurance policy covering the hired cameras and equipment, paying a premium of £408.20. He collected the cameras and equipment from a depot in Acton and drove home with it to Aberdeen.[10]For a trip from Aberdeen to Istanbul, flying via London Heathrow, on 5 April 2013 the applicant checked in four bags at Aberdeen airport. The prosecution case was that the hired equipment was not taken to the airport or checked onto any plane. The checked bags, they alleged, contained none of the cameras or equipment and duly arrived at Istanbul, but the applicant made a false missing luggage report to the airline and sent a false letter to the hire company claiming that their cameras and equipment had been lost in transit, leading to a fraudulent insurance claim presented to and paid by the insurance company.[11]The prosecution case was that the applicant kept and sold the supposedly lost cameras and equipment except for five of six specialist batteries that were recovered from his home when it was searched after he came under suspicion. Thus the charges against him alleged theft of the hired cameras and equipment (count 1) and fraud upon that insurance company (count 2).[12]Also in early 2013, the applicant had insured (with a different insurance company) his own valuable personal camera equipment. In April 2013, he claimed under that policy that his personal gear had also been lost in transit en route to Istanbul. That insurance company paid the claim in the amount of £9,285. The prosecution said that was also a fraudulent claim (count 3).[13]The applicant denied the offences. He gave a factual account in police interview that his checked bags never came out onto the baggage carousel at Istanbul. However, when the evidence obtained by the police and later relied on at trial was put to him, the applicant exercised his right to remain silent and turned his chair on the interviewing officer. He did not give evidence at trial.[14]The prosecution case was a mix of evidence said to confirm the successful movement of at least some of the checked bags through to the Istanbul baggage carousel and circumstantial matters. The prosecution relied on(i) CCTV;(ii) X-ray evidence from an airport scanner;(iii) baggage flight labels;(iv) evidence from a Heathrow baggage manager, the two insurers, the airline and a loss adjuster;(v) evidence of the officer in the case, which will have included the applicant’s account in interview.[15]The applicant’s various submissions to this Court may be distilled to 10 grounds of appeal proposed by the applicant. He reiterated or emphasised some of them in response to the refusal of leave by the Single Judge. The resulting proposed grounds are set as an appendix to this approved judgment transcript.[16]We have already mentioned the Respondent’s Notice on the question of delay. That notice also dealt in some detail with the applicant’s original grounds of appeal. The respondent was not asked to supplement the notice in response to the renewal, and we agree that nothing further is required in order to dispose fairly of the renewed application for leave.[17]In refusing leave to appeal the Single

Judge said the following of the proposed grounds, having first dealt with the question of delay:

“This was a strong circumstantial case despite your insurer’s decision to pay out on your claim. The pillars of the circumstantial case were: (1) the x-ray scan of one bag at LHR showing no camera or related equipment; (2) the fact that the baggage tags on 2 out of the 4 checked bags were scanned on arrival at Istanbul (contrary to your case that they never arrived); (3) CCTV evidence that all 4 bags were off-loaded; and (4) the fact that 5 specialist batteries, allegedly lost in transit, were found at your home address. Insofar as this circumstantial case could be disputed, that opportunity was taken, but the challenge was purely forensic. You did not give evidence at your trial. The strong circumstantial case remained unexplained. You have not waived privilege and I cannot proceed on the basis that your trial was unfair (in the sense that it proceeded in the absence of evidence from you) or that your counsel was incompetent. I have read with care the Judge’s very detailed and fair summing-up. He clearly explained the nature of your defence, even though you advanced no evidence in support of it. He set out possible weaknesses in the Crown’s case. His direction on circumstantial evidence was perfectly fair, and your criticisms of it have no basis. I have found no legal flaw in his summing-up. You now say that you have fresh evidence. Aside from the fact that [it] is not remotely compelling, this is evidence which was available in 2016. It is not admissible now. Many of your Grounds seek to contend that the case against you was inherently weak because it was circumstantial. However, a circumstantial case can be a strong case, as the Judge correctly informed the jury. In my view, this was a strong circumstantial case fortified by the discovery of 5 specialist batteries at your home address (which was direct evidence) and your failure to explain it by giving evidence. Overall, your Grounds are no more than an attempt to re-argue your trial. That is not the proper purpose of an appeal. I am not proposing to address your Grounds one by one. I have already dealt with the main points. I deal only with Ground 5 which is the contention that your profession was misrepresented by the prosecution. It was not. The case advanced against you was a fair inference from all the available evidence. If it was wrong, you should have entered the witness box to say so. Insofar as any point has not been covered expressly, I agree with the RN.”
Insofar as any point has not been covered expressly, I agree with the RN.”[18]We respectfully agree with the Single Judge. Leaving aside the criticisms of the applicant’s trial representatives, which we are not in a position to entertain since privilege has not been waived, what the applicant proposes as an appeal is in truth an attempt to re-run his trial as if this Court were a second jury.[19]The applicant, with respect, makes the mistake, not uncommonly made and not made only by unrepresented applicants, of treating aspects of the trial evidence about which a jury may have needed at least to give some real thought as equating to a good defence and therefore as creating arguable reason to be concerned about the safety of a conviction.[20]The applicant’s oral address to us this morning, which we have considered carefully, and of which we have had the benefit of re-reading because the applicant kindly provided to us the written script from which he was working, was eloquently presented. He emphasised and in some respects added a little detail or amplification to some of his existing submissions. No truly new points were made. As a matter of analysis, it was by nature a closing speech, such as he or counsel on his behalf might make at a trial. It served, in our view, only to confirm that the applicant desires to re-run what was, in our clear conclusion, a fairly run, proper trial.[21]Standing back there was, in this case, ample evidence upon the basis of which a jury, properly directed (like this jury) could have been sure of guilt. It is not the function of this Court or the purpose of an appeal to second guess a properly directed jury’s conclusion, having deliberated, that they were in fact sure of guilt.[22]We thank the applicant for his courtesy in attending this morning and for his oral address. However, our conclusion, like that of the Single Judge, is that there is no arguable merit in this proposed appeal, and anyway there has not been any arguably good reason for only seeking to pursue it over 8 years’ out of time. This renewed application for leave to appeal out of time therefore is refused.[23]THE APPLICANT: My Lord, you considered the last evidence police and, was with the British Airway agent. They were looking for my luggage at the same time… that is 100 per cent sure, there wasn’t any bag.

LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH: Mr Kakaie, we have listened to what you have said. We have understood that is what you were saying. For the reasons that my Lord has given we are not giving you leave to appeal, partly because you are out of time and partly because it is an attempt to re-argue a trial which was properly conducted. We have given our decision, I am afraid that is it.