R v Erik Muci

Certification of a point of law of general public importance may be refused where the proposed question merely seeks to re-argue an appeal on its particular facts. Where the relevant principles are reasonably well established, the applicant must identify an important point of principle warranting consideration by the Supreme Court.

The applicant had appealed against convictions for being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on importing a Class A drug and being concerned in supplying a Class A controlled drug. The Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal on 3 July 2026, giving reasons in [2026] EWCA Crim 900.

The applicant subsequently sought certification of a point of law of general public importance under section 33(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. His proposed question concerned the treatment of a co-defendant’s evidential contribution after that co-defendant changed his plea to guilty following the prosecution closing speech. It addressed the assessment of prejudice, the effectiveness of remedial jury directions and the treatment of testimony elicited through cross-examination. The issue was whether those questions raised an important point of principle warranting Supreme Court consideration.

Application for certification refused. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith delivered the ruling on behalf of the court.

1. The relevant principles were reasonably well established. The proposed question sought to re-argue the conviction appeal on its particular facts, rather than identify an important point of principle which the Supreme Court should consider. It therefore provided no basis for certification (paras [4]–[5]).

2. The proposed question addressed the assessment of prejudice following a co-defendant’s change of plea, the effectiveness of a direction to disregard that co-defendant’s evidential contribution, and the treatment of testimony elicited through cross-examination. Having considered the submissions and the proposed question, the court treated those matters as an attempted factual reconsideration of the appeal. Their formulation as questions about judicial evaluation and jury directions did not establish the requisite important point of principle (paras [3]–[4]).

3. The court accordingly declined to certify the question identified by the applicant. The earlier dismissal of the conviction appeal remained undisturbed (paras [2], [5]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1335 , refused the subsequent application to certify a point of law of general public importance for consideration by the Supreme Court.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 3 July 2026, dismissed the appeal against conviction for the reasons given in [2026] EWCA Crim 900 .
• Central Criminal Court: The convictions under appeal arose from proceedings before Her Honour Judge Trowler.