Jordan Jones & Anor v R

Operational labels do not define the prosecution’s disclosure duty. The police and prosecution must pursue lines of enquiry that may assist the defence and disclose material reasonably capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the accused. Disclosure remains limited to material meeting that statutory test.

A separate investigation need not be reviewed where its timing and purpose make it irrelevant to the issues at trial. An ex parte sensitive-material hearing may be required where material falls outside the disclosure test but fairness requires the court to be informed and disclosure risks serious prejudice to an important public interest.

A direction requiring the jury to exclude all realistic possibilities consistent with innocence is not mandatory in circumstantial-evidence cases. Standard directions may suffice if they guard against speculation and require proof so that the jury is sure.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames, the appellants were convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life and possessing ammunition without a firearms certificate. They appealed against conviction on grounds concerning disclosure, police intelligence, cross-examination and the direction on circumstantial evidence. The first appellant also sought leave to appeal against sentence.

The Single Judge refused leave on the first three conviction grounds, granted leave on the circumstantial-evidence ground and referred the sentence application. The central issues were whether further material from related police operations should have been disclosed, whether a special jury direction was required, and whether the sentence categorisation was justified.

The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction on the first three grounds were refused. The conviction appeal was dismissed. The first appellant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused.

1. Disclosure. The primary disclosure duty rests on the police and prosecution. The issues in the defence case provide relevant context, but lines of enquiry capable of assisting the defence must be pursued and material must be assessed under section 3(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996. The process is not limitless: only material reasonably capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the accused requires disclosure.
2. Operational divisions did not themselves restrict the duty. Material from the funeral investigation had properly been reviewed. Material from the earlier investigation into Lemar Urquhart’s death did not require review because it was separated in time and concerned identifying those responsible for his death, rather than the issues at trial. The prosecution was entitled to rely on its disclosure undertaking, and the disclosure note concerning police intelligence had no evidential value requiring disclosure or cross-examination.
3. Following R v Ali [2019] EWCA Crim 1527, an ex parte sensitive-material hearing under rule 3.11 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 was appropriate where material might need to be brought to the court to avoid unfairness, but disclosure risked serious prejudice to an important public interest. The Court of Appeal was entitled to conduct its own review under rule 36.2.
4. Circumstantial evidence. The questions identified in R v Masih [2015] EWCA Crim 477 arose in the context of a submission of no case to answer and did not require a jury direction in those terms. The approach in R v Kelly [2015] EWCA Crim 817 was followed: circumstantial evidence requires no special direction. The jury must assess reliability, draw fair and reasonable conclusions, avoid speculation and decide whether the prosecution has made them sure of guilt.
5. The judge was not required to summarise counsel’s closing submissions. In the circumstances, the proposed alternative possibility was not a positive defence case and inviting the jury to consider it would have risked speculation. The omission did not affect the safety of the convictions.
6. Sentence. The judge was entitled to find that the appellants and Cross possessed the same loaded firearm throughout most of the day and that it was taken to the funeral and burial. The offence was properly categorised as A2 with category 2 harm. Significant planning, a prolonged incident and different but leading roles justified the category A2 assessment; possession at public events carried a high risk of death or serious disorder whether defensive or offensive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2026] EWCA Crim 418, the court refused renewed leave on the first three conviction grounds, dismissed the conviction appeal and refused the first appellant leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames. The appellants were convicted on 26 September 2023 and sentenced on 24 May 2024.