R v Mikail Jones

The second limb of abuse of process requires a trial to undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system or bring it into disrepute. It is distinct from the separate jurisdiction concerned with unfairness to the defendant. The court should first identify prosecutorial misconduct and then balance the public interest in trial against the integrity of the justice system. A co-defendant’s favourable plea or sentence will not ordinarily prevent prosecution of another defendant where there is sufficient evidence. In identification cases, the issue is generally for the jury. A no-case submission succeeds only exceptionally, where the evidence is plainly untruthful or so unreliable that no properly directed jury could accept it. Voice identification requires additional caution and careful directions.

The appellant was convicted of robbery in the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to 20 months’ detention, suspended for two years. The prosecution alleged that he and two co-defendants robbed a school acquaintance while armed with machetes. A co-defendant, Humza Ashraf, had earlier pleaded guilty to robbery and to a related wounding offence on a basis which stated that no machete or knife was used.

The appellant appealed against conviction. He argued that the indictment should have been stayed as an abuse of process because the prosecution proceeded on a factual basis inconsistent with Ashraf’s accepted plea. He also argued that the identification evidence was too unreliable to leave to the jury.

1. The appeal was dismissed on both grounds.

2. For the second limb of abuse of process, the question was whether, in all the circumstances, a trial would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system or bring it into disrepute. That jurisdiction was distinct from the first limb, which addressed unfairness to the defendant. The court applied the principles in R v Horseferry Magistrates’ Court ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48; [2011] 1 WLR 103, R v Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104 and Warren & Ors v Attorney General for Jersey [2012] 1 AC 22.

3. The court adopted a two-stage approach. It was first necessary to identify any misconduct by the prosecuting authorities. The court then had to weigh the public interest in trying those charged with crime against the public interest in maintaining confidence in the justice system. Relevant considerations could include the seriousness of any rights violation, bad faith, urgency or necessity, available sanctions and the seriousness of the alleged offence. The factors were non-exhaustive and the assessment was fact-specific. Care and restraint were required before staying a prosecution entrusted to the CPS, and something out of the ordinary was necessary: R v BKR [2023] EWCA Crim 903; [2023] 2 Cr App R 20; R v Norman [2016] EWCA Crim 1564.

4. There was no egregious delay in charging the appellant and Khan. Nor had the prosecution breached the relevant guidance or Code for Prosecutors. Ashraf’s basis of plea related to his own position on a lesser wounding offence and did not unequivocally establish that no bladed weapon had been used by another participant in the robbery. The acceptance of that plea was neither illogical nor insupportable in the circumstances. The court distinguished R v Burke [2016] EWCA Crim 1954 because that case concerned the fairness of a trial under the first limb, not the propriety of prosecuting a defendant under the second limb.

5. Even if the acceptance of Ashraf’s plea had involved misconduct, the public interest in prosecuting a serious robbery supported continuation of the case. A co-defendant’s favourable outcome did not ordinarily justify preventing prosecution of another defendant whose alleged participation was supported by sufficient evidence. The complainant’s attendance at the later trial was also capable of amounting to a material change of circumstances, if such a change were needed.

6. The identification ground failed. Identification was quintessentially a matter for the jury. A no-case submission could succeed only in the rare case where the witness was plainly untruthful or the evidence was so unreliable that no properly directed jury could accept it. The trial judge had seen and heard the complainant and was entitled to leave the issue to the jury.

7. The summing-up gave a proper identification direction and additional warnings concerning voice identification. It directed the jury to consider matters including audibility, the period and circumstances in which the voice was heard, the number of voices, distinctiveness or accent, and the complainant’s familiarity with the speaker. It also identified the inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts and the absence of corroborative evidence. The conviction was safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Appeal against conviction dismissed on both grounds.
• Central Criminal Court — The appellant was convicted of robbery on 19 June 2025 and sentenced on 19 September 2025 to 20 months’ detention, suspended for two years, with rehabilitation, unpaid work and supervision requirements.