Miller, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, along with nine co-defendants, was involved in a large-scale importation of tobacco into the UK from Spain between March 2017 and March 2018, evading approximately £650,000 in excise duty. The Applicant and a co-defendant, identified as the organiser and her partner, coordinated multiple trips between the UK and Malaga, transporting large quantities of tobacco. The Applicant was responsible for booking flights and financing the tobacco purchases, often receiving funds from the co-defendant and others. Arrested on 27 March 2018, the Applicant made no comment during interview.

On 2 June 2023, the Applicant pleaded guilty to fraudulent evasion of duty under section 170(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Subsequently, on 20 February 2025, the Applicant pleaded guilty to perverting the course of public justice related to a speeding offence involving the misattribution of the driver. On 21 February 2025, the Applicant was sentenced to a total of 35 months' imprisonment: 27 months for the evasion offence and a consecutive eight months for perverting the course of justice. The Applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence, which was referred to the full court.

The Applicant was aged between 19 and 20 at the time of the smuggling offences, had no prior convictions, and was the sole carer for two young children. The sentencing judge acknowledged the serious impact of the sentence on the Applicant’s family life and considered various mitigating factors, including the Applicant's youth, remorse, and the delay in proceedings. The prosecution and defence presented submissions regarding the Applicant’s role and culpability within the criminal enterprise and the appropriateness of the sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the Applicant's role and culpability within the tobacco smuggling operation.
2. Whether the sentencing judge appropriately accounted for the Applicant’s youth, previous good character, and the impact of imprisonment on her young children.
3. Whether the overall sentence imposed was proportionate, considering mitigating factors and the Applicant’s guilty pleas.
4. The validity and extent of the Applicant’s appeal against the length and structure of the custodial sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge mischaracterised the Applicant’s role as "leading" rather than "significant," overstating her culpability.
• The judge relied on factors not part of the prosecution’s case, unsupported by evidence, and not raised during sentencing, which prejudiced the Applicant.
• Insufficient weight was given to the Applicant’s youth at the time of the offence and the severe impact of imprisonment on her family life, particularly her young children.
• The total custodial sentence of 35 months was disproportionate and should be reviewed and reduced.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent’s arguments beyond indicating that the Respondent's Notice was measured and well-judged and that oral submissions were made in support of the original sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185; [2018] 1 Cr App R (S) 52	Assessment of maturity relative to chronological age in sentencing.	The court acknowledged the Applicant was not immature relative to her age, given her long-term relationship and leadership role.
R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214; [2013] 1 WLR 1102	Consideration of Article 8 rights concerning family life and impact of custodial sentences on children.	The court recognized the serious interference with family life due to the Applicant’s imprisonment and the impact on her young children.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed review of the sentencing judge’s exercise, balancing the seriousness of the offences, the Applicant’s role, and mitigating factors. It accepted that the judge was correct to classify the Applicant’s involvement as "leading," but noted that the sentencing judge failed to adequately differentiate levels within that category. In particular, the court found that the reduction in the starting point sentence for the Applicant’s lesser role relative to the primary organiser was insufficient.

The court also identified procedural concerns regarding the sentencing judge’s reliance on factors not raised during the sentencing hearing, which were not relevant to the Applicant’s culpability for the evasion offence. These included the Applicant’s conduct during a subsequent drugs trial and the perverting offence, which occurred years after the smuggling period.

Applying the relevant sentencing guidelines for category 4A offences, the court determined that the appropriate starting point for the Applicant should have been four years’ imprisonment, reflecting her lesser role and the monetary harm involved. After factoring in mitigation for youth, good character, delay, and family circumstances, the court concluded that a combined reduction of approximately 40% was warranted, resulting in a sentence of 21 months before credit for the guilty plea. Including the consecutive eight-month sentence for perverting the course of justice, the total sentence should be 29 months.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal in part. It quashed the original 27-month sentence imposed for the evasion offence and substituted a reduced sentence of 21 months' imprisonment. The consecutive eight-month sentence for perverting the course of justice was left unchanged, resulting in a revised total custodial sentence of 29 months.

The decision directly affects the Applicant by reducing her custodial term, reflecting a more accurate assessment of her role and mitigating circumstances. No new legal precedent was established, but the court clarified the importance of appropriately distinguishing levels of culpability within a "leading role" and the necessity of ensuring all relevant factors are properly raised and considered during sentencing.