Moreira, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried in the Crown Court before Judge Downing and, on 25 November 2025, was convicted with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 of one count of conspiracy to do an act facilitating the breach or attempted breach of immigration law contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, the act being a sham marriage between the Appellant and Defendant 2. On 4 February 2026 the Appellant was sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment; Defendant 1 received a longer composite sentence and Defendant 2 received 3 years. The Appellant seeks leave to appeal against sentence after referral by the Registrar.

Facts found or relied on at trial: the Appellant, a Portuguese national lawfully resident in the jurisdiction, was recruited by Defendant 1 (a friend and former partner) to enter a sham marriage with Defendant 2 to facilitate Defendant 2's immigration position. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 orchestrated the plan; messages indicated the Appellant would be paid (the judge recorded payment of £15,000). The marriage took place on 7 March 2020. A marriage-based visa application was submitted soon after but was later withdrawn when Defendant 2 secured another basis for lawful status. A search of the Appellant's home in December 2021 found her living with an adult male (referred to in the report) and two children (a child born in 2010 and a child born in 2020). The Appellant exercised the right to remain silent at interview. At trial the defendants maintained the marriage was genuine; the jury disbelieved that account and convicted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge at sentence failed to take proper account of the circumstances of the offending, resulting in an unduly high starting point.
2. Whether the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the impact of immediate custody on the Appellant's dependent children, such that the sentence should have been suspended.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The offending was an isolated, one-off act rather than part of a wider organised scheme; the conspirators were known to each other and lawfully present at the relevant time.
• The Appellant's role was marginal compared with others; the intended immigration harm did not materialise because the marriage-based application was withdrawn; there was significant delay between the act and adverse consequences.
• Immediate custody would have a devastating effect on the Appellant's children because there were no other close family supports in the jurisdiction; the Appellant's son has serious medical needs requiring daily assistance and specialist treatment visits.

Respondent's Position (as recorded)

• The Crown accepted that the Appellant's role was, in comparison with co-defendants, marginal but emphasised the seriousness of sham marriage offences and the Appellant's financial benefit.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The sentencing judge had noted the increased maximum penalty for the offence and found that the Appellant had acted for financial gain, describing the conduct as one deserving immediate custody. On review, the appellate court found that several mitigating features reduced the Appellant's culpability: her role was relatively marginal, much of the organisation was attributable to Defendant 1, the offending was a one-off between people who knew each other, and the immigration harm did not materialise. The court emphasised that these factors were not expressly addressed by the sentencing judge when fixing the starting point.

The appellate court placed particular weight on the pre-sentence report material establishing the Appellant's lack of a supportive network and the high risk that removal of her liberty would lead to the children being placed in care, with a consequentially devastating impact—including risk to the maternal bond and severe disruption given one child's critical medical needs. Applying authority on sentencing ranges for sham marriage cases (R v Oliveira) and on the necessity of balancing children's interests against sentencing objectives (R v Petherick), the court concluded that the original sentence of 28 months was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The court then assessed an appropriate sentence that reflected the overall criminality while giving adequate weight to the children's interests and the Appellant's lesser role and previous good character. It concluded that 24 months was the shortest custodial term appropriate and that, given the Appellant's low risk of reoffending and the likely harm to her children from immediate custody, suspension of that 24-month sentence was appropriate.

Holding and Implications

ALLOW APPEAL

Holding: The appellate court granted leave and allowed the appeal. The sentence of 28 months' immediate custody was quashed and replaced with a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years on the conspiracy count. The suspended sentence was ordered to include 100 hours unpaid work and a rehabilitation requirement of 20 days, reflecting recommendations in the pre-sentence report.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the Appellant will not serve the original custodial term but is subject to a suspended sentence with specified requirements. The decision reinforces that sham-marriage offences must be sentenced on their facts and that the impact on dependent children can, in borderline cases, make immediate custody disproportionate; the court did not purport to establish a new legal rule beyond application of existing authority.