R v Georgia Miller

A sentencing guideline range must accommodate differences not only in monetary harm but also in each offender’s function and culpability. An offender’s position within a broad category such as a leading role must be reflected in the starting point. Later conduct cannot be used to assess culpability or relative role in an earlier offence where it sheds no light on those matters. In sentencing a young first offender, proper weight must be given to youth at the time, previous good character, delay, parenthood and the serious effect of imprisonment on young children and the offender. The extent of mitigation remains fact-sensitive and is assessed before credit for a guilty plea where that is the sentencing sequence.

The applicant pleaded guilty to fraudulent evasion of duty under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, arising from a large-scale tobacco-importation operation, and to a later offence of perverting the course of public justice. The Crown Court sentenced her to 27 months’ imprisonment for the evasion offence and a consecutive eight months for the second offence, making 35 months in total.

She sought leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that her role had been overstated, insufficient weight had been given to her youth and family circumstances, and the total sentence was disproportionate. The central issues were the proper starting point for her role, the relevance of later conduct, and the weight to be given to mitigation.

Leave was granted and the appeal was allowed in part.

1. Role and starting point. A category 4A sentencing range must accommodate differences in harm, function and culpability. The applicant had a leading role, but Calvin Newson had the overarching role, provided the finance, recruited the team and persuaded a courier to leave employment. There was no evidence that the applicant recruited members. The six-month reduction from Newson’s five-year starting point to four years six months did not reflect the true difference in their positions. The proper adjusted starting point for the applicant was four years’ imprisonment.
2. Later conduct. The applicant’s conduct in 2023 and 2024, including obstructing police entry, attempting to influence a jury and perverting the course of justice in relation to a speeding offence, could not illuminate her culpability or her role relative to Newson in the 2017–2018 evasion offence. The court also regarded it as concerning that two matters had not been raised with the defence before sentence, although the appeal was independently resolved on the irrelevance of those matters.
3. Mitigation. No aggravating circumstances were identified. The applicant’s previous good character, youth at the time of the offence, the delay, her subsequent motherhood and the serious effect of imprisonment on her and her two young children required a combined reduction of about 40 per cent before credit for the guilty plea. Applying the 25 per cent guilty-plea credit produced a sentence of 21 months for the evasion offence.
4. Order. The sentence of 27 months on the first indictment was quashed and replaced by 21 months. The consecutive eight-month sentence for perverting the course of justice remained unchanged. The total sentence was therefore reduced to 29 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave granted and appeal allowed in part. The 27-month sentence for fraudulent evasion of duty was quashed and replaced with 21 months; the consecutive eight-month sentence remained unchanged. Total sentence reduced to 29 months: [2025] EWCA Crim 533.
• Crown Court: Following guilty pleas, the applicant was sentenced to 27 months for fraudulent evasion of duty and a consecutive eight months for perverting the course of public justice.