R v Yuni Alexis Pacheco Miranda & Ors

When the prosecution seeks to reopen its case after presenting its evidence, the trial judge must exercise a cautious, fact-sensitive discretion. Admission is justified only where the probative value, assessed against the relevant prejudice, remains consistent with a fair trial. Timing, responsibility for delay, the volume and scope of material, available resources, opportunity to respond and safeguards are material. On sentence, appellate interference with findings about roles, quantities and intended harm in large drug conspiracies is limited. Above guideline quantities, sentencing is evaluative. Section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 permits intended or foreseeable harm to be considered, provided estimates remain realistic. All renewed applications were refused.

Following a lengthy jury trial at Kingston upon Thames, the applicants were convicted of conspiracies involving the importation and supply of controlled drugs and related offences. They renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, together with applications for extensions of time.

The conviction applications concerned the admission of material recovered from a mobile phone after the prosecution had closed its case, the refusal to discharge the jury, and whether there was a case to answer on one count involving DNA evidence. The sentence applications challenged findings about roles, drug quantities, intended harm, aggravating factors and the overall length of the sentences.

The court refused all renewed applications for leave to appeal and all associated applications for extensions of time. The proposed grounds were not arguable.

1. Reopening the prosecution case. The trial judge had directed himself correctly. Such applications are rare and require careful consideration of whether the probative value of the new evidence outweighs relevant prejudice and whether each defendant can still receive a fair trial. The phone material had emerged without prosecutorial fault, was highly probative, and had been limited to the most important issues. Additional resources, time and opportunities to respond were provided. The judge retained power to discharge the jury if real prejudice later emerged, but no such application was made. The admission of the material was also not rendered unfair under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
2. Miranda's change of case did not prejudice Shtrezi. The jury had been directed to consider each defendant and count separately, and Shtrezi's defence remained distinct.
3. No case to answer. A technical possibility of secondary transfer did not, viewed with the evidence as a whole, prevent the count from being left to the jury. The DNA evidence, the surrounding circumstances, other dealings with drug dealers, bad character evidence and cross-admissible evidence together provided a sufficient case.
4. Sentencing appeals. Applying R v Greenfield [2020] EWCA Crim 265, the court emphasised that it is slow to interfere with findings by a sentencing judge who has heard a lengthy trial and assessed the roles of participants in a large conspiracy. Where quantities greatly exceed the guideline categories, sentencing is an evaluative exercise in which quantity is important but not decisive. At very high levels of importation, sentences may appropriately bunch: R v Sanghera [2016] EWCA Crim 94 and R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 6000.
5. The judge was entitled under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to consider intended harm, including unfulfilled parts of the conspiracies, while making a realistic and conservative assessment. Concurrent sentences on other offences could aggravate the sentence for the lead offence, subject to totality. None of the sentences was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On 3 April 2025, all renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and/or sentence, and the associated extensions of time, were refused.
• Single judge. Earlier applications for leave and extensions of time had been refused, leading to the renewed applications.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames. Following a jury trial, the applicants were convicted on 19 June 2023 and sentenced for drug conspiracies and related offences.