Miranda & Ors, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 570 (03 April 2025)

Miranda & Ors, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 570 (03 April 2025)

The trial judge correctly exercised discretion in admitting late phone evidence, provided adequate time and resources for defence, and ensured fairness; the convictions were safe and sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle given the scale, roles, and intended harm of the conspiracies.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 570
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: Yuni Alexis Pacheco Miranda; Applicant/defendant: Daniel Stephen Oliver; Applicant/defendant: Ermal Shtrezi; Applicant/defendant: Frank Asante; Applicant/defendant: Nigel Rogers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction And/or Sentence
Outcome
All renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and/or sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Import Controlled Drugs, Conspiracy to Supply Controlled Drugs, Admissibility of Late Evidence, Sentencing Guidelines, Serious Crime Prevention Orders, Encro Chat Evidence
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Import Controlled Drugs Conspiracy to Supply Controlled Drugs Admissibility of Late Evidence Sentencing Guidelines Serious Crime Prevention Orders Encro Chat Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Yuni Alexis Pacheco Miranda

Applicant/defendant

Daniel Stephen Oliver

Applicant/defendant

Ermal Shtrezi

Applicant/defendant

Frank Asante

Applicant/defendant

Nigel Rogers

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction And/or Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting late phone evidence and refusing to discharge the jury
  2. 2 Whether convictions were unsafe due to alleged unfairness or prejudice
  3. 3 Whether sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly exercised discretion in admitting late phone evidence, provided adequate time and resources for defence, and ensured fairness; the convictions were safe and sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle given the scale, roles, and intended harm of the conspiracies.

Court Disposition

All renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and/or sentence refused.