Javaherifard (R, on the application of) v Miller

Javaherifard (R, on the application of) v Miller

The Recorder's misdirection as to the legal point of entry rendered the convictions on the 'entry' counts unsafe and they must be quashed. However, facilitating the unlawful presence ('being in') of non-EU nationals in the UK is an offence under s25, and there was sufficient evidence for conviction on those counts.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Mohammed Javaherifard; Appellant: Joanne Miller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Facilitation of Breach of Immigration Law, Interpretation of 'entry' and 'being In' Under Immigration Act, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Immigration Law Facilitation of Breach of Immigration Law Interpretation of 'entry' and 'being In' Under Immigration Act Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mohammed Javaherifard

Appellant

Joanne Miller

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes 'entry' into the UK under s25 Immigration Act 1971?
  2. 2 Can acts after entry facilitate 'entry' for the purposes of s25?
  3. 3 Does facilitating 'being in' the UK constitute an offence under s25?

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder's misdirection as to the legal point of entry rendered the convictions on the 'entry' counts unsafe and they must be quashed. However, facilitating the unlawful presence ('being in') of non-EU nationals in the UK is an offence under s25, and there was sufficient evidence for conviction on those counts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Convictions on counts 1 and 2 (entry) quashed for both appellants
  • Appeals on counts 3 and 4 (being in) dismissed for both appellants