R v Amie Moss

This is an appeal against sentence brought with leave of the single judge. The appellant is now aged 25. On 16 October 2024, having pleaded guilty before the Stevenage Magistrates' Court, she was committed for sentence pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in respect of one offence of fraudulent evasion of a prohibition, contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (briefly, importation of illegal drugs) and one offence of possessing a controlled drug of class B (cannabis), contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

On 4 July 2025 in the Crown Court at St. Albans the appellant, then aged 24, was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment for the importation offence, with no separate penalty for the offence of possession. A co-accused, Julius James, pleaded guilty on 13 November 2024 at the plea and trial preparation hearing to linked offences of conspiracy fraudulently to evade the prohibition on the importation of cannabis, conspiracy to supply cannabis and obstructing a constable. He was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment.

On 4 August 2022 at East Midlands Airport, UK Border Force officers seized a package from Denver in the United States, said to contain trainers but in fact containing eight kilograms of cannabis. It was addressed to Max Parkhouse (a fictitious name) at an address in Weston Road, Stevenage. The appellant lived there with her parents.

Also on 4 August 2022, other UK Border Force officers at Coventry International Airport seized a package from Los Angeles in the States marked as containing "red velvet". It contained 7.34 kilograms of cannabis. It was also addressed to Max Parkhouse at the appellant's address.

Records indicated that there was a previous seizure on 24 June 2022 at East Midlands Airport linked to the same address. That had a tracking number 78TKH4333RL and was addressed to Peter Stevens at the appellant's address. The parcel had been intercepted and found to contain 5.8 kilograms of cannabis.

As a result of the August seizures, police attended at the appellant's address in Weston Road. The appellant was the only person present. She lived there with her mother and step-father who were both away on holiday. The appellant was arrested on suspicion of importing cannabis into the United Kingdom. Officers seized various items from the property, including a tin containing three grams of cannabis and paraphernalia, a Parcel Force letter addressed to Max Parkhouse and a Royal mail missed delivery card with a tracking number LM330182662US.

The appellant's phone was seized and interrogated. Messages of relevance were found, including in a WhatsApp chat group an outgoing message saying:

The officer in charge contacted the US postal service with all the tracking numbers, including some found on other phones seized in the investigation and asked for details. Details were obtained for eight packages linked to the appellant's address and two further packages linked by a tracking number stand on her phone. In total, 26 kilograms of cannabis was to be imported, the vast majority (around 23 kilograms) was intercepted. The appellant was sentenced on the basis of 10 packages with 26 kilograms to be imported of which 23 were intercepted. The value, had the delivery of all the packages been successful, would have been just over £200,000.

The co-defendant, Julius James was arrested on 9 September 2022. He was the passenger in a car which was being driven poorly and was stopped by officers in Letchworth. Another passage in the back seat of the car had some cannabis on him and the car also smelt of cannabis. James opened the car door and ran off before being caught. An iPhone in his possession was seized. The phone was subsequently downloaded and analysed. Messages on the phone linked James to the appellant. It appeared to be on friendly terms. There were also messages on Snapchat, not to the appellant but to a third party thought to be an upstream supplier. These included a photo of a postage tracking label and references to the tracking status of a USPS parcel reference LH178259921US. One message said "not recovered" and the sender was asked what that meant. Another message said "my mates 2 went down to ... yesterday" and "Duno bro I don't look at them only yours." A further message said: "Fred gna shout u tomo about ordering more". An incoming message said: "I'm in Turkey at min but chill fit now to g" and then "Not best time to send", which appeared to reference concerns about sending parcels. Another message asked: "How could the ting get grabbed before it even left the local office" and the reply was: "Bro I been telling u it's peak [risky] at min I dint even want them to send." There was an instruction to follow the instructions of the postal company but to use a new phone. The content of the message exchanges indicated that the parties were concerned together in the facilitation of the importation of illegal items into the UK.

Forty-one tracking images for US parcels were found on the phone. There was message thread relating to sale of ounces and QB's of cannabis and reference to prices such as "350 2z" for "new black cherry gelato" with reference to it being "proper Cali". A meeting was arranged for an exchange to take place and an address and postcode was mentioned which was found to correspond with an address on a shipping label. Also found on the phone were bulk messages consistent with the user being involved in the onward supply of cannabis.

The officer examining the phone concluded that the message content of James' phone indicated that the user was concerned in the supply of cannabis. As a result of the enquiries made by the officer in charge to the US Postal Service, officers were able to tabulate the tracking numbers found on both James' and the appellant's phones. The 23 kilograms destined for the appellant's address, but which were intercepted had, as we have noted, a street value of over £200,000.

The total of cannabis linked to James was 36.41 kilos of which 23 kilos were intercepted. Following a Newton hearing James was sentenced on the basis of importing 15 kilograms and supplying cannabis at street level.

The appellant was aged 24 at sentence. She had one previous conviction from 2021 for driving with excess alcohol and while uninsured and without a licence for which she had been fined and disqualified from driving. There were no relevant previous convictions.

For the purposes of sentence the judge had a pre-sentence report and sentencing notes from both prosecution and defence, also a character reference for the appellant, all of which we have read carefully. The judge described the appellant's offending as "well organised, well executed" concluding that she played a significant role in the proposed importation of 26 kilograms of cannabis between 1 April 2022 and 25 August 2022 with a street value of over £200,000. He noted that she was aged 21 at the time. The judge put the offending into Category 2, significant role, observing that he had to "scale back from that in all the circumstances to bear in mind the quantity, your role, your role being significant and the fact that you are receiving your first custodial sentence". He proceeded to pass the sentence of 27 months which we have already recorded.

As regards the co-defendant James, the judge concluded following the Newton hearing that James had been involved in importing 15 kilograms of cannabis. He viewed James' involvement as greater, since it included "knocking it out onto the streets and then obstructing a constable by running away". He ascribed to him a leading role, engaging a starting point in the guidelines of six years. Allowing a 25 per cent discount for his plea at plea and trial preparation hearing the judge passed the same sentence of 27 months on James.

Miss Flanagan, who appears for the appellant on this appeal, as she did at sentence, takes the following points. She submits that the judge erred in taking a starting point of four years, pointing out that whilst this is the starting point for a Category 2 significant role, the indicative amount of drugs for Category 2 is 40 kilograms. The Crown in opening had indicated that in view of the fact that three kilograms was delivered and 23 kilograms intercepted, there should be a downward adjustment to somewhere between a starting point for Category 2 (2 years) and the starting point for Category 3. Accordingly, even if the judge had been right to dismiss the defence submissions about the appellant having played a lesser role, he should have moved down the Category 3 range before allowing for mitigation and discount for plea. She argues that as a matter of background the appellant's co-defendant James had been far more deeply involved. He had been charged as a conspirator with an organisation or leading role and he had also supplied the drugs onto others. He had recruited the appellant. Moreover, having entered a plea at the plea and trial preparation hearing he was entitled to only 25 per cent credit and not the full one-third. He did not have the strength of mitigation that the appellant had. Yet, despite all of this he had been given the same sentence as her. Miss Flanagan submits that the appellant should have received a sentence at a level which would have allowed it to be suspended, pointing out that the appellant had fulfilled all the factors in the guideline indicating that it would be appropriate to suspend: a strong prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation and that she had been assessed as posing a low risk of further offending and no danger to the public.

The judge's sentencing remarks were brisk, to the point where it is not entirely clear to us how he applied the guideline in arriving at the final sentence of 27 months passed on this appellant. Although the defence had sought to argue that the appellant should be regarded as having played a lesser role, the judge dismissed that in short order. We think he was right to do so. He also rightly aggregated the individual parcel amounts in order to arrive at a figure of 26 kilograms for the purposes of sentence.

However, having indicated that he would need to scale back in order to reflect the difference between 26 kilograms and the indicative amount of 40 kilograms for Category 2, it is not apparent to us whether or to what extent the judge then did so. We appreciate the pressure in a court with busy lists but it is important that a judge should fully address all the matters affecting the level of sentence in the guideline so that the public and the court can understand how a judge has applied a sentencing guideline in arriving at sentence.

A sentence of 27 months after discount equates to a notional sentence of 41 months after trial. In the appellant's case there was considerable mitigation, not all of which was referred to by the judge in arriving at sentence. She had no relevant previous convictions, she was still young (aged 21 at the time of offending) and described by the author of the pre-sentence report as having "a deficit in maturity". She had been working in the NHS for the four years up to sentence with prospects of further training. She had taken steps to address her offending. She had expressed genuine remorse and there had been a long delay between making full admissions to police on arrest and her sentence four years later.

In our view, there needed to be an appreciable reduction to allow for the amount of drugs being below the indicative amount for Category 2 before moving on to consider the appellant's mitigation. The judge identified no aggravating factors which could have moved the sentence up the range. Taking the quantity of drugs and the appellant’s mitigation together warranted a reduction of considerably more than seven months from the starting point of 48 months for a Category 2 significant role before discount for plea.

We conclude that the appropriate sentence after trial would have been one of no more than 33 months which, after discount for plea, results in a sentence of 22 months.

The judge did not consider suspension as the sentence which he passed did not permit of it. But as a sentence of 22 months is one that would permit the court to suspend, we have gone on to consider whether to exercise that discretion here. We accept, as Miss Flanagan says, that all of the factors in favour of suspension identified in the imposition guideline apply but against this we must consider whether the offending was so serious that only a custodial sentence was justified.

Had this offending been the work of a mature adult then we would have had no hesitation in refusing to suspend the sentence in view of the number of parcels and the time over which they were being received. However, we bear in mind that this appellant was still young when she agreed for her home address to be used in this way. Moreover, she has demonstrated over the past four years a determination to reform and to work hard in employment in the NHS, a place of value to the public where she appears to have prospects of advancement. Moreover, she has now spent two-and-a-half months in prison. In those circumstances, we are persuaded that suspension is appropriate.

Accordingly, the sentence of 27 months will be quashed and replaced with a suspended sentence of 22 months suspended for two years with a condition of a 30 day rehabilitation activity requirement as probation recommended in the pre-sentence report before the judge.

MISS FLANAGAN: My Lord, my Ladies, I have been asked by the Clerk to indicate something which was in respect of the committal for sentence. There is a sending sheet on the digital case which indicates that there were guilty pleas at the Magistrates' Court and that the matters were sent for sentence and therefore the five count indictment is erroneous and was never in fact put to the appellant. I was asked just to make sure I clarified that to you.

LORD JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.

MRS JUSTICE MAY: I think the Crown Court record ought to be amended to reflect that this was a sending and not an indictment.

MISS FLANAGAN: I will ensure that is. Done thank you.

LORD JUSTICE FRASER: We make the necessary order in that respect.

MRS JUSTICE MAY: We ought to explain what that means to the appellant. Miss Moss, your sentence has been replaced with a suspended sentence. What that means is that if, over the period of suspension, which is two years, you commit no further offence then that will be the end of the matter. If you commit any further offence then the court will be obliged to activate the sentence of 22 months which we have imposed. Do you understand?

THE APPELLANT: Yes, I completely understand.

MRS JUSTICE MAY: I am sure that your counsel will meet you shortly to explain further.