Laura Jane Miller

Profile

A formidable advocate, with a reputation for being fearless in the pursuit of justice – leaving no stone unturned, as well as for her meticulous attention to detail, in-depth knowledge of the law, sound tactical judgement and ability to ‘think outside of the box’.

Laura specialises in:

  • Murder
  • Terrorism & Explosives
  • Organised Crime
  • Financial Crime
  • Sexual Offences
  • Appellate

Laura is regularly instructed in complex and serious criminal cases, including offences of murder, terrorism, firearms and explosives, serious violence, human trafficking, organised crime, and financial offending.

Laura has extensive trial advocacy experience in cases involving vulnerable and child witnesses, complex medical, ballistics, gunshot residue and financial expert evidence, intricate legal arguments, and novel points of law.

Furthermore, Laura is regularly instructed to represent vulnerable defendants and is proficient in conducting complex legal arguments during ground rules hearings and where appropriate, in relation to the imposition of hospital orders under Section 37, Section 37/41 and Section 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Laura also accepts instructions in licensing and professional disciplinary proceedings.

Expertise

Defence Crime
  • R v M & Others (2021): Cardiff Crown Court – Defendant alleged to have conspired with others to traffic a 13-year-old from Wales to London and to have performed a leading managerial role in a linked county lines drug conspiracy, involving the cuckooing of multiple vulnerable individuals. Over 150,000 served pages of evidence. Crown offered no evidence at trial due to inherent and insurmountable issues relating to disclosure. [Led Junior]
  • R v W & Others (2019): Southwark Crown Court – Defendant alleged to have conspired to traffic Romanian nationals into the UK with a view to them performing forced and compulsory labour and conspiracy to exploit those said Romanian nationals, along with a linked money laundering conspiracy. Over 30,000 served pages of evidence. Defendant acquitted 7-weeks into the trial following successful half time submission. [Led Junior]
  • R v P & Others (2019): Blackfriars Crown Court – Defendant alleged to have played a significant role in a large-scale conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine across county lines, involving three drug lines across Essex and Cambridgeshire, linked to a prominent London gang. Over 114,000 served pages of evidence, including a substantial amount of telephone and ANPR data, along with surveillance and CCTV evidence. [Led Junior]
  • R v Y & Others (2018): Snaresbrook Crown Court – Defendant alleged to have played a leading organisational role in a conspiracy to import “assassins kits” containing multiple firearms, ammunition and silencers from Lithuania into the UK and arranging the sale of those said items. With over 25,000 served pages of evidence the Crown relied on a substantial amount of mobile telephone, cell site and ANPR data. [Led Junior]
  • R v N & Others (2017): Isleworth Crown Court –  Defendant alleged to have conspired with others to keep multiple brothels across the London area and being concerned in the supply of cocaine and cannabis to patrons of those brothels. Case involved over 30,000 served pages of evidence, including telephone data and surveillance footage.
  • R v Q & Others (2015): Newcastle Crown Court –  Defendant alleged to have played a leading role in a cross-county conspiracy to supply heroin and crack cocaine into the North East of England. Case involved over 10,000 served pages of evidence, including telephone data, cell site, ANPR and covert recording within motor vehicles. [Led Junior]
  • R v Z (2022): Sheffield Crown Court – The defendant, an Albanian national, was accused of production of cannabis. Defence raised under Section 45 MSA 2015. Crown offered no evidence following representations concerning the application of the Code for Crown Prosecutors in light of a positive conclusive grounds’ decision and service of a defence expert report supporting a finding that the defendant was a victim of criminal exploitation.
  • R v H & Another (2020): Ipswich Crown Court – Instructed to prosecute an allegation of conspiracy to rob involving the pre-planned, highly sophisticated, and targeted robbery of a jewellers, during which over £50,000 worth of jewellery was taken in a violent robbery, involving the use of an axe.
  • R v K & Another (2018): Chelmsford Crown Court – Defendant accused of Possession of a Firearm with Intent to Cause Fear and three offences of Attempted Section 18 assault. The Defendant was alleged to have fired a loaded shot gun at the windscreen of a motor vehicle containing three occupants, in a revenge attack following an incident of road rage. The case involved the cross examination of experts in relation to ballistics and gun shot residue. Defendant acquitted following 3-week trial.
  • R v L (2018): Luton Crown Court – Defendant accused of the Section 18 Wounding of his partner and Attempted Robbery of his mother. The defendant was alleged to have  stabbed his partner to the leg causing serious injury and thereafter preventing her from seeking medical attention, along with the subsequent attempted knife point robbery of his mother in a separate incident the following day. Acquitted following trial.
  • R v E & Another (2016): York Crown Court – Represented an 18-year-old defendant alleged to have conspired with others to import MDMA into the UK via the dark web and to have supplied MDMA to others over an extended period of time, when he was 16 years of age.
  • R v J (2015): Snaresbrook Crown Court – The defendant, a practicing Rastafarian, was found to have 1.4kilos of cannabis separately packaged at his home address. The defendant accepted being in possession of the cannabis for his own personal use but denied having an intention to supply the cannabis to others. Acquitted following full trial.
  • R v D & Others (2021): Southwark Crown Court – The defendant, a Lithuanian national, was alleged to have conspired with others to steal motor vehicles, on a commercial scale, to be transported into Eastern Europe and an associated money laundering conspiracy. The case involved a sophisticated system relay loop and extensive car ringing. Over 100,000 pages of served evidence, including cell site, ANPR, telephone data and surveillance evidence. Total value over £3,000,000. [Led Junior]
  • R v F  (2019): Bolton Crown Court – The defendant was alleged  to have played a significant role within an OCG manipulating links to the Hawala Banking system to launder large amounts of monies within the UK and abroad. Successful applications were made for permission to call defence witnesses from Iraqi Kurdistan.
  • R v L & Another (2017): Bristol Crown Court – The defendant was alleged to have played a leading role in a large-scale fraud, concerning an allegation that she had used her position as an employee of a car finance dealership to obtain finance for fleet customers, following the provision of either false information or false documentation over a 3-year period. The case involved over 100,000 pages of served evidence. The defendant was acquitted following an 8-week trial. [Led Junior]
  • R v O & Others (2017): St Albans Crown Court – The defendant was alleged to have conspired with others operating sham companies, targeting elderly residents under the premise of undertaking gardening work throughout the Hertfordshire area.
  • R v H & Others (2017): Grimsby Crown Court – The defendant was alleged to have purchased card details via the dark web which were used to purchase items from John Lewis and Harrods. Case involved a large volume of surveillance, cell site and ANPR data along with telephone downloads. Total value £50,000.
  • R v G (2016): Isleworth Crown Court –  It was alleged that the defendant, a courier, had falsified documentation to give the perception that goods had been delivered to customers, whose accounts had been opened fraudulently, with the intention of retaining the goods for onward sale. The case involved extensive surveillance evidence along with technical evidence relating to the company IT and vehicle tracking software. Acquitted following trial.
  • R v U (2022): Newcastle Crown Court – Allegation of murder. [ongoing]
  • R v O (2022): Newcastle Crown Court – Allegation of murder. [ongoing]
  • R v J (2022) Newcastle Crown Court – Juvenile defendant accused of the unprovoked  murder of an 18-year-old male, along with 9 other juvenile defendants. Substantial argument was undertaken in relation to the application of Jogee. Led by Caroline Goodwin QC.
  • R v G (2021): Sheffield Crown Court – Instructed to prosecute an allegation of attempted murder of a male, stabbed five times to the chest and leg in an unprovoked attack outside of a nightclub.
  • R v K & Others (2018): Luton Crown Court – 14-year-old defendant accused of the  premeditated murder of an 18-year-old male, along with one other juvenile defendant. Led by Queen’s Counsel.
  • R v B (2021): Bristol Crown Court – Represented the co-founder of National Action for offences of being a member of a proscribed organisation and multiple allegations of possessing material of use to terrorists. It was alleged that the defendant had acted as the ‘puppet-master’ of various splinter groups of National Action following proscription. Extensive argument undertaken in relation to the admissibility of expert evidence. Led by Queen’s Counsel.
  • R v C (2021): Snaresbrook Crown Court – Represented an 18-year-old defendant in relation to an allegation of Making Explosives with Improper Intent. The defendant was alleged to have made a large quantity of black powder (gun powder), with the intention to use the same to harm specific individuals. The matter involved complex and profound issues relating to the accused’s mental health. Successfully argued against the imposition of a hospital order under Section 37/41 or Section 45A. Hospital Order imposed under Section 37 MHA 1983.
  • R v Ahmed (2019) EWCA Crim 1085 (reported on Westlaw) – Successful appeal against sentence in relation to a fifth conviction for robbery offences. (7 years 11 months’ imprisonment reduced to 6 years imprisonment). Guidance provided as to the meaning of serious physical harm as it pertains to Category 1 of the Sentencing Council: Definitive Guidelines: Street Robbery.
  • R v P (2019)  – Successful appeal against a Prosecution Costs Order out of time. (Costs order of £19,076.46 reduced to £5,325.70)
  • R v J (2019) – Successful appeal against sentence in relation to a second conviction for possession of class A substances with intent to supply.
  • M v CPS (2018) – Application for permission to Judicially Review a decision to withdraw a charge under s4 POA and replace it with a charge of affray, in order to provide a mechanism for a juvenile defendant to be sent for trial in the Crown Court. Permission refused; however, the Crown subsequently offered no evidence in the associated criminal proceedings.
  • R v T (2018) – Successful appeal against sentence – possession of a bladed article (20 months’ imprisonment reduced to 8 months imprisonment).
  • R v Fraser (2017) EWCA Crim 507 (reported on Westlaw) – Successful appeal against sentence – guidance provided in relation to the factors to take into consideration when determining the proportionality of immediate custodial terms in the case of sole carers of dependent children (teenagers).

Appointments/Memberships

  • The Honourable Society of Middle Temple
  • South Eastern Circuit
  • Northern Circuit
  • Criminal Bar Association
  • Inquest
  • ALBA
Instruct LauraTo instruct Laura please contact our clerks by phone on +44 (0) 20 7036 0200 or email us at clerks@libertaschambers.com