Andrew Miller, 54, was jailed for 20 years and told he was subject to supervision by the authorities for eight years following his release from custody. He submitted an appeal against his sentence claiming that it was unduly excessive. 

Mr Miller was pled guilty to luring a young girl into his vehicle before holding her against her will and repeatedly sexually assaulting her over a period of 27 hours. Miller pleaded guilty in May 2023 to charges of abduction, sexual assault, watching pornography in the presence of the child under the age of 13 and possessing 242 indecent images of children. 

Of vital importance to the appeal was the fact that Mr Miller also goes by the name of Amy George and he was dressed in female clothes at the time of the offence. 

Lord Arthurson said the crime was “frankly nauseating in its level of depravity and criminal deviance” and the abduction had been “brazen and chilling”.

In his appeal, it was submitted by his agent that the trial judge placed too much weight on the fact that Mr Miller was dressed in women clothes at the time. His agent told the court that while he is referred to using he/him pronouns, he has a transgender identity and had presented as a women for many years. As such him being dressed in women clothing was not unusual and was not a deliberate way to try and persuade the victim into the car. 

In the judgement, Lord Carloway said: “There are… erroneous, or at least speculative, aspects to the sentencing remarks, which have been founded upon in the appeal. First, the judge regarded, as a significantly aggravating factor, the appellant’s female apparel as indicative of a pre-conceived intention to abduct a girl. The court cannot agree. By the time of the incident, the appellant was already dressing as a woman as a matter of routine, rather than for any more sinister a reason. What the judge does focus on is what he perceived as victim blaming in the appellant’s interviews with the risk assessor. Given the nature of the questioning, the appellant’s responses did not justify the conclusions which the judge reached in relation to his attitude to the complainer or his crimes.”

Despite this, the sentence was not deemed to be excessive and the appeal was refused.