Iqbal & Anor v City of Wolverhampton Council

Factual and Procedural Background

On 20 December 2023, in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton before Her Honour Judge Jacobs, two defendants, referred to as A1 and A2, were convicted unanimously on multiple counts related to conspiracy and trademark offences. These included conspiracy to sell or distribute goods bearing signs identical to registered trademarks, conspiracy to possess such goods, conspiracy to market or use products copying a registered design, and conspiracy to transfer or convert criminal property. Additionally, A1 was convicted of unauthorised possession of trademarked goods. The substantive offences were under the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Registered Designs Act 1949, and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

On 15 March 2024, both defendants were sentenced to 31 months imprisonment with concurrent sentences on each count. The wives of A1 and A2 were also convicted on various counts and received suspended sentences.

With leave of the single judge, A1 and A2 appealed against their conviction on the count relating to the conspiracy to market products copying a registered design (count 10), and also appealed against their sentences on all counts, with A2’s appeal on sentence limited to one ground.

The prosecution's case was that the appellants engaged in a criminal agreement to sell counterfeit goods, including trademark-infringing items such as Sky remote controls, Samsung and Apple products, and CND nail varnish, as well as copyright-infringing earphones marketed as Apple AirPods. Evidence included online sales through eBay accounts linked to the appellants, test purchases, searches leading to seizure of counterfeit goods, and financial transactions showing substantial sales volume and value.

Both appellants denied knowingly trading in counterfeit goods and did not give evidence at trial. The particulars for count 10 alleged a conspiracy to market earphones produced exactly or with immaterial differences to the registered Apple AirPods design without consent.

The prosecution’s evidence for count 10 included seized earphones, images from Apple for comparison, eBay advertisements, sales invoices, bank account records, and customer feedback indicating belief that the goods were genuine Apple products. A1 denied that the earphones infringed Apple’s design, claiming they were unbranded and significantly different.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in applying the principles from R v Saik to determine the mental element required for the conspiracy offence under count 10, specifically whether the earphones were "identified" or "unidentified" property at the time of the conspiracy agreement.
2. If the judge did not err in applying R v Saik, whether the judge misdirected the jury in the legal directions given on count 10.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The appellants contended that the prosecution relied on substantive offences to prove the agreement, thus the earphones were identified property at the time of the conspiracy agreement, requiring proof of knowledge rather than mere intention.
• They argued the prosecution's distinction between the trademark offences and the copyright infringement in count 10 was improper, leading to unsafe convictions.
• They maintained that the prosecution had to prove the defendants knew the earphones infringed Apple's design, not just intended to market such goods.
• A1 raised a secondary point that the judge’s use of "should" instead of "would" in legal directions was erroneous.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution submitted that for the conspiracy offence, it was sufficient to prove an agreement and intent to market copyright-infringing items, without needing to prove the items actually infringed or that the defendants knew this at the time of agreement.
• They relied on the principle from R v Saik that conspiracy is complete at the making of the agreement and is forward-looking.
• The prosecution distinguished the trademark offences, where knowledge was required, from the copyright conspiracy, where intention sufficed due to the nature of the property being unidentified at the time of agreement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the principles from the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the House of Lords decision in R v Saik, focusing on the distinction between identified and unidentified property in conspiracy offences. The court agreed with the trial judge that the earphones were unidentified property at the time the conspiracy agreement was made because the goods had not yet been ordered or inspected, and came from various suppliers over time.

The court rejected the appellants' argument that each delivery of infringing goods constituted a separate conspiracy agreement, finding that the conspiracy was an earlier agreement inferred from subsequent conduct. The court held that the prosecution only needed to prove that the defendants intended to market goods infringing the registered design, not that they knew the goods infringed at the time of agreement.

The court found the trial judge's legal directions to the jury on count 10 to be correct and clear, including the route to verdict questions. The slight linguistic issue raised by A1 regarding the word "should" instead of "would" was held to be immaterial and not prejudicial.

Regarding sentencing, the court reviewed the judge’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, noting the assessment of harm based on retail value of genuine goods rather than the lower value of counterfeit goods. The court acknowledged the appellants’ submission that the retail value was grossly disproportionate but found the judge’s evaluation not unreasonable or manifestly excessive. The court emphasized the importance of deterrence and the sustained nature of the offending.

Holding and Implications

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

The court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed on A1 and A2, confirming that the prosecution did not err in applying the principles from R v Saik to the conspiracy count involving copyright-infringing earphones. The court found no misdirection in the jury instructions and no basis to reduce the sentences given the nature and extent of the offences. This decision affirms the application of conspiracy law principles distinguishing between identified and unidentified property and clarifies the mens rea requirements in such contexts. No new precedent was established beyond the correct application of existing law, and the direct effect is the maintenance of the convictions and sentences as imposed by the Crown Court.