Factual and Procedural Background
On 28 March 2022, in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Bond, Defendant A pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess counterfeit goods in the course of a business. Several related trademark offences and a charge of perverting the course of public justice were left to lie on the file. On 21 October 2024, Defendant B changed his pleas to guilty to the conspiracy count and three trademark offences. On 11 April 2025, Defendant B was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on the conspiracy count, with no separate penalty for the trademark offences, while Defendant A was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on the conspiracy count. Co-defendants were also sentenced at the same time, including Defendant C who received five years' imprisonment and Defendant D who received a community order.
Both Defendant A and Defendant B appealed their sentences by leave of a single judge.
Between 2017 and 2020, the appellants were involved in a conspiracy to possess counterfeit goods for sale, involving tens of thousands of fake items of well-known brands. Defendant C imported and distributed the goods, Defendant A assisted by collecting and delivering counterfeit goods, and Defendant B also collected and delivered goods and later took orders for resale for personal gain. Searches of premises linked to Defendant C seized thousands of counterfeit items and equipment for affixing fake logos. The overall value of the conspiracy was assessed at £2 million, with the appellants' personal involvement valued between £300,000 and £1 million.
Defendant A obstructed justice by arranging for a third party to provide false corroboration of his account, though that third party was acquitted of related charges. Defendant B had no previous convictions, while Defendant A had 20 prior convictions unrelated to counterfeit goods, with the last dishonesty offence in 2000.
At sentencing, Defendant A had a pre-sentence report noting vulnerability linked to substance misuse, genuine remorse, efforts to remain substance-free, and low risk of reoffending. Defendant B had no pre-sentence report due to procedural issues but was not granted an adjournment to obtain one. The judge described the conspiracy as sophisticated and professional, involving the appellants in significant roles with culpability and harm assessed under sentencing guidelines. Both defendants received custodial sentences with reductions for mitigating factors and guilty pleas. The judge declined to suspend either sentence, citing the seriousness and duration of the offending.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentences imposed on Defendant A and Defendant B should have been suspended.
- Whether the judge erred in not obtaining or awaiting a pre-sentence report for Defendant B before sentencing.
- Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the relevant sentencing guidelines, including the Overarching Guideline on Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.
- Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant B's Arguments
- The judge erred by not suspending his custodial sentence given the circumstances.
- The judge should have awaited a pre-sentence report before sentencing.
- The judge failed to refer to or properly apply the Overarching Guideline on Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.
- Appellant B posed no risk to the public, had a positive character, pleaded guilty, and behaved well while on bail.
- There was a clear prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation, including recent serious health issues.
Appellant A's Arguments
- The judge erred in not suspending the sentence of imprisonment.
- The delay between guilty plea and sentencing was inordinate and should have influenced sentencing.
- During the delay, Appellant A engaged in charitable work, obtained a professional licence, and remained drug-free.
- There was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation.
- The case did not require immediate custody to achieve rehabilitation.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the sentencing judge's application of the relevant sentencing guidelines and the facts of the case, including the appellants' roles in a sophisticated and sustained conspiracy to distribute counterfeit goods of high value. The judge assessed culpability and harm levels appropriately and accounted for mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, limited financial gain, remorse, and personal circumstances.
Regarding the failure to suspend sentences, the judge explicitly considered but rejected suspension due to the seriousness and duration of the offending. The court found no indication that a pre-sentence report would have provided additional relevant information for Defendant B and held that the judge was entitled to conclude that immediate custody was appropriate.
The court acknowledged the judge's omission to mention the Overarching Guideline on Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences but found that the sentencing remarks demonstrated that immediate custody was the only appropriate punishment. The court rejected the argument that the absence of explicit reference to the guideline affected the outcome.
Prison reports submitted for the appeal showed no issues that would justify interfering with the sentences. The court concluded that the sentences were within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Holding and Implications
The appeals of Defendant A and Defendant B against sentence are DISMISSED.
The court upheld the custodial sentences imposed, confirming that immediate imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the defendants' roles in the conspiracy. The decision affirms the sentencing court's discretion in balancing mitigating factors against the gravity of organised counterfeit goods distribution. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling directly affects only the parties involved.