Summary of Opinion — Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary

Factual and Procedural Background

Four appellants (First Appellant; Second Appellant; Third Appellant; Fourth Appellant) were convicted by a jury on 29 April 2025 at The City High Court of offences arising from a long-running business relationship between Company A and various Health Boards. The convictions arose under the Bribery Act 2010, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and, in some counts, historic public bodies corruption and fraud statutes. The trial covered multiple contracts and transactions occurring predominantly between 2010 and 2017. Sentences were imposed by Judge Ericht (with Judge Carmichael also listed on the appeal panel). Each appellant appealed against sentence. The appeals raised (i) whether certain sentences should have been concurrent rather than consecutive and (ii) whether the sentences imposed were excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants (particularly the First Appellant and Third Appellant) should have been concurrent rather than consecutive because the convictions arose from the same course of criminal conduct.
2. Whether the sentences imposed on each appellant were excessive, having regard to culpability, harm, comparative justice, personal mitigation and the totality principle.

Arguments of the Parties

Third Appellant's Arguments

• Sentences in respect of his convictions were part of a single continuing course of conduct and therefore should have been concurrent rather than consecutive.
• Amounts involved were relatively modest; the company did not overcharge; work was performed to a high standard; limited or no public loss occurred.
• Specific fraud count: lack of knowledge of Health Board procurement processes was a mitigating factor; personal circumstances warranted greater weight.

First Appellant's Arguments

• The headline sentence was excessive given the modest personal benefits received over the period; no evidence of large-scale loss or that the Health Boards were overcharged apart from a small sum.
• The work performed was necessary and of good quality; personal circumstances merited more mitigation.
• Consecutive sentences were inappropriate where offences formed part of the same course of criminality.

Fourth Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was excessive; work done to a high standard and at competitive prices; personal benefit not excessive beyond normal directorship remuneration.
• Comparative justice with co-accused required a lower headline sentence; rehabilitation and personal circumstances warranted reduction.

Second Appellant's Arguments

• Insufficient weight given to personal circumstances.
• Level of harm was at the lower end of level 2 under the English guidelines; comparative justice required a sentence lower than co‑accused who had higher culpability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court concluded that, for the First Appellant and Third Appellant, the judge erred in imposing consecutive sentences because the offences in the separate counts formed part of a single ongoing course of criminal conduct conducted through Company A's business relationship with multiple Health Boards from 2010 to 2017. The offences across counts overlapped in time and in nature (bribery/corruption, fraud in procurement, false invoicing and acquiring criminal property), and therefore were not separate unrelated events warranting cumulative consecutive punishment.

Applying established authorities, the court emphasised that an identifiable error in sentencing requires assessment under the miscarriage-of-justice test: only if the resulting final sentence is excessive will the appeal succeed. The court proceeded to reassess totality and comparative justice in light of the error.

For each appellant the court recalibrated sentences to reflect (i) the single course of criminal conduct, (ii) comparative justice between co-accused, and (iii) the totality principle. The court detailed adjustments to headline cumulo sentences on corruption/bribery counts, retained or adjusted cumulo sentences on fraud counts where appropriate, left certain Proceeds of Crime Act sentences unchanged, and ordered that the resulting sentences operate concurrently and be backdated to the trial conviction date.

Holding and Implications

Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied as follows:

• Third Appellant: corruption/bribery cumulo sentence increased to 7 years; fraud cumulo sentence of 4 years retained; Proceeds of Crime sentence of 5 years retained; all sentences concurrent and backdated to 29 April 2025; resulting total imprisonment 7 years.
• First Appellant: corruption/bribery cumulo sentence increased to 7 years; fraud and related cumulo sentence set at 5 years; Proceeds of Crime sentence of 3 years retained; all sentences concurrent and backdated to 29 April 2025; resulting total imprisonment 7 years.
• Fourth Appellant: corruption/bribery cumulo sentence reduced from 7 to 6 years; Proceeds of Crime sentence of 5 years retained; sentences concurrent from 29 April 2025; resulting total imprisonment 6 years.
• Second Appellant: corruption/bribery sentence reduced from 6 to 5 years; Proceeds of Crime sentence of 3 years retained; sentences concurrent from 29 April 2025; resulting total imprisonment 5 years.

Implications: The direct effect is modification of the individual custodial terms as specified above and application of concurrent operation of counts with backdating to 29 April 2025. The court did not purport to establish a new sentencing principle beyond applying established authorities on when sentencing errors amount to a miscarriage of justice; the decision implements those authorities in the specific factual matrix of a prolonged corrupt procurement scheme involving Company A and multiple Health Boards.