Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.
In accordance with section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Sentencing Council issues this definitive guideline. It applies to organisations who are sentenced on or after the effective date of this guideline, regardless of the date of the offence.
must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, and
must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function,
unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.”
Structure, ranges and starting points
For the purposes of section 60 of the Sentencing Code, the guideline specifies offence ranges – the range of sentences appropriate for each type of offence. Within each offence, the Council has specified a number of categories which reflect varying degrees of seriousness. The offence range is split into category ranges – sentences appropriate for each level of seriousness. The Council has also identified a starting point within each category.
Starting points define the position within a category range from which to start calculating the provisional sentence. The court should consider further features of the offence or the offender that warrant adjustment of the sentence within the range, including the aggravating and mitigating factors set out at step four and the further set of factors that may require a final adjustment to the sentence at step five. Starting points and ranges apply to all offenders, whether they have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trial. Credit for a guilty plea is taken into consideration only at step seven after the appropriate sentence has been identified.
Note The penalties in this guideline for sentencing organisations are financial. Courts are required to consider financial penalties in the following order:
compensation (which takes priority over any other payment);
confiscation (Crown Court only);
fine
Therefore, in this guideline the court is required to consider compensation and confiscation before going on to determine the fine
Step 1 – Compensation
The court must consider making a compensation order requiring the offender to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence in such an amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to the evidence and to the means of the offender.
Where the means of the offender are limited, priority should be given to the payment of compensation over payment of any other financial penalty.
1. Confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 may only be made by the Crown Court. The order is not a sentence in its own right, it may only be made in addition to a sentence. The Crown Court must proceed with a view to making a confiscation order if it is asked to do so by the prosecutor or if the Crown Court believes it is appropriate for it to do so. See section 6 of POCA.
2. Where, following conviction in a magistrates’ court, the prosecutor applies for the offender to be committed to the Crown Court with a view to a confiscation order being considered, the magistrates’ court must commit the offender to the Crown Court to be sentenced there (section 70 POCA).
3. Where, but for the prosecutor’s application under s.70, the magistrates’ court would have committed the offender for sentence to the Crown Court anyway it must say so. Otherwise, the powers of sentence of the Crown Court will be limited to those of the magistrates’ court.
4. If postponing confiscation, the court must adjourn all other financial orders, including compensation, costs and a fine (see section 15 of POCA). Confiscation must be dealt with before, and taken into account when assessing, any other fine or financial order (except compensation and trafficking reparation order (STRO) or unlawful profit order (UPO)). If the court makes both a confiscation order and an order for compensation (or STRO or UPO) and the court believes the offender will not have sufficient means to satisfy both orders in full, the court must direct that the compensation be paid out of sums recovered under the confiscation order. (See section 13 of POCA)
Considerations
5. Although often the parties agree some or all of the figures in such cases, ultimately it is for the Judge to make a proportionate order following his/her assessment of the facts.
6. Where an order is made following an agreement by the parties this should be recorded in the order and it is prudent to ensure that the offender signs the schedule of available or realisable assets. Where an order is made after a contested hearing, it will follow the court’s findings of fact.
Payment
7. The full amount ordered to be paid under a confiscation order must be paid on the day on which the order is made unless the court is satisfied that the offender is unable to pay the full amount on that day in which case the court may make an order requiring whatever cannot be paid on that day to be paid in a specified period, or specified periods each of which relates to a specified amount. Any specified period must not exceed three months from the date of the order. If within any specified period D applies to the court for that period to be extended the court may, on being satisfied that D has made all reasonable efforts to comply, make an order extending the period for up to six months from the date of the order.
Sentences in default
Amount
Period
£10,000 or less
6 months
More than £10,000 but no more than £500,000
5 years
More than £500,000 but no more than £1,000,000
7 years
More than £1,000,000
14 years
Step 2 – Confiscation
Note:
The guidance provided here is only a very brief overview of confiscation orders
May be made by:
The Crown Court (see below for magistrates’ powers of committal)
1. Confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 may only be made by the Crown Court. The order is not a sentence in its own right, it may only be made in addition to a sentence. The Crown Court must proceed with a view to making a confiscation order if it is asked to do so by the prosecutor or if the Crown Court believes it is appropriate for it to do so. See section 6 of POCA.
2. Where, following conviction in a magistrates’ court, the prosecutor applies for the offender to be committed to the Crown Court with a view to a confiscation order being considered, the magistrates’ court must commit the offender to the Crown Court to be sentenced there (section 70 POCA).
3. Where, but for the prosecutor’s application under s.70, the magistrates’ court would have committed the offender for sentence to the Crown Court anyway it must say so. Otherwise, the powers of sentence of the Crown Court will be limited to those of the magistrates’ court.
4. If postponing confiscation, the court must adjourn all other financial orders, including compensation, costs and a fine (see section 15 of POCA). Confiscation must be dealt with before, and taken into account when assessing, any other fine or financial order (except compensation and trafficking reparation order (STRO) or unlawful profit order (UPO)). If the court makes both a confiscation order and an order for compensation (or STRO or UPO) and the court believes the offender will not have sufficient means to satisfy both orders in full, the court must direct that the compensation be paid out of sums recovered under the confiscation order. (See section 13 of POCA)
Considerations
5. Although often the parties agree some or all of the figures in such cases, ultimately it is for the Judge to make a proportionate order following his/her assessment of the facts.
6. Where an order is made following an agreement by the parties this should be recorded in the order and it is prudent to ensure that the offender signs the schedule of available or realisable assets. Where an order is made after a contested hearing, it will follow the court’s findings of fact.
Payment
7. The full amount ordered to be paid under a confiscation order must be paid on the day on which the order is made unless the court is satisfied that the offender is unable to pay the full amount on that day in which case the court may make an order requiring whatever cannot be paid on that day to be paid in a specified period, or specified periods each of which relates to a specified amount. Any specified period must not exceed three months from the date of the order. If within any specified period D applies to the court for that period to be extended the court may, on being satisfied that D has made all reasonable efforts to comply, make an order extending the period for up to six months from the date of the order.
Sentences in default
Amount
Period
£10,000 or less
6 months
More than £10,000 but no more than £500,000
5 years
More than £500,000 but no more than £1,000,000
7 years
More than £1,000,000
14 years
(Note: the valuation of counterfeit goods for the purposes of confiscation proceedings is not the same as the valuation used for the purposes of assessing harm in this sentencing guideline.)
Step 3 - Determining the offence category
The court should determine the offence category with reference only to the factors in the tables below. In order to determine the category the court should assess culpability and harm.
Culpability
Where there are factors present from more than one category of culpability, the court should weigh those factors in order to decide which category most resembles the offender’s case.
A – High culpability
Organisation plays a leading role in organised, planned unlawful activity whether acting alone or with others (indicators of planned activity may include but are not limited to: the use of multiple outlets or trading identities for the sale of counterfeit goods, the use of multiple accounts for receiving payment, the use of professional equipment to produce goods, the use of a website that mimics that of the trade mark owner or a legitimate trader, offending over a sustained period of time)
Involving others through pressure or coercion (for example employees or suppliers)
B – Medium culpability
Organisation plays a significant role in unlawful activity organised by others
Some degree of organisation/planning involved
Other cases that fall between categories A or C because:
Factors are present in A and C which balance each other out and/or
The offender’s culpability falls between the factors as described in A and C
C – Lesser culpability
Organisation plays a minor, peripheral role in unlawful activity organised by others
Involvement through coercion, intimidation or exploitation
Little or no organisation/planning
Limited awareness or understanding of the offence
Harm
The assessment of harm for this offence involves putting a monetary figure on the offending with reference to the value ofequivalent genuine goods and assessing any significant additional harm suffered by the trade mark owner or purchasers/ end users of the counterfeit goods:
Where there is evidence of the volume of counterfeit goods sold or possessed:
the monetary value should be assessed by taking the equivalentretailvalue of legitimate versions of the counterfeit goods involved in the offending
Where it would be impractical to assign an equivalent retail value of legitimate versions, an estimate should be used.
Where there is no evidence of the volume of counterfeit goods sold or possessed:
In the case of labels or packaging, harm should be assessed by taking the equivalentretailvalue of legitimate goods to which the labels or packaging could reasonably be applied, taking an average price of the relevant products.
In the case of equipment or articles for the making of copies of trade marks, the court will have to make an assessment of the scale of the operation and assign an equivalent value from the table below.
Note: the equivalent retail value is likely to be considerably higher than the actual value of the counterfeit items and this is accounted for in the sentence levels. However, in exceptional cases where the equivalent retail value is grossly disproportionate to the actual value, an adjustment may be made.
The general harm caused to purchasers/ end users (by being provided with counterfeit goods), to legitimate businesses (through loss of business) and to the owners of the trade mark (through loss of revenue and reputational damage) is reflected in the sentence levels at step 4.
Examples of significantadditional harm may include but are not limited to:
Substantial damage to the legitimate business of the trade mark owner (taking into account the size of the business)
Purchasers/ end users put at risk of physical harm from counterfeit goods
Where purchasers/ end users are put at risk ofdeath orserious physical harm from counterfeit goods, harm should be at least category 3 even if the equivalent retail value of the goods falls below £50,000.
Equivalentvalue of legitimate goods
Starting point based on
Category 1
£1million or more or category 2 value with significant additional harm
£2 million
Category 2
£300,000 – £1million or category 3 value with significant additional harm
£600,000
Category 3
£50,000 – £300,000 or category 4 value with significant additional harm
£125,000
Category 4
£5,000 – £50,000 or category 5 value with significant additional harm
£30,000
Category 5
Less than £5,000 and little or no significant additional harm
£2,500
Step 4 - Starting point and category range
Having determined the category at step one, the court should use the corresponding starting point to reach a sentence within the category range in the table below. The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions.
An adjustment from the starting point, upwards or downwards, may be necessary to reflect particular features of culpability and/or harm (for example, the presence of multiple factors within one category, the presence of factors from more than one category (where not already taken into account at step 1), or where a case falls close to a borderline between categories).
Where the value is larger or smaller than the amount on which the starting point is based, this should lead to upward or downward adjustment as appropriate.
For offences where the equivalent retail value is £1 million or more an upward adjustment within the category range should be made for any significant additional harm.
The fine levels below assume that the offending organisation has an annual turnover of not more than £2 million. In cases where turnover is higher, adjustment may need to be made at Step 5 below including outside the offence range.
Harm
Culpability
A
B
C
Category 1
£1 million or more
Starting point based on £2 million
Starting point £250,000
Starting point
£100,000
Starting point £50,000
Category range £150,000 – £450,000
Category range £50,000 – £200,000
Category range £25,000 – £100,000
Category 2 £300,000 – £1millionStarting point based on £600,000
Starting point £150,000
Starting point
£50,000
Starting point £25,000
Category range £75,000 – £250,000
Category range £25,000 – £100,000
Category range £15,000 – £50,000
Category 3 £50,000 - £300,000Starting point based on £125,000
Starting point £50,000
Starting point
£25,000
Starting point £10,000
Category range £25,000 – £100,000
Category range £15,000 – £50,000
Category range £5,000 – £25,000
Category 4 £5,000- £50,000Starting point based on £30,000
Starting point £25,000
Starting point
£10,000
Starting point £5,000
Category range £15,000 – £50,000
Category range £5,000 – £25,000
Category range £2,000 – £10,000
Category 5
Less than £5,000
Starting point based on £2,500
Starting point £10,000
Starting point £5,000
Starting point £1,000
Category range
£5,000 – £25,000
Category range £2,000 – £10,000
Category range £250 – £5,000
The tables below contain a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender. Identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in a further upward or downward adjustment. In some cases, having considered these factors, it may be appropriate to move outside the identified category range.
Factors increasing seriousness
Effective from: 01 April 2023
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Guidance on the use of previous convictions
The following guidance should be considered when seeking to determine the degree to which previous convictions should aggravate sentence:
Previous convictions are considered only after the starting point for the sentence has been reached.
The primary significance of previous convictions (including convictions in other jurisdictions) is the extent to which they indicate trends in offending behaviour and possibly the offender’s response to earlier sentences.
For sentencing purposes, previous convictions are normally relevant to the current offence when they are of a similar type.
Previous convictions of a type different from the current offence may be relevant where they are an indication of persistent offending or escalation and/or a failure to comply with previous court orders.
Where information is available on the context of previous offending this may assist the court in assessing the relevance of that prior offending to the current offence.
When considering the number and frequency of previous convictions it may be relevant to consider the size of the offending organisation. For example, a large organisation with multiple sites may be more likely to have previous convictions than a smaller organisation with only one site.
The aggravating effect of relevant previous convictions reduces with the passage of time; older convictions are less relevant to the offender’s culpability for the current offence and less likely to be predictive of future offending.
Where the previous offence is particularly old it will normally have little relevance for the current sentencing exercise.
The court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it. Where there has been a significant gap between previous and current convictions or a reduction in the frequency of offending this may indicate that the offender has made attempts to desist from offending in which case the aggravating effect of the previous offending will diminish.
Where the current offence is significantly less serious than the previous conviction (suggesting a decline in the gravity of offending), the previous conviction may carry less weight.
When considering the totality of previous offending a court should take a rounded view of the previous crimes and not simply aggregate the individual offences.
Organisation or subsidiary set up to commit counterfeiting activity
Counterfeiting activity endemic within organisation
Expectation of substantial financial gain
Purchasers put at risk of harm from counterfeit items (where not taken into account at step 3)
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
The more sophisticated, extensive or persistent the actions after the event, the more likely it is to increase the seriousness of the offence.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and lack of maturity when considering the significance of such conduct.
Where any such actions are the subject of separate charges, this should be taken into account when assessing totality.
Attempts to conceal identity
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Where an offender has had the benefit of warnings or advice about their conduct but has failed to heed it, this would make the offender more blameworthy.
This may particularly be the case when:
such warning(s) or advice were of an official nature or from a professional source and/or
the warning(s) were made at the time of or shortly before the commission of the offence.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Where the investigation has been hindered and/or other(s) have suffered as a result of being wrongly blamed by the offender, this will make the offence more serious.
This factor will not be engaged where an offender has simply exercised his or her right not to assist the investigation or accept responsibility for the offending.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and lack of maturity when considering the significance of such conduct.
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting mitigation
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
First time offenders usually represent a lower risk of reoffending. Reoffending rates for first offenders are significantly lower than rates for repeat offenders. In addition, first offenders are normally regarded as less blameworthy than offenders who have committed the same crime several times already. For these reasons first offenders receive a mitigated sentence.
Where there are previous offences but these are old and /or are for offending of a different nature, the sentence will normally be reduced to reflect that the new offence is not part of a pattern of offending and there is therefore a lower likelihood of reoffending.
When assessing whether a previous conviction is ‘recent’ the court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it.
Previous convictions are likely to be ‘relevant’ when they share characteristics with the current offence (examples of such characteristics include, but are not limited to: dishonesty, violence, abuse of position or trust, use or possession of weapons, disobedience of court orders). In general the more serious the previous offending the longer it will retain relevance.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
Assisting or cooperating with the investigation and /or making pre-court admissions may ease the effect on victims and witnesses and save valuable police time justifying a reduction in sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).
Little or no actual gain to organisation from offending
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
Where there has been an unreasonable delay in proceedings since apprehension which is not the fault of the offender, the court may take this into account by reducing the sentence if this has had a detrimental effect on the offender.
Note: No fault should attach to an offender for not admitting an offence and/or putting the prosecution to proof of its case.
General principles to follow in setting a fine. The court should determine the appropriate level of fine in accordance with section 125 of the Sentencing Code, which requires that the fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence and requires the court to take into account the financial circumstances of the offender.
Obtaining financial information
The offender is expected to provide comprehensive accounts for the last three years, to enable the court to make an accurate assessment of its financial status. In the absence of such disclosure, or where the court is not satisfied that it has been given sufficient reliable information, the court will be entitled to draw reasonable inferences as to the offender’s means from evidence it has heard and from all the circumstances of the case, which may include the inference that the offender can pay any fine.
Normally, only information relating to the organisation before the court will be relevant, unless exceptionally it is demonstrated to the court that the resources of a linked organisation are available and can properly be taken into account.
For companies: annual accounts. Particular attention should be paid to turnover; profit before tax; directors’ remuneration, loan accounts and pension provision; and assets as disclosed by the balance sheet. Most companies are required to file audited accounts at Companies House. Failure to produce relevant recent accounts on request may properly lead to the conclusion that the company can pay any appropriate fine.
For partnerships: annual accounts. Particular attention should be paid to turnover; profit before tax; partners’ drawings, loan accounts and pension provision; assets as above. Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) may be required to file audited accounts with Companies House. If adequate accounts are not produced on request, see paragraph 1.
For local authorities, fire authorities and similar public bodies: the Annual Revenue Budget (‘ARB’) is the equivalent of turnover and the best indication of the size of the organisation. It is unlikely to be necessary to analyse specific expenditure or reserves (where relevant) unless inappropriate expenditure is suggested.
For health trusts: the independent regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts is Monitor. It publishes quarterly reports and annual figures for the financial strength and stability of trusts from which the annual income can be seen, available via the Monitor website. Detailed analysis of expenditure or reserves is unlikely to be called for.
For charities: it will be appropriate to inspect annual audited accounts. Detailed analysis of expenditure or reserves is unlikely to be called for unless there is a suggestion of unusual or unnecessary expenditure.
Step 5 – Adjustment of fine
Note the fine levels above assume that the offending organisation has an annual turnover of not more than £2 million. In cases where turnover is higher, adjustment may need to be made including outside the offence range.
Having arrived at a fine level, the court should consider whether there are any further factors which indicate an adjustment in the level of the fine including outside the category range. The court should ‘step back’ and consider the overall effect of its orders. The combination of orders made, compensation, confiscation and fine ought to achieve:
the removal of all gain
appropriate additional punishment, and
deterrence
The fine may be adjusted to ensure that these objectives are met in a fair way. The court should consider any further factors relevant to the setting of the level of the fine to ensure that the fine is proportionate, having regard to the size and financial position of the offending organisation and the seriousness of the offence.
The fine must be substantial enough to have a real economic impact which will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to operate within the law. Whether the fine will have the effect of putting the offender out of business will be relevant; in some bad cases this may be an acceptable consequence.
In considering the ability of the offending organisation to pay any financial penalty the court can take into account the power to allow time for payment or to order that the amount be paid in instalments.
The court should consider whether the level of fine would otherwise cause unacceptable harm to third parties. In doing so the court should bear in mind that the payment of any compensation determined at step one should take priority over the payment of any fine.
Below is a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements for the court to consider.
The court should identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in a proportionate increase or reduction in the level of fine.
Factors to consider in adjusting the level of fine
Fine fulfils the objectives of punishment, deterrence and removal of gain
The value, worth or available means of the offender
Fine impairs offender’s ability to make restitution to victims
Impact of fine on offender’s ability to implement effective compliance programmes
Impact of fine on employment of staff, service users, customers and local economy (but not shareholders)
Impact of fine on performance of public or charitable function
Step 6 - Consider any factors which indicate a reduction, such as assistance to the prosecution
The court should take into account section 74 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentence for assistance to prosecution) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.
Case law has established that there are no inflexible rules as to the method by which any reduction should be assessed nor the amount of the reduction. It will be a fact specific decision in each case. The rationale for making a reduction is the same whether the statutory procedure or the common law “text” procedure has been engaged. In principle, there is no reason to distinguish between the two procedures in terms of the extent of the reduction which is made. See also the relevant Criminal Procedure Rules: CPR 28.11 (statutory procedure) CPR 28.12 (text procedure).
The following sequence of matters for a sentencing court to consider reflects case law:
The court should assess the seriousness of the offences being sentenced following any relevant sentencing guidelines.
The court should then consider the quality and quantity of the material provided by the offender in the investigation and subsequent prosecution of crime. The court should take into account the period of time over which the information was provided and the seriousness of the offending to which it relates. Particular value should be attached to those cases where the offender provides evidence in the form of a witness statement or is prepared to give evidence at any subsequent trial, especially where the information either produces convictions for the most serious offences, or prevents them, or which leads to disruption of major criminal networks. In cases where it is too early to say what impact the information will have, the Court should take into account the potential value of the information provided.
This consideration should be made in the context of the nature and extent of the personal risks to, and potential consequences faced by, the offender and members of the offender’s family.
A guilty plea is not an essential prerequisite of the making of a reduction for information and assistance provided, but contesting guilt may be one of the factors relevant to the extent of the reduction made for that assistance. The extent to which an offender has been prepared to admit the full extent of their criminality is relevant to the level of the reduction.
Any reduction for a guilty plea is separate from and additional to the appropriate reduction for assistance provided by the offender. The reduction for the assistance provided by the offender should be assessed first to arrive at a notional sentence and any guilty plea reduction applied to that notional sentence.
A mathematical approach to determining the level of reduction for assistance to the authorities is liable to produce an inappropriate answer – the totality principle is fundamental.
Where the statutory procedure applies, the court should take into account that this requires offenders to reveal the whole of their previous criminal activities which will often entail pleading guilty to offences which the offender would never otherwise have faced.
An informer can generally only expect to receive credit once for past information or assistance, and for that reason the court should be notified whether particular information and assistance has been taken into account in imposing a previous sentence or when making an application to the Parole Board.
The court should enquire whether an offender has received payment for assistance provided and if so, how much. Financial reward and a reduction in sentence are complementary means of incentivising the disclosure of the criminal activities of others and therefore a financial reward, unless exceptionally generous, should play only a small, if any, part in the sentencer’s decision.
The totality principle is critical in the context of an offender who is already serving a sentence, and who enters into an agreement to provide information which discloses previous criminal activities and comes before the court to be sentenced for the new crimes, as well as for a review of the original sentence (under section 388 of the Sentencing Code).
Where an offender has committed serious crimes, neither the statutory nor common law process provide immunity from punishment, and, subject to appropriate reductions, an appropriate sentence should be passed. By providing assistance to the authorities the offender is entitled to a reduction from the sentence which would otherwise be appropriate to reflect the assistance provided to the administration of justice, and to encourage others to do the same.
It is only in the most exceptional case that the appropriate level of reduction would exceed three quarters of the total sentence which would otherwise be passed. The normal level for the provision of valuable information will be a reduction of somewhere between one half and two thirds of that sentence.
In cases where the information provided was of limited value, the reduction may be less than one half and where the information given is unreliable, vague, lacking in practical utility or already known to the authorities, any reduction made will be minimal.
The risk to an offender who provides information, and the importance of the public interest in encouraging criminals to inform on other criminals, will often mean that the court will not be able to make any explicit reference to the provision of information or the reduction of the sentence on that ground. The duty to give reasons for the sentence will be discharged in such cases by the judge stating that the court has considered all the matters of mitigation which have been brought to its attention. See also CPR 28.12(4).
If sentencing an offender for more than one offence, consider whether the total sentence is just and proportionate to the offending behaviour in accordance with the Totality guideline.
The prosecution may apply for forfeiture of goods or materials bearing a sign likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark or articles designed for making copies of such a sign.
The court shall make an order for forfeiture only if it is satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed in relation to the goods, material or articles.
A court may infer that such an offence has been committed in relation to any goods, material or articles if it is satisfied that such an offence has been committed in relation to goods, material or articles which are representative of them (whether by reason of being of the same design or part of the same consignment or batch or otherwise).
Relevant offences
an offence under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (unauthorised use of trade mark, etc in relation to goods)
an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968
an offence under the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008
an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
an offence under Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, or
any offence involving dishonesty or deception
Destruction or conditional release of forfeited goods
Where any goods, material or articles are forfeited under this section they shall be destroyed in accordance with such directions as the court may give.
On making an order under this section the court may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, direct that the goods, material or articles to which the order relates shall (instead of being destroyed) be released, to such person as the court may specify, on condition that that person
(a) causes the offending sign to be erased, removed or obliterated, and
(b) complies with any order to pay costs which has been made against them in the proceedings for the order for forfeiture.
The court has the power to deprive an offender of any property used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of an offence, whether or not it deals with the offender in any other way. This includes where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring.
Facilitating the commission of the offence includes any steps taken to, either dispose of any property relating to the offence or avoid apprehension or detection.
Vehicles used for the purpose of certain offences
A vehicle is to be treated as used for the purpose of certain offences (see below) where the person commits the offence by:
driving; attempting to drive, or being in charge of a vehicle,
failing to provide a specimen or give permission for such a test in the course of an investigation into whether they had committed an offence while driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a vehicle. Road Traffic Act 1988 section 7 or 7A, or
failing, as the driver of a vehicle, to stop and give information or report an accident. Road Traffic Act 1988, section 170(2) and (3).
Those offences are:
an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is punishable with imprisonment
an offence of manslaughter
an offence under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (wanton and furious driving).
Considerations
The court must have regard to the value of the property and the likely financial and other effects on the offender of making the order.
If the court considers that the offence related to immigration or asylum, or was committed for a purpose in connection with immigration or asylum, it may order that the property is to be taken into the possession of the Secretary of State.
Please tell us if there is an issue with this guideline to do with the accuracy of the content, how easy the guideline is to understand and apply, or accessibility/broken links.