Individuals: Trade mark, unauthorised use of etc.

A – High culpability

• Sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning (examples 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)
• A leading role where offending is part of a group activity
• Involvement of others through coercion, intimidation or exploitation

B – Medium culpability

• Some degree of organisation/planning involved
• A significant role where offending is part of a group activity
• 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

• Little or no organisation/planning
• Performed limited function under direction
• Involved through coercion, intimidation or exploitation
• Limited awareness or understanding of the offence

1. Where there is evidence of the volume of counterfeit goods sold or possessed: 
   1. the monetary value should be assessed by taking the equivalent retail value of legitimate versions of the counterfeit goods involved in the offending
   2. Where it would be impractical to assign an equivalent retail value of legitimate versions, an estimate should be used.
2. Where there is no evidence of the volume of counterfeit goods sold or possessed:
   1. In the case of labels or packaging, harm should be assessed by taking the equivalent retail value of legitimate goods to which the labels or packaging could reasonably be applied, taking an average price of the relevant products.
   2. 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 2.

Examples of significant additional 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 of death or serious 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.

Statutory aggravating factors

• Previous convictions,

  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

  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:

  Section 65 of the Sentencing Code states that:

  (1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence (“the current offence”) committed by an offender who has one or more relevant previous convictions.

  (2) The court must treat as an aggravating factor each relevant previous conviction that it considers can reasonably be so treated, having regard in particular to— (a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence, and (b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction.

  (3) Where the court treats a relevant previous conviction as an aggravating factor under subsection (2) it must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.

  1. Previous convictions are considered at step two in the Council’s offence-specific guidelines.
  2. 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.
  3. Previous convictions are normally of relevance to the current offence when they are of a similar type.
  4. Previous convictions of a type different from the current offence may be of relevance where they are an indication of persistent offending or escalation and/or a failure to comply with previous court orders.
  5. Numerous and frequent previous convictions might indicate an underlying problem (for example, an addiction) that could be addressed more effectively in the community and will not necessarily indicate that a custodial sentence is necessary.
  6. If the offender received a non-custodial disposal for the previous offence, a court should not necessarily move to a custodial sentence for the fresh offence.
  7. In cases involving significant persistent offending, the community and custody thresholds may be crossed even though the current offence normally warrants a lesser sentence. If a custodial sentence is imposed it should be proportionate and kept to the necessary minimum.
  8. The aggravating effect of relevant previous convictions reduces with the passage of time; older convictions are of less relevance to the offender’s culpability for the current offence and less likely to be predictive of future offending.
  9. Where the previous offence is particularly old it will normally have little relevance for the current sentencing exercise.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
• Offence committed whilst on bail

  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

  Section 64 of the Sentencing Code states:

  In considering the seriousness of any offence committed while the offender was on bail, the court must - (a) treat the fact that it was committed in those circumstances as an aggravating factor and (b) state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.  

Other aggravating factors

• Purchasers or others put at risk of harm from counterfeit items (where not taken into account at step 1)
• Expectation of substantial financial gain
• Attempts to conceal/dispose of evidence

  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
• Failure to respond to warnings about behaviour

  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.

• Blame wrongly placed on others

  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.

• Offences taken into consideration

  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

  Taken from the Offences Taken into Consideration Definitive Guideline: General principles When sentencing an offender who requests offences to be taken into consideration (TICs), courts should pass a total sentence which reflects all the offending behaviour. The sentence must be just and proportionate and must not exceed the statutory maximum for the conviction offence. Offences to be Taken into Consideration The court has discretion as to whether or not to take TICs into account. In exercising its discretion the court should take into account that TICs are capable of reflecting the offender's overall criminality. The court is likely to consider that the fact that the offender has assisted the police (particularly if the offences would not otherwise have been detected) and avoided the need for further proceedings demonstrates a genuine determination by the offender to ‘wipe the slate clean’. It is generally undesirable for TICs to be accepted in the following circumstances:

  • where the TIC is likely to attract a greater sentence than the conviction offence;
  • where it is in the public interest that the TIC should be the subject of a separate charge;

  • where the offender would avoid a prohibition, ancillary order or similar consequence which it would have been desirable to impose on conviction. For example:
    • where the TIC attracts mandatory disqualification or endorsement and the offence(s) for which the defendant is to be sentenced do not;
  • where the TIC constitutes a breach of an earlier sentence;
  • where the TIC is a specified offence for the purposes of section 306 of the Sentencing Code, but the conviction offence is non-specified; or
  • where the TIC is not founded on the same facts or evidence or part of a series of offences of the same or similar character (unless the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so).

  Jurisdiction The magistrates' court cannot take into consideration an indictable only offence. The Crown Court can take into account summary only offences provided the TICs are founded on the same facts or evidence as the indictable charge, or are part of a series of offences of the same or similar character as the indictable conviction offence Procedural safeguards A court should generally only take offences into consideration if the following procedural provisions have been satisfied:

  • the police or prosecuting authorities have prepared a schedule of offences (TIC schedule) that they consider suitable to be taken into consideration. The TIC schedule should set out the nature of each offence, the date of the offence(s), relevant detail about the offence(s) (including, for example, monetary values of items) and any other brief details that the court should be aware of;
  • a copy of the TIC schedule must be provided to the defendant and his representative (if he has one) before the sentence hearing. The defendant should sign the TIC schedule to provisionally admit the offences;
  • at the sentence hearing, the court should ask the defendant in open court whether he admits each of the offences on the TIC schedule and whether he wishes to have them taken into consideration;
  • if there is any doubt about the admission of a particular offence, it should not be accepted as a TIC. Special care should be taken with vulnerable and/or unrepresented defendants;
  • if the defendant is committed to the Crown Court for sentence, this procedure must take place again at the Crown Court even if the defendant has agreed to the schedule in the magistrates' court.

  Application The sentence imposed on an offender should, in most circumstances, be increased to reflect the fact that other offences have been taken into consideration. The court should:

  1. Determine the sentencing starting point for the conviction offence, referring to the relevant definitive sentencing guidelines. No regard should be had to the presence of TICs at this stage.
  2. Consider whether there are any aggravating or mitigating factors that justify an upward or downward adjustment from the starting point.

  The presence of TlCs should generally be treated as an aggravating feature that justifies an adjustment from the starting point. Where there is a large number of TICs, it may be appropriate to move outside the category range, although this must be considered in the context of the case and subject to the principle of totality. The court is limited to the statutory maximum for the conviction offence.

  3. Continue through the sentencing process including:

  • consider whether the frank admission of a number of offences is an indication of a defendant's remorse or determination and/ or demonstration of steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour;
  • any reduction for a guilty plea should be applied to the overall sentence;
  • the principle of totality;
  • when considering ancillary orders these can be considered in relation to any or all of the TICs, specifically:
    • compensation orders;
    • restitution orders
• Failure to comply with current court orders

  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

  • Commission of an offence while subject to a relevant court order makes the offence more serious.
  • The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of an order (including the time that has elapsed since its commencement) will be a relevant consideration.
  • Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of an order regard should be had to totality
  • Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.

  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.

• Offence committed on licence or post sentence supervision

  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

  • An offender who is subject to licence or post sentence supervision is under a particular obligation to desist from further offending.
  • The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of a licence or order (including the time that has elapsed since its commencement) will be a relevant consideration.
  • Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of a licence or order regard should be had to totality.
  • Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.

  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.

• No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions

  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.
• Remorse

  Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)

  Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

  The court will need to be satisfied that the offender is genuinely remorseful for the offending behaviour in order to reduce the sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).

  Lack of remorse should never be treated as an aggravating factor.

  Remorse can present itself in many different ways. A simple assertion of the fact may be insufficient.

  The court should be aware that the offender’s demeanour in court or the way they articulate their feelings of remorse may be affected by, for example:

  • nervousness
  • a lack of understanding of the system
  • mental disorder
  • learning disabilities
  • communication difficulties (including where English is not their first language)
  • a belief that they have been or will be discriminated against
  • peer pressure to behave in a certain way because of others present
  • age and/or a lack of maturity etc.

  If a PSR has been prepared it may provide valuable assistance in this regard.

  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.

• Positive character and/or exemplary conduct (regardless of previous convictions)

  Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)

  Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

  Evidence that an offender has demonstrated a positive side to their character may reduce the sentence.

  This factor may apply whether or not the offender has previous convictions. 

  However:

  • This factor is less likely to be relevant where the offending is very serious
  • Where an offender has used their positive character or status to facilitate or conceal the offending it could be treated as an aggravating factor.

   

• Offender co-operated with investigation, made early admissions and/or voluntarily reported 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

  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).

• Expectation of limited financial gain
• Lapse of time since apprehension where this does not arise from the conduct of the offender

  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.

   

• Serious medical conditions requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment

  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 court can take account of physical disability or a serious medical condition by way of mitigation as a reason for reducing the length of the sentence, either on the ground of the greater impact which imprisonment will have on the offender, or as a matter of generally expressed mercy in the individual circumstances of the case.
  • However, such a condition, even when it is difficult to treat in prison, will not automatically entitle the offender to a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.
  • There will always be a need to balance issues personal to an offender against the gravity of the offending (including the harm done to victims), and the public interest in imposing appropriate punishment for serious offending.
  • A terminal prognosis is not in itself a reason to reduce the sentence even further. The court must impose a sentence that properly meets the aims of sentencing even if it will carry the clear prospect that the offender will die in custody. The prospect of death in the near future will be a matter considered by the prison authorities and the Secretary of State under the early release on compassionate grounds procedure (ERCG).
  • But, an offender’s knowledge that he will likely face the prospect of death in prison, subject only to the ERCG provisions, is a factor that can be considered by the sentencing judge when determining the sentence that it would be just to impose.
• Age and/or lack of maturity (which may be applicable to offenders aged 18-25)

  Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)

  Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

  Where a person has committed the offence under the age of 18, regard should be had to the overarching guideline for sentencing children and young people. That guideline may also be relevant to offending by young adults.

  Age and/or lack of maturity can affect:

  • the offender’s responsibility for the offence and
  • the effect of the sentence on the offender.

  Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence.

  The emotional and developmental age of an offender is of at least equal importance to their chronological age (if not greater). 

  In particular young adults (typically aged 18-25) are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to:

  • evaluate the consequences of their actions
  • limit impulsivity
  • limit risk taking

  Young adults are likely to be susceptible to peer pressure and are more likely to take risks or behave impulsively when in company with their peers.

  Immaturity can also result from atypical brain development. Environment plays a role in neurological development and factors such as adverse childhood experiences including deprivation and/or abuse may affect development.

  An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with custody and therefore may be more susceptible to self-harm in custody.

  An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with the requirements of a community order without appropriate support.

  There is a greater capacity for change in immature offenders and they may be receptive to opportunities to address their offending behaviour and change their conduct.

  Many young people who offend either stop committing crime, or begin a process of stopping, in their late teens and early twenties.  Therefore a young adult’s previous convictions may not be indicative of a tendency for further offending.

  Where the offender is is care experienced or a care leaver the court should enquire as to any effect a sentence may have on the offender’s ability to make use of support from the local authority. (Young adult care leavers are entitled to time limited support. Leaving care services may change at the age of 21 and cease at the age of 25, unless the young adult is in education at that point). See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 1.16 and 1.17).

  Where an offender has turned 18 between the commission of the offence and conviction the court should take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date at which the offence was committed, but applying the purposes of sentencing adult offenders. See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3).

  When considering a custodial or community sentence for a young adult the Probation Service should address these issues in a PSR.

• Mental disorder or learning disability

  Effective from: 01 October 2020

  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

  Refer to the Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments guideline.

  Note in particular paragraph 5 for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic offenders.

• Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives

  Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)

  Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

  This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered.  See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.

  For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.

  Where custody is unavoidable consideration of the impact on dependants may be relevant to the length of the sentence imposed and whether the sentence can be suspended.

  For more serious offences where a substantial period of custody is appropriate, this factor will carry less weight.

  ­When imposing a community sentence on an offender with primary caring responsibilities the effect on dependants must be considered in determining suitable requirements.

  The court should ensure that it has all relevant information about dependent children before deciding on sentence.

  When an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, the court must consider whether proper arrangements have been made for the care of any dependent children and if necessary consider adjourning sentence for this to be done.

  When considering a community or custodial sentence for an offender who has, or may have, caring responsibilities the court should ask the Probation Service to address these issues in a PSR.

  Useful information can be found in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (see in particular Chapter 6 paragraphs 119 to 125)

• Pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal care

  Effective from: 01 April 2024

  Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

  When considering a custodial or community sentence for a pregnant or postnatal offender (someone who has given birth in the previous 12 months) the Probation Service should be asked to address the issues below in a pre-sentence report. If a suitable pre-sentence report is not available, sentencing should normally be adjourned until one is available.

  When sentencing a pregnant or postnatal woman, relevant considerations may include:

  • the medical needs of the offender including her mental health needs
  • any effect of the sentence on the physical and mental health of the offender
  • any effect of the sentence on the child

  The impact of custody on an offender who is pregnant or postnatal can be harmful for both the offender and the child including by separation, especially in the first two years of life.

  Access to a place in a prison Mother & Baby Unit is not automatic and when available, the court may wish to enquire for how long the place will be available.

  Women in custody are likely to have complex health needs which may increase the risks associated with pregnancy for both the offender and the child. The NHS classifies all pregnancies in prison as high risk.

  There may be difficulties accessing medical assistance or specialist maternity services in custody.

  This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered. See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.

  For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.

  Where immediate custody is unavoidable, all of the factors above may be relevant to the length of the sentence.

  The court should address the issues above when giving reasons for the sentence.

• Difficult and/or deprived background or personal circumstances

  Effective from: 01 April 2024

  Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

  The court may be assisted by a pre-sentence report in assessing whether there are factors in the offender’s background or current personal circumstances which may be relevant to sentencing. Such factors may be relevant to:

  • the offender’s responsibility for the offence and/or
  • the effect of the sentence on the offender.

  Courts should consider that different groups within the criminal justice system have faced multiple disadvantages which may have a bearing on their offending. Such disadvantages include but are not limited to:

  • experience of discrimination
  • negative experiences of authority
  • early experience of loss, neglect or abuse
  • early experience of offending by family members
  • being care experienced or a care leaver
  • negative influences from peers
  • difficulties relating to the misuse of drugs and/or alcohol (but note: being voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence is an aggravating factor)
  • low educational attainment
  • insecure housing
  • mental health difficulties
  • poverty
  • direct or indirect victim of domestic abuse

  There are a wide range of personal experiences or circumstances that may be relevant to offending behaviour. The Equal Treatment Bench Book contains useful information on social exclusion and poverty (see in particular Chapter 11, paragraphs 58 to 71). The Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments guideline may also be of relevance.

• Prospects of or in work, training or education

  Effective from: 01 April 2024

  Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

  This factor is particularly relevant where an offender is on the cusp of custody or where the suitability of a community order is being considered.  See also the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline.

  Where an offender is in, or has a realistic prospect of starting, work, education or training this may indicate a willingness to rehabilitate and desist from future offending.

  Similarly, the loss of employment, education or training opportunities may have a negative impact on the likelihood of an offender being rehabilitated or desisting from future offending.

  The court may be assisted by a pre-sentence report in assessing the relevance of this factor to the individual offender.

  The absence of work, training or education should never be treated as an aggravating factor.

  The court may ask for evidence of employment, training etc or the prospects of such, but should bear in mind any reasonable practical difficulties an offender may have in providing this.

  For more serious offences where a substantial period of custody is appropriate, this factor will carry less (if any) weight.