R. v Adam (Rafiq Ahmed)

Date

19 March 1998

Legislation

Trade Descriptions Act 1968
Trade Marks Act 1994

Keywords

custody threshold; sentencing; criminal trade mark offences; mitigation of sentence; repetition of criminal conduct

Counsel

F Khan

Solicitors:

Judge

May LJ; Scott Baker J; Keene J

Court

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported

[1998] 2 Cr App R (S) 403

Summary

Adam pleaded guilty to three offences of using an unauthorised trade mark and one offence of obtaining property by deception in respect of which he was sentenced to four months concurrent. He was also sentenced for one offence of applying a false trade description, four of using unauthorised trade marks and one offence of obstructing an authorised officer on an indictment transferred from another court. In relation to these other offences he was sentenced to two months concurrent and one month for obstructing consecutive making a total of three months. The three months were made consecutive to the four months on the other indictment making a total of seven months.

Adam sold goods in a market and was approached there by Hampshire County Council Trading Standards Department. He was found selling more counterfeit clothing some months later at Wembley Market.

Adam was 35 years old, married with four young children, had no employment and was in receipt of income support. His case was that he had been hired to work on the stalls by a man who owned both the stalls and the goods being sold called Mr Patel and had been paid only £25 per day.

Adam accepted that the case passed the custody threshold but argued that the length of the sentence (7 months in total) was excessive. The Court of Appeal reviewed the previous case law and noted that no sentencing decision had involved market traders.

Decision

It held that this type of case calls for a deterrent sentence and that the level of sentence was entirely appropriate particularly given that Adam had persisted in identical conduct after he had a clear warning when he was given bail by the judge. The Court noted that seven months was a severe sentence, but not one that could be categorised as manifestly excessive.