R v Paul James Merrell
[2024] EWCA Crim 558
R v Mark Gould
6 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 669
Court of Appeal
Mark Gould illegally streamed TV, making millions. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison. He appealed, arguing the sentence was too long and that he should have received concurrent sentences. The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying the sentence was fair given the seriousness and scale of his crimes.
Key Facts
- •Mark Gould sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment (6 years for Count 1 conspiracy to defraud, 4 years 2 months for Count 2 conspiracy to defraud, 10 months for contempt of court).
- •Gould ran Flawless Hosting and successor services, illicitly streaming pay-TV content, generating millions in profit.
- •Counts 1 and 2 related to two phases of the operation (Aug 2016 - May 2018 and May 2018 - July 2021 respectively).
- •Gould breached a Restraint Order, dissipating over £181,000.
- •Appeal against sentence was made three days out of time but the court granted an extension.
- •Appeal focused on the length of sentence and the imposition of consecutive sentences.
Legal Principles
Right of appeal against contempt of court sentence within 28 days under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
Section 13, Administration of Justice Act 1960
Calculation of loss in conspiracy to defraud: considers potential loss to legitimate broadcasters had subscribers obtained content legitimately, not just actual profit gained.
R v Rose [2008] 1 WLR 2113 (approved in part by R v Waya [2012] UKSC 51), R v Barton and Another [2020] EWCA Crim 575
Definition of conspiracy to defraud: not strictly limited to injury to proprietary rights; considers broader harm caused.
R v Scott [1975] AC 819, R v H [2015] EWCA Crim 46
Totality principle in sentencing: consecutive sentences appropriate where offences are of the same or similar kind, but concurrent sentences wouldn't reflect the overall criminality.
Sentencing Council Totality Guideline, R v Fletcher [2024] 1 WLR 1433, R v Schools [2023] EWCA Crim 422
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence for contempt dismissed.
Judge's error in stating the amount dissipated didn't affect the assessment of the seriousness of the contempt.
Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentences for conspiracy to defraud refused.
Court upheld the judge's calculation of loss, the imposition of consecutive sentences, and the overall length of the sentence as not manifestly excessive.