Former Bedford businessman jailed over multi-million pound counterfeit prescription drugs racket fails in bid to reduce sentence

A former Bedford businessman who was jailed for nine and a half years earlier this year for his part in a multi million pound racket selling counterfeit prescription drugs has failed in a bid to reduce his sentence.

Christopher Kirkby of Shefford, used his gym and nutrition business in Bedford as a cover for the racket in which he and two others had been involved in production of counterfeit prescription drugs with a value of around £20 million.

Between 2014 and 2017 he and the other two were involved in production, packaging, distribution and supply of alprazolam on a commercial scale. The drug is a benzodiazepine prescription only tranquiliser.

Kirkby was jailed at Portsmouth Crown Court on 31 March for three offences to which he had pleaded guilty – two of conspiracy and one of converting criminal property.

However, in the Court of Appeal his lawyers argued before three top judges, Lady Justice Thirlwall, Mrs Justice Stacey and Judge Potter that his sentence was excessive.

But the judge who jailed him had said that the production of the counterfeit drugs had been on an “industrial scale” and that there were risks of severe adverse effects, possibly death, when such drugs were used by naïve users or the drugs were mixed with other drugs.

Dismissing appeal and upholding the sentence Mrs Justice Stacey said that Kirkby, who had previous convictions, had “directed and organised buying and selling of drugs on a commercial scale, had expectation of substantial financial advantage, had substantial influence on others in the chain of supply, had close links to the original source of manufacturing of the drugs and used his business as a cover for his illegal activities.”

Kirkby’s lawyers had argued that there was disparity between his sentence and the sentences of the other involved. But Mrs Justice Stacey said the court rejected the disparity argument.

She continued: “In our view the judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant’s role was the most senior in this organised crime group. He was the prime mover and driving force behind the operation.

“It might be thought that the other two were fortunate in their sentences but that is not the issue. The sentence imposed upon the appellant reflected the whole of the criminality. It was neither unjust nor disproportionate. It was not manifestly excessive. The appeal is dismissed.”