High Court reduces prison sentences of four men involved in NHS procurement fraud

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] HCJAC 16
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Ericht

Alan Hush, Gavin Cox, Adam Sharoudi, and Gavin Brown were all convicted by a jury in April 2025 in respect of charges under the Bribery Act 2010 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of supplies to health boards, with Mr Hush and Mr Sharoudi also convicted of charges of fraud. The court was asked to determine whether the sentences imposed on the latter two ought to have run concurrently rather than consecutively, and more generally whether the sentences imposed were excessive.

The appeals were heard by Lord Ericht and Lady Carmichael in the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary.

Corrupt process

Between 2010 and 2017, Mr Brown and Mr Sharoudi were directors and shareholders of Oricom Ltd, while Mr Hush was employed as telecommunications manager at NHS Lothian and Mr Cox was employed as head of information technology infrastructure at NHS Lanarkshire. The individual charges covered different aspects of a course of conduct in which Mr Brown and Mr Sharoudi provided incentives to Mr Hush, Mr Cox, and others with a combined value of £88,000, including event tickets, hospitality, laptops and tablets, travel, holidays, and cash, in return for the supply of commercially sensitive information and the award of certain procurements for the installation and maintenance of telecom equipment to Oricom.

Mr Sharoudi and Mr Hush were given sentences totalling eight years’ imprisonment, Mr Brown one of seven years’ imprisonment, and Mr Cox one of six years’ imprisonment. The two appellants whose sentences were consecutive, Mr Sharoudi and Mr Hush, both appealed on the ground that the sentences should have been concurrent. Their counsel submitted in respect of their respective client that the sentences were all part of the same course of events and should not have been treated separately

For Mr Sharoudi it was submitted that there was no question of the company charging for work that was unnecessary or incomplete. The essence of the crime for which he was being sentenced was the corrupt process rather than any loss suffered. In Mr Hush’s case, he had received a personal benefit of £26,272.63, which was relatively modest taking into account the time period.

Counsel for Mr Brown submitted that the work performed by Oricom was carried out to a high standard and at a competitive price and he did not benefit over what would be expected as a company director. In Mr Cox’s case, insufficient weight had been placed on his personal circumstances and the judge failed to draw an appropriate distinction in terms of comparative justice with the co-accused.

Overlapped in the period

Lord Ericht, delivering the opinion of the court, said of whether concurrent sentences ought to have been imposed on Mr Hush and Mr Sharoudi: “We take the view that all the sentences formed part of the same course of criminal conduct in an ongoing business relationship with NHS Health Boards for the supply of equipment over the period from 2010 to 2017. The individual charges cover different aspects of that same course of conduct, which involved bribery and corruption, fraud in a procurement exercise, fraud relating to invoices for goods that had not been supplied and acquiring criminal property namely the contractual sums paid by health boards.”

He continued: “The individual offences in the charges were not separate unrelated offences committed at separate times but overlapped during the time period of the course of conduct: the first group of charges covers 2010 - 2014, the second group 2012 and 2014 and the third group from 2010 to 2017. Accordingly the judge erred in imposing a consecutive sentence. Mr Hush participated in the same course of criminal conduct as Mr Sharoudi between 2010 to 2015 and the judge made the same error in imposing a consecutive sentence.”

Considering whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred in Mr Sharoudi’s case, Lord Ericht said: “Mr Sharoudi played a leading role in a long running course of corruption which undermined of the proper function of National Health Service procurement. The sentencing judge gave consideration to the personal circumstances of Mr Sharoudi and gave them appropriate weight. However, we require to consider whether the error in imposing a consecutive sentence has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In our view it has.”

He added in respect of Mr Hush: “Mr Hush played a crucial role in a corrupt process over a 5-year period. He was an internal Health Board employee who was the other side of the coin of the offending of Mr Sharoudi and Mr Brown. The sentencing judge took appropriate account of his personal circumstances. However, as with Mr Sharoudi, the error in imposing a consecutive sentence has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The overall sentence of 8 years is excessive.”

Turning to the appellants who were not convicted of fraud offences, Lord Ericht said of Mr Brown: “If his sentence of seven years on the corruption and bribery offences remains as seven years, then the totality of his sentence will equal the totality of the sentences of Mr Sharoudi and Mr Hush. That would result in a miscarriage of justice in respective of comparative justice between Mr Brown and his co-accused Mr Sharoudi and Mr Hush. We agree with Mr Brown’s counsel that a sentence of less than seven years would be appropriate.”

He concluded on Mr Cox: “The sentencing judge took the view that a lower sentence should be imposed on Mr Cox than on the other appellants, and we agree with that view. Having reduced the sentences of the other appellants, in the interests of comparative justice we shall reduce Mr Cox’s sentence on the corruption charge from 6 years to 5 years.”

Accordingly, the total period of imprisonment for each appellant was reduced by one year.

Representation:

First Appellant: McCall KC, Mori; Lothians Criminal Defence
Second Appellant: Martin KC, (sol adv); John Pryde & Co (for Russells Gibson McCaffrey,
Glasgow)
Third Appellant: McConnachie KC; Paterson Bell (for KM Law, Glasgow)
Fourth Appellant: Jones KC, Loosemore; Paterson Bell (for John Kilcoyne & Co, Glasgow)
Respondent: Nicolson KC; Crown agent