Bolton Medicina Director Kenneth Harrison Given Suspended Sentence 2026

Key Points

• Kenneth Harrison, 70, a businessman from Bolton, has been handed a suspended jail sentence following conviction for fraud offenses.
• The prosecution took place in the Manchester Crown Court involving the selling of medical devices by Medicina Ltd, a company situated in Blackrod, Bolton.
• It emerged that there were three types of products which bore fake CE mark indicating that they had gone through conformity assessment.
• These products include enteral feeding pumps for critically ill babies, gastrostomy button devices and blunt fill needles.
• The products were marketed to NHS hospitals and customers internationally earning a sale of over £500,000.
• According to the prosecutor, the products were advertised as having met rigorous testing criteria despite not going through the required testing.
• There were no indications that the patients suffered injuries while using the devices.
• Harrison was identified as the brain behind Medicina and has been barred from taking up the position of director of a company for eight years.
• According to Harrison’s lawyer, customers who purchased the pumps got their money back and asserted that the needles had never been used on patients.
• Medicina Ltd awaits sentencing separately.

Bolton (Manchester Mirror) September 24, 2026 – Businessman arrested is the focus of a Manchester Crown Court case involving a medical company accused of placing counterfeit CE marks on devices supplied to NHS hospitals and customers overseas. Kenneth Harrison, 70, was sentenced on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, after being convicted of fraud-related offences connected with his role at Medicina Ltd.

The following report is written in the inverted-pyramid structure, with the most significant confirmed information presented first.

What sentence did Kenneth Harrison receive?

Kenneth Harrison received a suspended prison sentence and was disqualified from acting as a company director for eight years. The sentence followed his conviction for offences involving dishonest and fraudulent claims made by Medicina Ltd and the supply of items intended for fraudulent use.

The case was heard at Manchester Crown Court. Harrison, who lives on Blackburn Road in Bolton, was identified in court as a director of the Blackrod-based medical company and as the person who drove the business.

The precise length of the suspended prison term was not stated in the published report. The court instead focused on the seriousness of the offences, the potential risks associated with falsely labelled medical equipment and the factors that allowed Harrison to avoid immediate imprisonment.

Judge Timothy Smith said Harrison’s conviction represented a serious decline from his previous standing. The judge described it as “a substantial stain on what was previous good character”, according to the Manchester Evening News report.

The judge also referred to Harrison’s business history. He had co-founded Medicina in 1991 and helped build the company’s reputation and commercial success. However, Judge Smith said that, over time, Harrison had treated regulatory compliance as an unnecessary burden and chosen to overlook it.

What medical devices were involved in the case?

The prosecution concerned three categories of medical devices marketed by Medicina Ltd.

The products included enteral feeding pumps intended for critically ill infants. Enteral feeding equipment is used to deliver nutrition directly to a patient’s digestive system, making reliability and regulatory compliance particularly important in hospital settings.

The second category consisted of gastrostomy button devices. These devices are used to provide direct access for feeding or administering medication.

The third product line involved blunt fill needles used to transfer medicines. The court heard that the devices were supplied with marks that falsely suggested they had met the required standards.

The Manchester Evening News reported that counterfeit CE marks had been placed on the three devices. A CE mark indicates that a product has been assessed against applicable European safety, health and environmental protection requirements. In this case, prosecutors said the marking gave customers the false impression that the devices had successfully completed the necessary conformity assessments.

Paul Ozin KC, the prosecutor, told the court that the devices had been engineered to misrepresent their compliance. He said the products were presented as having undergone rigorous assessments when they had not.

How much money did the products generate?

The three devices were sold to NHS hospitals and customers in other countries. The prosecution said the combined sales generated more than £500,000.

Mr Ozin said hospitals and patients were entitled to assume that medical equipment supplied for use in healthcare settings had undergone appropriate testing. The prosecution argued that the false markings undermined that assumption and created a risk because the products appeared to meet regulatory requirements when they had not been properly assessed.

The court did not hear evidence that any patient had suffered an injury as a result of using the devices. However, the prosecution said the nature of the products meant that the potential consequences of inadequate compliance were serious.

The devices were not ordinary consumer products. They were intended for use in medical environments, including equipment for critically ill infants. The prosecution therefore presented the alleged misrepresentation as a matter involving both commercial fraud and possible patient-safety concerns.

What did the judge say about Harrison’s conduct?

Judge Timothy Smith said Harrison had once been regarded as a person of good character. He referred to the businessman’s role in establishing Medicina in 1991 and developing it into a successful company.

However, the judge said Harrison’s approach to compliance changed over time. According to the Manchester Evening News report, Judge Smith told him that compliance had become a “tedious and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle” that he chose to overlook.

The judge’s comments indicated that the court regarded the conduct as more serious than an isolated administrative mistake. The prosecution had argued that the products were deliberately represented as having passed regulatory checks despite not having completed the required process.

Harrison was convicted on counts relating to his involvement in dishonest and fraudulent claims made by the company. He was also convicted on two counts concerning consenting to or conniving in the supply of items intended for fraudulent use.

The director disqualification means Harrison cannot serve as a director of a UK company for eight years. Such a restriction prevents an individual from taking part in the management of a company during the period of the ban.

What did Harrison’s defence say?

Harrison’s barrister, Tanveer Hussain, told the court that his client accepted the seriousness of the convictions and the regulatory consequences. He said Harrison did not seek to undermine the jury’s findings.

Mr Hussain said customers who had purchased the feeding pumps received refunds. He also argued that the issue involving the needles concerned documentation rather than a physical safety problem.

The defence maintained that the needles had never come into contact with patients. Mr Hussain also told the court that the three affected product lines represented only between one and two per cent of Medicina’s overall business revenue.

He argued that this context was relevant because it placed the offending within a wider business that was otherwise largely legitimate. He described Medicina as a genuine company that had been established well before the offences.

The defence also highlighted the delay before the case reached court. Mr Hussain referred to a four-year delay, which was presented as an important factor in the sentencing decision.

Why was the prison sentence suspended?

Judge Smith decided that Harrison did not need to serve an immediate prison sentence. The court took account of his low risk of reoffending, strong personal mitigation and the substantial and exceptional delay in bringing the case to court.

A suspended sentence remains a custodial sentence, but it does not normally require the defendant to go to prison immediately. It can be activated if the offender commits further offences or fails to comply with conditions imposed by the court.

The decision did not mean that the court considered the convictions minor. Harrison was still given a criminal conviction and an eight-year ban on acting as a company director.

The sentence reflected the combination of factors considered by the judge, including Harrison’s age, previous character, the time taken to bring the case forward and the assessment that he presented a low risk of committing further offences.

What will happen to Medicina Ltd?

Medicina Ltd will be sentenced at a later date. The company is expected to receive a financial penalty.

The company’s sentencing will be separate from Harrison’s personal sentence. The court is expected to consider the company’s involvement in the supply and presentation of the products, along with the financial benefit obtained from the sales.

The published report did not state the amount of any future fine. It also did not indicate when the company’s sentencing hearing will take place.

The prosecution has additionally begun confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act. These proceedings are intended to recover money believed to have been obtained through criminal conduct.

What did the MHRA and CPS say?

The investigation was led by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s Devices Compliance Unit. Following the conclusion of the trial in June, Pound, the MHRA’s Executive Director of Compliance, said the outcome sent a strong message that the regulator would take decisive action where patient safety was jeopardised.

The MHRA described the investigation as complex and said its compliance team had worked to establish the facts and hold those responsible to account.

Sarah Place of the Crown Prosecution Service said Harrison’s and Medicina Ltd’s actions were deceitful and that the company had profited substantially from products carrying fraudulent labels.

Ms Place said CPS lawyers had worked closely with the MHRA to bring the case to prosecution. She added that the CPS would continue to pursue people involved in fraud and confirmed that confiscation proceedings had been started to recover money linked to the criminal activity.

The comments from the MHRA and CPS indicate that the case was treated as a regulatory and criminal matter rather than solely as a dispute over paperwork.

What does the case mean for NHS suppliers?

The case highlights the importance of accurate regulatory claims when medical devices are sold to NHS organisations. Hospitals rely on manufacturers and suppliers to provide truthful information about testing, certification and compliance.

The prosecution’s case was that the devices were made to appear compliant despite not having completed the required conformity assessments. That distinction was central to the fraud allegations.

The absence of evidence of patient injury does not remove the regulatory concern. Medical equipment can pose risks even when no harm has been recorded, particularly if buyers are unable to distinguish properly assessed products from equipment carrying false assurances.

For NHS procurement teams, the case underlines the need to check supplier documentation, certification records and product information. It also demonstrates that alleged compliance failures can lead to criminal prosecutions, director disqualifications, financial penalties and confiscation proceedings.

What is the background to the Medicina investigation?

Medicina Ltd was established in 1991 and was based in Blackrod, Bolton. Kenneth Harrison was one of the company’s founders and was described in court as the driving force behind the business.

The investigation centred on three product lines supplied by the company: enteral feeding pumps, gastrostomy button devices and blunt fill needles. Prosecutors alleged that the products carried counterfeit CE marks and were marketed as having met regulatory standards that they had not passed.

The devices were sold in the United Kingdom, including to NHS hospitals, and internationally. The total sales linked to the products exceeded £500,000.

The case eventually resulted in Harrison’s conviction on fraud-related charges. Medicina Ltd has not yet been sentenced, and confiscation proceedings are continuing.

The Manchester Evening News reported the remarks made during sentencing, including the prosecution’s description of the alleged misrepresentation and the judge’s comments about Harrison’s previous reputation. The same report also carried the defence response, including the refund information, the argument concerning the needles and the claimed proportion of Medicina’s revenue represented by the affected products.

How could this development affect NHS patients and suppliers?

The immediate impact for patients is limited by the court’s finding that there was no evidence of actual injuries caused by the devices. However, the case could increase scrutiny of medical-device suppliers, especially where equipment is used for vulnerable patients or in critical-care settings.

NHS organisations and other healthcare providers may review certification documents and supplier records more closely. Manufacturers could also face greater pressure to maintain clear evidence of conformity assessments and ensure that product markings accurately reflect regulatory status.

For businesses involved in medical-device production or distribution, the case shows that non-compliance can have consequences beyond product withdrawal or commercial loss. Individuals may face criminal convictions and director disqualification, while companies may face fines and confiscation proceedings.

For patients and families, the development may reinforce the importance of regulatory oversight, although the case does not establish that every product supplied by Medicina was unsafe. The confirmed findings relate to the three product lines identified during the prosecution, and there was no reported evidence of patient injury connected with them.