The Court of Appeal has suspended the final six months of a man’s 18-month prison sentence for keeping prohibited goods, after finding that the sentencing judge should have considered suspending part of the term in the interests of rehabilitation.
The court left the custodial sentence in place, ruling that 18 months without a fine was not disproportionate for the offence. The suspended portion will remain in place for 12 months.
The appellant had pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 31 October 2014 to keeping prohibited goods, contrary to provisions of the Finance Act 1999, as amended. He was sentenced on 11 March 2015. The maximum penalty was five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to €126,000.
Customs officers intercepted him on 17 May 2013 as he was removing about 2,600 litres of laundered fuel from an industrial unit at Orion Business Centre, Ballycoolin, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15. The judgment said he had leased the unit for six months from December 2012 for €3,000 in cash. He told a customs officer he had removed about 2,000 litres of washed diesel from the unit almost every second day during that period.
The appeal challenged the sentence’s severity, arguing that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered a non-custodial sentence or the appellant’s personal and mitigating circumstances. It also contested the judge’s inference that the fuel was likely to reach retail premises or unsuspecting members of the public.
The Court of Appeal said the offending was far from a one-off and described the operation as established and sophisticated. It cited the duration and frequency of the activity, environmental consequences, potential public harm and loss, and previous convictions as aggravating factors. The sentencing judge had also considered the guilty plea, cooperation with customs authorities and the appellant’s relative youth.
The appeal court said a custodial sentence was appropriate and that the offence was particularly serious, though not at the higher end of the gravity scale. However, it found that suspending a portion of the term should have been considered, noting that the Director of Public Prosecutions had consented to summary disposal in the District Court, where the maximum sentence would have been 12 months.
The court said the appellant was an enhanced prisoner at Wheatfield Prison and had provided a letter confirming employment would be available on release. Having regard particularly to those matters, it suspended the final six months of the sentence.