The Court of Appeal has quashed a fully suspended sentence imposed on a man convicted of VAT offences and resentenced him to three and a half years’ imprisonment, with the final two and a half years suspended. The order leaves one year to be served in custody.
The court, in a judgment delivered on 11 June 2024, ruled on an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the sentence as unduly lenient. The original sentence was three years, fully suspended, on eight counts; the remaining counts were taken into consideration. The sentencing judge had identified a five-year headline sentence before reducing it to three years and suspending it in full.
The respondent faced 84 charges: 42 relating to failing to deliver VAT returns and 42 relating to failing to pay VAT within the statutory period. The Court of Appeal’s judgment says he issued 85 invoices between May or June 2009 and March or April 2016 using a VAT number that had ceased to be valid in November 2006, while charging VAT. The VAT involved was €180,623.51. He paid the outstanding VAT in June 2016. About €16,000 in interest remained at the December 2023 sentencing hearing and was paid before sentence was imposed. The judgment says civil discretionary penalties were pending but gives no further detail.
The Director argued that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to mitigation and insufficient weight to punishment and deterrence. The respondent relied on his guilty plea, financial reparation, cooperation, personal circumstances and the absence of previous convictions. The appeal court noted that the plea came after three trial dates had been fixed, while also taking account of medical reports concerning anxiety and low mood. It said the plea could not receive the same weight as an early plea, and that most of the financial payments were amounts the respondent had been obliged to pay.
The court rejected the claim that a suspended sentence meant the respondent had received no punishment, but held that the reduction from a five-year headline sentence to a sentence suspended in full was a substantial departure from the norm and an error in principle. It therefore quashed the original sentence and resentenced the respondent de novo.
The court retained a five-year headline sentence, allowed an 18-month reduction for mitigation and imposed three and a half years. It suspended the final two and a half years on a statutory condition, leaving one year in custody.