The Court of Appeal has dismissed Thomas Murphy’s appeal against his convictions for failing to file income tax returns for the years 1996 to 2004. The appeal court upheld the Special Criminal Court’s finding that Murphy was a chargeable person in respect of cattle trading and had failed to make the required returns.
Murphy had been convicted in December 2015 on nine counts. Counts 1 to 4 alleged that he failed, without reasonable excuse, to file returns under the Finance Act 1988. Counts 5 to 9 alleged knowing or wilful failures under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. He received concurrent 18-month prison sentences and was serving them when the appeal was heard. Although his notice of appeal also challenged sentence, the Court of Appeal dealt only with conviction; the sentence appeal remained in abeyance.
The prosecution case included evidence that cattle trading was conducted in the name of Murphy, that proceeds from the herd registered to him entered a bank account in his name, and that money from the account serviced his personal pension investment. The trial court also relied on statements from landowner Brian Garvey and veterinary surgeon Patrick Flanagan, admitted under section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, along with farming records and evidence from a Revenue officer identified as RBO 35.
Murphy argued that his brother Patrick ran a wider family farming operation and controlled the account, and that the evidence left a reasonable doubt about whether Thomas Murphy received or was entitled to cattle income. His appeal also challenged the admission and weight of witness statements, Revenue certificates, documentary presumptions and handwriting evidence, as well as the trial court’s reasons for its verdict.
The Court of Appeal said the trial court was entitled to find that Murphy had applied for the 24X herd number and that the bank account was operated, at least to some extent, for his benefit. It held that Patrick Murphy could also be a chargeable person; that did not rule out Thomas Murphy being chargeable as well. The court found evidence supporting the admission and use of the two written statements and rejected the challenges to the Revenue officer’s evidence and the trial court’s reasoning.
The appeal court concluded that the defence’s alternative account did not raise a reasonable doubt about Thomas Murphy’s chargeability and dismissed the appeal against conviction. It did not decide the sentence appeal in this judgment.