The Court of Appeal has quashed a fully suspended two-year sentence imposed on Akbar Jafari for conspiring to make false identity documents, and substituted a two-year term with the final year suspended. Jafari must serve one year in custody, the court ordered.
The Director of Public Prosecutions applied under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to review the sentence imposed by the Circuit Court on 18 November 2019. The appeal court delivered its judgment on 26 January 2021.
Jafari had pleaded guilty at an early stage to conspiring with others between 7 and 17 January 2017 to make false identity cards intended to be used as genuine. The judgment describes 14 documents as Italian and Belgian identity documents. The trial judge set a headline sentence of three years, reduced it to two years after considering mitigation, then suspended the whole term for two years on a bond of €100.
The DPP challenged the sentence on several grounds, including the trial judge’s findings about the intended beneficiaries and Jafari’s motivation, the sentence level and its difference from that imposed on a co-accused. The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge to the factual findings. It said there was an evidential basis for the trial judge’s conclusion that Jafari acted to help family members rather than for financial gain, and that appeal courts should be slow to replace a trial judge’s findings of fact.
The appeal court also held that the three-year headline sentence and the two-year sentence after mitigation were within the trial judge’s discretion. It noted aggravating factors including the number of documents, Jafari’s travel to Greece to assist the intended beneficiaries, airline tickets purchased for some of them, and the effect on the integrity of State and EU borders and immigration laws. The court said security concerns and general deterrence also pointed towards custody.
It found the trial judge had erred in principle by suspending the entire sentence without a sound evidential basis. The court quashed the original sentence and resentenced Jafari to two years’ imprisonment, suspending the final year for one year on condition that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour. It said it limited its intervention to requiring one year in custody, taking account of the disappointment of a respondent who now faced imprisonment following a successful sentence review.