The Court of Appeal has resentenced Jonathan Slattery and William Slattery to three years’ imprisonment each, with the final eight months to be served, after finding that the original sentences for VAT offences were unduly lenient.
The men, a father and son, had each pleaded guilty to four offences under the Taxes Consolidation Act, including making incorrect VAT returns, claiming an unauthorised repayment and failing to keep required records. In June 2015, the sentencing court imposed three years on each, suspended in full for three years. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought a review under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993.
The Court of Appeal said the original sentences merited custody to be served. It accepted that the three-year term could be treated as the headline sentence, but ruled that suspending it in full amounted to an excessive discount for mitigation and a clear departure from the norm.
The judgment described the case as involving the deliberate and premeditated concealment of sales liable for VAT. The source judgment recounts evidence that till records at a Ballycummin business premises skipped alternate daily readings and that the till’s running total function was disabled. The prosecution estimated Revenue losses covered by the indictment at €223,965, in addition to €70,000 already recovered. The men had also paid €35,000 to Revenue as partial restitution.
The court recognised substantial mitigation, including guilty pleas, personal and financial hardship, and the time taken for the appeal to be heard. It said that, sentencing at first instance, it would have suspended the final 18 months of a three-year term. But the appeal hearing came 20 months after the matter was before the lower court, and the judges considered that requiring custody at that stage would create additional hardship.
The court therefore imposed three years’ imprisonment on each man and suspended all but the final eight months. Each must enter a €100 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 18 months from the judgment date. The judgment does not state when either man is to report to custody.