Judgment: 2013-01-22 · Court archive

Criminal Appeal Court reduces garlic duty evasion sentence from six years to two

The court set aside the original sentence after finding that the sentencing judge had failed to give proper weight to mitigation. It then imposed a two-year sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal · C.C.A. No. 95/12

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Paul Begley (Appellant)
What

The court set aside the original sentence after finding that the sentencing judge had failed to give proper weight to mitigation. It then imposed a two-year sentence.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Criminal Appeal reduced Paul Begley’s sentence for customs duty evasion from six years to two, after finding that the original sentence was excessive and affected by an error of principle.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reduced Paul Begley’s sentence for customs duty evasion from six years to two, after finding that the original sentence was excessive and affected by an error of principle.

Begley had pleaded guilty to four counts relating to the attempted or completed fraudulent evasion of customs duty on garlic imports. Seven further similar offences were taken into account. The offending involved imports from China between 2003 and 2007, with goods declared as mixed consignments of apples and garlic when they consisted of garlic. The court described the offences as planned and repeated over a prolonged period.

At the original sentencing in March 2012, the trial judge imposed the statutory maximum of five years on one count and a consecutive one-year term on another, and disqualified Begley from acting as a company director for five years. The judge said punishment and deterrence were the principles guiding the sentence.

On appeal, the court held that the judge had either overlooked or failed to give proper weight to mitigating circumstances. These included Begley’s cooperation with Revenue, his guilty plea, remorse, lack of previous convictions and a repayment arrangement for €1.6 million. The court said his cooperation had supplied much of the evidence used in the case, and it was satisfied the agreed repayment would be completed.

The appeal court accepted that the offences were serious and that deterrence was relevant. But it said those considerations could not displace an assessment of the offender’s circumstances. It also found that the original ruling did not explain why the case warranted the maximum sentence or identify exceptional circumstances justifying it despite the guilty plea.

The court first set aside the sentence and then heard further submissions on the appropriate penalty. It concluded that two years’ imprisonment properly reflected the seriousness of the offending while giving due weight to the mitigating factors. The judgment does not state that the five-year director disqualification was changed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review