Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal against severity of sentences imposed for revenue-related offences and substitutes terms of five years with one suspended and three years with final eight months suspended, finding that: 1) the trial judge had indicated that he regarded the appropriate sentence as one of five years' imprisonment but, having said that, proceeded to impose a sentence of six years; and 2) it was open to the trial judge to partly suspend any sentence, and it was appropriate to do so in this case.
Criminal law – sentencing – appeal against severity of two sentences of imprisonment for making incorrect VAT returns and claiming VAT rebates – revenue – appellant was not the instigator or prime organiser – misleading figures were relied upon at the sentence hearing – trial judge had indicated that he regarded the appropriate sentence as one of five years imprisonment, but having said that proceeded to impose a sentence of six years – it would have been appropriate to suspend a portion of the second sentence – court will suspend the last eight months of the handling sentence – appeal allowed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.