Tax evading garlic importer has sentence reduced to two years’ imprisonment

Criminal law – appeal against severity of sentence in Dublin Circuit Court – fraudulent evasion of customs duty – s. 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 as amended by s. 34 of the Finance Act, 1963 – s. 177 of the Finance Act, 2001– s. 89 of the Finance Act, 1997– s. 240 of the Finance Act, 2001– customs duty chargeable on importation of garlic – sentencing judge imposed maximum sentence of 5 years and one year on other count to run consecutively – the learned judge either did not consider all the mitigating factors, or if he did he simply did not attach to them the appropriate weight – a maximum sentence following a guilty plea should only be applied where there are unusual or exceptional circumstances by way of aggravation (see s.29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999) – an early plea is more valuable than a later one, particularly if the accused person has cooperated, fully as in this case, with the investigation – error in sentencing principles – whether sentence imposed was disproportionate in all the circumstances – whether tax evasion cases should be treated differently – Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 – to base the decision purely on some grounds, to the exclusion of the mitigating factors must be equated with an error of principle – admission and cooperation – guilty plea – restitution – “the rates of tariffs and quotas on the importation of garlic into Ireland and other European Union Member States”– appropriate sentence is one of 2 years.