The former head of the country’s biggest fruit and vegetable company must wait to learn if his appeal against his six-year sentence for failing to pay import tax on garlic has been successful.
The case was heard before the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday and judgment was reserved.
Paul Begley (47), of Begley Brothers Ltd, Blanchardstown, Co Dublin, evaded paying higher custom duty on over a thousand tonnes of garlic imported from China by having consignments labelled as apples, which are taxed at a cheaper rate.
Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard last March that the import duty on garlic is “inexplicably” high and can be up to 232 per cent. In contrast, onions have an import duty of 9 per cent.
At the appeal case yesterday presiding judge Mr Justice Liam McKechnie asked the lawyer for the DPP why there was such a divergence.
‘Greed’
Counsel for the State, Remy Farrell SC, said the tax appeared to be “protectionism” and was aimed squarely at Chinese garlic.
Last March Begley was jailed for six years by Judge Martin Nolan after pleading guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to four sample counts of evading customs duty between September 2003 and October 2007.
While the maximum sentence for the offence is five years in prison or a fine of three times the value of the goods, Judge Martin Nolan imposed the maximum terms on one count and a consecutive one-year sentence on another count.
Lawyers for Begley had urged the three-judge court to review what they submitted was the longest sentence passed by a court in relation to a Revenue matter.
The State countered that there was considerable evidence before Judge Nolan that the offences were committed “for no reason other than greed”.
Patrick Gageby SC, for Begley, said that to identify the offence with the very worst of circumstances, and then to go on and impose the maximum sentence despite the “very large amount” of material in mitigation indicated an error in principle by Judge Nolan.
Mr Gageby submitted that Judge Nolan made no reference to Begley’s guilty plea in his sentencing remarks, which constituted an error in principle distinct from any other aspect in the case.
Indictment
He said the sentencing judge had not paid due regard to the principle of proportionality by failing to identify the range of appropriate penalties available and where the offence lay on this range before going on to apply the mitigating factors in the case.
Mr Gageby said Judge Nolan failed to take reparation into account, which he submitted was highly relevant in all Revenue cases.
He submitted that Begley had waived his right to silence during the investigation stage, had volunteered documents to the Revenue and in some sense had become the architect of the case against him.
Mr Gageby submitted that Begley had agreed on an ongoing schedule to satisfy his Revenue obligations, although he conceded that only a small amount of interest and no penalties had been factored into the final figure. He submitted that there was an obligation on all citizens to pay taxes and although the court was not obliged to give kudos to citizens who comply with these obligations, it should take into account whether reparations had been made.
Judge Nolan had made “absolutely no” mention of the reparations made by his client, said Mr Gageby.
Mr Gageby said that the counts on the indictment referred to a Revenue liability of €300,000, and although the judge was informed of a larger liability of €1.6 million arising out of the fraud, there was an obligation to sentence only on the counts on the indictment and the court could not take other matters into account.