Garlic Scam

micmclo- evidently you didn't actually read the posts in this thread.

Not one poster said the man who evaded the (EU imposed very high) import duty on garlic should not be penalised.

Like me, many posters did feel that his punishment was far more severe than anything handed out to others evading tax -and was equal to those sentences given to committing the most terrible of foul acts -rape, murder etc.

I think that one cannot look at one sentence without looking at others. There MUST be an even-handed approach in our justice system. Evading garlic-duty imports is not the same as raping young children and nor should be their sentences be.

Anyway, that was my view -not that "I supported and loved the cute hoor".
 
He has appealed the severity of his sentence in the [broken link removed]today

Mr Patrick Gageby SC, for Begley, said 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.


He said the sentence appeared to be the longest sentence ever passed by a court in a revenue matter.


Mr Gageby submitted that Judge Nolan made no reference to Begley’s plea of guilty in his sentencing remarks, which constituted a singular error in principle distinct from any other aspect in the case.


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 told the court that Judge Nolan failed to take the issue of reparation in to 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 Commissioners 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 in to the final figure.


He submitted that there was an obligation on all citizens to pay taxes - which Begley had belatedly complied with – and although the court was not obliged to give kudos to citizens who comply with these obligations, it should take in to account whether reparations had been made.
Click to expand...
 
DB74 said:
What does a "reserved judgement" mean exactly?
Click to expand...
Basically that they are not going to pass judgement on the spot but will go away and think about it and deliver their judgement at a later date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top