Suspended sentences confirmed

Seven men who had admitted to their involvement in a huge VAT scam were all smiles yesterday after the Appeals Court threw out the Attorney General's request for their suspended sentences to be changed into effective jail terms.

The men had been given suspended sentences, fines up to €700 and a perpetual general interdiction. The punishments had caused a public outcry with many saying they were too lenient.

In handing down judgement yesterday, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano ruled that the punishments handed down by the Magistrates' Court were within the parameters of the law and that it had used its discretion correctly in the circumstances.

He added that, although the court had to give due importance to the impact a crime had on society and society's reaction to such a crime, the court was not there "to satisfy public outcry or to be judged by comments on the internet by people who criticise everything, haphazardly, because they are under the impression that they have become experts on the law and on how court cases should be decided".

The Chief Justice quoted a judgement by British Lord Justice Lawton saying that "...the courts do not have to reflect public opinions. On the other hand, they must not disregard it".

The men are: Carmel Deguara, who had been given a two-year jail term suspended for four years and fined €450; Neville Mula, Jesmond Abela and Anthony Migneco, who had been handed down an 18-month term suspended for four years; Maurice Agius, who received an 11-month jail term suspended for three years; and Gregory Brincat and Sebastian Bonnici, both sentenced to 18 months in jail suspended for four years and fined €700.

They all received a general interdiction, which basically removes their legal status in matters such as voting and being party to a contract of any kind. It also precludes them from holding public office.

The Chief Justice said that in considering the appeal, the court had to see whether the suspension of a prison sentence was "wrong in principle" or whether it was "unduly lenient". He noted that, in his appeal, the Attorney General did not say that the suspended sentence could not be resorted to but rather that it should not have been used considering the circumstances of the case.

He quoted jurisprudence in which the court had said that the deterrence element should prevail and that whoever was caught corrupting public officials - which is difficult to expose - should be handed an effective jail term.

However, he said, the court could not ignore early guilty pleas or assistance given by the accused to the police in their investigations, especially if they might have exposed other people. He specified that not everyone who cooperated with the police or filed an early guilty plea was entitled to such treatment.

He said the Appeals Court believed that the Magistrate's Court was "prudent in the use of its discretion" and had acted within the parameters of the law. The Chief Justice noted that a suspended jail term was not "a let off" or "a slap on the hand". The suspended sentence meant one would not serve time in jail if one went through the period in which the judgment was operative without committing another crime.

He said only Mr Abela and Mr Deguara - the middleman and the VAT employee respectively - profited because, although technically there was the element of fraud, all the others still had to settle their dues with the VAT Department.

The seven men involved in this case were the first group of a total of 32 charged in connection with the VAT scam who pleaded guilty on their first appearance in court.

Another 10 are still considering their plea as they preferred to wait for the outcome of the appeal. The rest, 15, have pleaded not guilty and their case is being heard.