DPP v Forde

 
FREE EXCERPT

[2014] IECA 41

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Birmingham J

Sheehan J

Mahon J

Appeal Number: 138CJA/14
DPP v Forde
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993
THE PEOPLE (at the suit of the DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)
APPELLANT
v.
Ignatius Forde
RESPONDENT

138CJA/2014 - Birmingham Sheehan Mahon - Court of Appeal - 28/11/2014 - 2014 15 4096 2014 IECA 41

COMPANIES ACT 1990 S242(1)

COMPANIES ACT 1990 S187(1B)

COMPANIES ACT 1990 S9

COMPANIES ACT 1990 S187

COMPANIES ACT 1990 S242

DPP v M (J) 2002 1 IR 363 2002/10/2259

COMPANIES ACT 1990 S160

Sentence Review – Unduly Lenient - Companies Act 1990 – False Accounts – Mitigating Factors – Aggravating Factors – Disqualification – Practice and Procedure – Judicial Discretion

Mr. Justice Mahon
1

This is an application for a review of the sentence imposed at Carlow Circuit Court on 15th May 2014 on the basis that it was unduly lenient. The penalty imposed by the learned trial judge was a fine of €1,000 with six months to pay. This was imposed in relation to a number of counts and there were an additional number of counts taken into consideration.

2

The offences involved the production of false audit reports contrary to s. 2421 of the Companies Act1990, which carries a penalty of a fine of up to €12,697 and/or up to five years in prison and acting as an auditor when disqualified contrary to s. 187B and 9 of the Companies Act 1990, which carries a penalty of a fine of up to €6,248. There were, in total, thirteen counts. A further thirty seven counts in the indictment were taken into consideration. The respondent pleaded guilty at an early stage in the proceedings.

3

The respondent carried on a business of providing accountancy services over a thirty year period in his local area. His clients, including those who were victims of these offences, were generally open businesses. The respondent had engaged in the activity that led to these offences while not a qualified auditor. He dishonestly used the names and false signatures of two qualified auditors and an accountant without their knowledge. He also used an invented name and purported it to be that of a qualified auditor and falsely purported himself to be a qualified auditor. The fall out from these...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL