Select a region
A Swedish man who appealed a one-year jail sentence for attempting to export military goods out of the Bailiwick to an embargoed jurisdictions has seen his application rejected by the full Court of Appeal.
Gal Fridman had pleaded guilty to two counts in violation of customs and excise laws; making false import declarations for ballistic shields and body armour panels and attempting to export the goods without permissions to Macau – a special administrative region of China - namely bullet-proof shields.
He was running a business called Swedish Body Armour out of his home Sark.
There was an active trade embargo for China, Hong Kong, and Macau and he did not have the required license to circumvent those restrictions.
He was sentenced to two months in prison for the false declarations and a further 10 months for the export attempt by the Royal Court in January.
But he appealed the prison sentence, arguing it was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, but this was rejected by the three appeal judges.
His Advocate, Alan Merrien, said the breaches weren’t deliberate and were down to a “lack of due diligence”.
Advocate Merrien cited UK case law which involved far more valuable military goods exported during the height of the Iraq war result with two men receive less severe sentences.
He questioned: “How has the Guernsey court reached a conclusion that is so different to that which might be applied using the same principles and the same test."
He added that the goods weren’t being sent to a war zone and there wasn’t a high degree of planning or sophistication, with the court overestimating the severity and it could have considered a non-custodial sentence.
Pictured: A bullet-proof shield seized by the Border Agency.
Crown Advocate Fiona Russell said the unusual and rare circumstances have resulted in imprisonment elsewhere, and the court had been “plainly of the view that the element of deterrence is uppermost”.
She said alternatives were considered, but the offence was deemed too serious.
A discount of one-year was applied which was “reasonable”, taking into account his mitigation and personal circumstances.
Giving a summary of its full written judgement, the Court of Appeal said as this was the first prosecution of its kind in Guernsey the Royal Court had to sentence from first principles and carried out an “impressive” sentencing exercise.
The Royal Court “correctly read the relevant legislation” and upheld international obligations and trade restrictions designed to prevent assisting external aggression, regional instability, and internal repression in other jurisdictions.
“We agree with the Royal Court that there is a strong public interest in the prosecution of breaches,” they said, and agreed that a “significant element of deterrence” was justified through a custodial sentence.
Fridman has been on bail since his arrest, and subsequently since he immediately appealed his sentence. His prison term will run from 19 April 2024.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.