Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against robbery and theft sentence for lack of error of principle.

APPROVED NO REDACTION NEEDED

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Neutral Citation No. [2025] IECA 176

Record No: 171/2024

Edwards J. McCarthy J. Butler J.

Between/

THE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)

Respondent

V

RAZQI GOATAS

Appellant

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered (ex tempore) by Ms. Justice Butler on the 15th of July 2025

Introduction

1. This is an appeal brought by Mr. Razqi Goatas (“the appellant”) against the severity of sentence imposed on him by the Wicklow Circuit Criminal Court in respect of his conviction for one count of robbery contrary to s.14(1) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (count no. 1 on the indictment); and five counts of theft contrary to s.4 of the 2001 Act (counts nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8). Counts 1,4,5,6 and 7 were connected and count 8 was a standalone offence.

2. The appellant entered a guilty plea on 4th June 2024. On 6th June 2024 he was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment.

3. The appellant appeals this sentence on the grounds that it was disproportionate in all the circumstances, there was an error in principle in placing disproportionate weight on the aggravating factors in the case and have no or inadequate regard was had to the appellant’s mitigating circumstances and lack of previous convictions.

Factual Background

1. The convictions arise out of unrelated events which occurred on 10th and 18th February 2024 in Wicklow town. On 10th February the appellant stole a mobile phone which had been placed by a member of staff in a bag behind the bar in a public house. The appellant reached behind the bar and removed the phone from the bag, all of which was captured by CCTV. This gave rise to a charge of theft contrary to s.4 of the 2001 Act.

2. On the morning of 18th February at approximately 3:20am the victim was walking home on the phone to his partner when he was thrown into a bush from behind by the appellant. The appellant then threatened the victim with his right hand while he kept his left hand in his pocket. Although no weapon was used and it does not appear that the appellant had a weapon, his stance and the fact that he kept his hand in his pocket suggested to the victim that he did. The appellant demanded, in broken English, that the victim give him everything and proceeded to search him. He demanded that the victim give him the pin to his phone, and the victim complied. The victim was still on the phone to his partner at the time who could hear what was taking place and as a result contacted the Gardaí. These events gave rise to the robbery charge under s.14 of the 2001 Act.

3. The victim then ran home and contacted AIB bank as he had his card details on his phone. The appellant went to a nearby filling station and, using the victim’s phone, made a number of purchases in the shop attached to the filling station to the value of €77, €121.75, €28.70 and €5 respectively. These theft offences were charged under s.4 of the 2001 Act. A nolle prosequi was entered in relation to two further charges.

Victim Impact Statement

4. The victim of the connected offences attended the sentencing hearing and prepared a victim impact statement, which was read by counsel, highlighting the paranoia and anxiety that he has endured as a result of the theft and robbery. The statement indicated that these events have had a lasting adverse psychological effect on him.

5. The victim in relation to the theft on 10th February did not provide a victim impact statement.

Personal Circumstances of the Appellant

6. No evidence was called on behalf of the appellant and no reports on his background or circumstances were provided to the trial court. It was outlined in submissions on his behalf that the appellant is an asylum seeker of Algerian origin who left his country of origin in 2023. It seems he initially sought asylum in England before arriving in this country. At the time of the offences, he was housed by the International Protection Agency at a hotel in Wicklow town.

7. Although a non-drinker, it was submitted that the appellant had taken narcotics on the night in question, although the details of this were unclear. It was also submitted that he was desperate for tobacco and the items purchased in the shop at the petrol station were tobacco-related. It was submitted on his behalf that the offences were opportunistic. The appellant has no previous convictions in this jurisdiction. He is apparently 34 years of age but as he did not have identification or travel documents when he arrived in the jurisdiction it was not clear if this had been verified.

8. Counsel on behalf of the appellant informed the sentencing judge that he had been instructed to tell the court “that he regrets the things that happened”. It was also submitted on his behalf that as a person with very limited English, the appellant would suffer more than most by being imprisoned.

Submissions on Appeal

Appellant’s Submissions

9. The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in principle in failing to have due or adequate regard to the mitigating circumstances and placed undue emphasis on aggravating factors. Additionally, the sentencing judge erred in placing the robbery charge on the mid-range of offending thereby identifying a headline sentence of five years before reducing it to three and a half years, which was excessive in light of an early plea and the gravity of the offences considering that no weapon was used, and no physical injury was caused.

10. The appellant relies on O’Malley on Sentencing Law and Practice (3rd Ed., Round Hall, 2016) to the effect that the “use of a knife or other weapon, including and imitation firearm, will usually bring robbery into the mid-range or higher.” The appellant accepts that the incident was a frightening experience for the victim but at no stage was a weapon produced.

11. In the course of exchanges with the court, counsel for the appellant accepted that a headline sentence is normally set without regard to mitigating factors and represents the culpability involved in the offending, any aggravating factors and the harm done to the victim of the crime. He also accepted that the offence of robbery, which the sentencing judge treated as the main or “gauge” offence, has a maximum sentence of

15 years such that the headline sentence chosen by the trial judge of 5 years represented the borderline between the higher end of the low range and the lower end of the midrange for this offence. Counsel did not identify any error of principle in the selection of this as the appropriate headline sentence and ultimately accepted that this ground of appeal could not be sustained.

12. The focus of the appellant’s argument then shifted to the extent to which the sentencing judge had taken appropriate regard of the mitigation factors present in the case. These were the fact that he pleaded guilty at an early stage, although he had initially given a different account to the Gardaí; his expression of remorse; the fact that he had no relevant convictions since arriving in the jurisdiction and the additional hardship imprisonment imposed on him by virtue of his inability to speak English. It was contended that the sentencing judge should have suspended or partially suspended the sentence.

Respondent’s Submissions

13. In her written submissions the respondent submits that there were salient aggravating features in this case, including the fact that the offence took place late at night, in a quiet location; the victim was taken by surprise; the robbery was initiated with a degree of violence; and there was a perception, on the part of the victim, that the appellant had a weapon in his pocket. In circumstances where the appellant ultimately conceded that there was no error of principle in the headline sentence it was unnecessary for the respondent to develop her response to this line of argument in oral submissions.

14. The respondent submits that there were no reports presented in the hearing that provided assistance to the sentencing judge to assess whether a partial suspension of the sentence was appropriate. Additionally, there was nothing by way of information, such as a probation report, save for an apology from the appellant. It was also pointed out that the appellant was on bail when the second set of offences occurred.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

15. The court notes that counsel for the appellant did not ultimately pursue the ground of appeal which contended that the headline sentence was inappropriately high. We are of the view that this concession was correctly made. The gauge offence in this case was a serious one, albeit not at the most serious end of the scale. It was certainly a very frightening experience for the victim. It occurred at night and involved physical force and what appeared to the victim as a possible threat of further violence. It also occurred while the appellant was on bail. We do not see any error in principle with it being placed at the border of the lower and mid-ranges of sentence for offences of this kind. It is also significant that the one-year sentences imposed on each of the theft charges are to run concurrently with that imposed for the robbery offence.

16. The sentencing judge also took into account all of the factors listed as mitigatory factors by the appellant. By reducing the headline sentence to one of three and a half years, the sentencing judge discounted it by just under a third. In our view this fairly reflects the credit that should be allowed for the appellant’s early plea (after an initial denial to the Gardaí). It is clear from his remarks that the sentencing judge was live to the appellant’s personal circumstances including his lack of English. We note that there was no evidence before the trial court of any matter connected to the appellant’s personal circumstances nor indeed with his experience in prison where he had been on remand since the time of his arrest (i.e. for over three months at the time of sentencing). In the absence of any such evidence we do not think that these factors could have been taken into consideration to any greater extent than they were by the sentencing judge.

17. In circumstances where the appellant has not identified any error of principle either with the headline sentence identified by the sentencing judge nor with the extent to which he took account of mitigatory factors we are satisfied that this appeal should be refused.