Judgment: 2014-12-12 · Court archive

Court of Appeal reduces young man’s sentence for Carrickmacross jewellery theft

The court replaced a two-year detention sentence with one year, suspended the balance on conditions and ordered €5,000 compensation to be paid within a month.

The Court of Appeal · 203/14

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Samuel Rostas (Appellant)
  • injured party
What

The court replaced a two-year detention sentence with one year, suspended the balance on conditions and ordered €5,000 compensation to be paid within a month.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Carrickmacross
  • Lucan
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had erred by failing to explore a non-custodial outcome. It also found that, if custody was necessary, the judge should have considered a sentence shorter than two years given Rostas’s age and lack of previous convictions.

The Court of Appeal reduced the detention sentence imposed on Samuel Rostas for his part in a jewellery theft from a shop in Carrickmacross, replacing two years’ detention with one year and suspending the balance subject to conditions.

The court heard the appeal on sentence after Rostas was sentenced on 10 October 2014. The judgment, delivered on 12 December 2014, said he had spent more than two months in detention by then.

The judgment said Rostas was one of four people involved in stealing jewellery from the shop on 28 December 2012. CCTV showed him waiting at the door in what the court described as a lookout capacity while two associates put jewellery into bags. Three men left and got into a car, which was later seen leaving Carrickmacross with four men inside. The car was registered to a co-accused.

At the time of the offence, Rostas was 17. He was 19 when sentenced, had no previous convictions and had indicated a guilty plea at an early stage, the court heard. He was living with his parents in Lucan, County Dublin, and working part time, with hopes of full-time employment. The judgment also recorded a submission that he received none of the proceeds of the theft.

The court heard that the shop owner closed the business and emigrated after the theft. The judgment noted that at least one other person lost their job as a result of the closure. The prosecution argued that the offence was well planned and that the original sentencing judge had taken relevant matters into account. Rostas’s counsel argued that the judge should have considered a non-custodial sentence and that the two-year term was excessive.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had erred by failing to explore a non-custodial outcome. It also found that, if custody was necessary, the judge should have considered a sentence shorter than two years given Rostas’s age and lack of previous convictions.

At the fresh sentence hearing, the court noted an offer of €5,000 in partial compensation to the injured party, funded by Rostas’s family. It said the payment could benefit the injured party and support Rostas’s future good behaviour and employment.

The court substituted a sentence of one year’s detention and suspended the balance from 12 December 2014. The suspension was conditional on Rostas entering a €100 bond, keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for 12 months, and paying €5,000 compensation to the injured party within one month.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review