The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Mohamed Morsy Ahmed against the severity of concurrent five-year prison sentences imposed for six offences of facilitating illegal immigration. The court found no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s approach and said the overall sentence was not disproportionate.
The appeal, heard by Edwards, McCarthy and Kennedy JJ., concerned sentences imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court on 9 December 2022. Each five-year term was backdated to 20 February 2021, when Ahmed entered custody. No part of the sentences was suspended.
Ahmed had pleaded guilty to six counts under section 2 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The sentencing hearing proceeded on a full-facts basis, with eight further counts taken into consideration: seven of the same immigration offence and one concerning possession or control of a false instrument.
The Court of Appeal heard that Ahmed arrived at Dublin Airport from Lisbon in February 2021 carrying travel documents belonging to 12 other people. Thirteen passengers from the same flight arrived without documents and were refused leave to land. The prosecution’s case, as stated at sentencing, was facilitation of illegal immigration, not that the passengers were moved against their will.
In interviews, Ahmed described collecting the documents from a passenger and taking them back to Spain to send on. Garda evidence portrayed this as one role in a wider organised scheme. The appeal court said Ahmed may not have been a principal organiser, but found his role was deliberate and for profit. It also cited the number of people involved, the planned nature and sophistication of the scheme, and the eight additional offences considered at sentencing.
The Circuit Court set an eight-year headline sentence before reducing it by three years for mitigation. The Court of Appeal held that the headline sentence was at the severe end of the sentencing judge’s discretion but remained within it. It said the sentencing judge’s failure to specifically mention Ahmed’s cooperation was a listing oversight: the evidence showed she had taken it into account. The court also considered the three-year reduction substantial, noting that the guilty pleas were not particularly early and that evidence against Ahmed was strong.
The appeal court accepted that the sentencing judge considered Ahmed’s family circumstances, including his wife’s health difficulties and an eviction threat. It gave little weight to the argument that imprisonment in Ireland was harder for him as a foreign national, noting that he had travelled here specifically to commit the offences. It concluded that the sentences were not too severe or disproportionate and dismissed the appeal.