Supreme Court upholds five-year sentence for migrant smuggling

A man convicted of illegally transporting five migrants across Latvia’s external border must serve a five-year prison sentence, LSM reports, citing the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Cases Department refused to initiate cassation proceedings in the case. The man was found guilty of illegally transporting five migrants during a period of reinforced border security, as part of an organised group.

The Latgale District Court found that the man, motivated by financial gain and aware that he was part of an organised group, went to a specified location in Ludza municipality. Acting according to the assigned task and division of roles, he picked up five migrants in his vehicle after other members of the group had brought them across Latvia’s border.

He dropped four of the migrants from the vehicle along the way but was detained in Rēzekne municipality with the fifth person.

The Latgale District Court sentenced him to five years in prison. After considering his appeal, the Latgale Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.

The regional court said the man’s guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the sentence was neither harsh nor disproportionate. Given the circumstances of the crime and his reckless attitude towards the danger posed to the state and society, the court said the sentence could instead be considered highly lenient.

The man’s defence lawyer filed a cassation appeal against the regional court’s decision. After reviewing the arguments, the Supreme Court found no grounds to initiate cassation proceedings.

The Supreme Court said some of the arguments repeated those made in the appeal and sought a reassessment of the evidence, which is not the role of a cassation court. It also said the legal arguments did not raise doubts about the legality of the appealed decision.

The Supreme Court noted that establishing the characteristics of an organised group does not depend on the identities of the other group members being known. It also said the defence had previously agreed to the use in court of statements obtained during the pre-trial investigation and had not objected to them.