Hashish addict who stole bongs from Costa Tropical bar orderd to leave Spain

Zoom

The defendant, who claimed that he was drunk and high, also took 300 euros from the till and the proceeds from the table football game

Carlos Morán

Granada

Wednesday, 15 April 2026, 16:14

A foreign national has been ordered to leave Spain after he gained access to a bar on Granada province's Costa Tropical after slashing a tarpaulin and taking 300 euros from the till. He then stole over 200 euros from the table football game as well as the bongs that the bar offers to customers. The incident happened at 4am on 24 April 2025.

The thief, a repeat offender, was arrested and tried in Motril. He was sentenced to three and a half years in prison, but the judge agreed to replace the prison sentence with expulsion from Spain for seven years. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendant appealed the decision with Granada's provincial court, arguing that he was addicted to hashish and that he perpetrated the robbery while drunk and high. He also argued that he had returned some of the loot.

The defence maintains that the sentence had to apply the mitigating factors of "drug addiction and another of repairing the damage", the defendant's lawyer said in the appeal. The court has now rejected the first plea and partially accepted the second (the defendant can still take the case to the Supreme Court).

Regarding the defendant's alleged dependence on cannabis, the court acknowledges that there is evidence that he was a cannabis user, but states that this is not sufficient to reduce his criminal liability. "(...) It must be assumed that the accused did not testify in the investigation phase, as he availed himself of his constitutional right not to do so. At the oral hearing, he only testified to the questions of his counsel, which only concerned his dependence on marijuana. He also said that he was drunk and did not remember anything."

The ruling went on to say, "The mere fact that he was a user, which the defendant made known, is not sufficient to consider that an attenuating circumstance should be considered. The fact that he had previously been arrested for consumption of hashish or marijuana, as the officer stated, does not constitute sufficient grounds to consider that the existence of the requested mitigating circumstance has been accredited (...) The cases of addiction to drugs that can be classified as less serious or minor do not constitute mitigation."

As for compensation for the harm caused to the victim, the court stated that "the accused did not return everything he stole to its rightful owner. "(...) It must be admitted that the accused has returned part of the stolen items. None of the stolen cash, undoubtedly the most valuable thing".