Inferior Court
Appeal No. 2 of 1979
Dated: 3rd March, 1980
Barrington-Jones, J.

Mr. Barrow for the Appellant.
Mr. Quallo for the Respondent.

Criminal Law - Appeal from Inferior Court against sentence - Dangerous Drug Ordinance - Plea of Guilt to Possession of Dangerous Drugs - Previous convictions for same offence.

J U D G M E N T

The Appellant pleaded guilty on the 23rd November, 1978 to Possession of Dangerous Drugs contrary to section 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance before the Chief Magistrate and was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment with hard labour.

On the 4th January, 1979 a Notice of Appeal was filed against sentence.

It was Counsel for the Appellant's contention that 9 months imprisonment for the possession of 38 lbs of Indian Hemp was manifestly excessive, and Mr. Barrow contrasted this with the sentence imposed on an American (Dale) who was apparently fined $1,000 for the importation of 1,500 lbs of Indian Hemp some five months previously. Mr. Barrow also drew the Court's attention to the fact that the Appellant had a wife and seven children and is farming in an area which was recently affected by severe floods. It was conceded that the Appellant had a previous conviction for possessing dangerous drugs on the 29th August, 1975, when he was fined $350.00.

Mr. Quallo (for the Crown) took the view that the learned Chief Magistrate had been somewhat lenient in this case having regard to the amount involved and the fact that the Appellant was a second offender, and pointed out that the maximum sentence that he could have imposed was one year. Mr. Quallo distinguished the present case with Dale's by pointing out that in that case there was no evidence that the Indian Hemp had come from Belizean sources and also that the aeroplane in which Dale had been travelling had been confiscated; and that, so far as the authorities in Belize were concerned it was Dale's first offence.

After carefully considering the submissions made to me, I have come to the conclusion that the sentence imposed by the learned Chief Magistrate should not be disturbed. The sentence certainly does not come to this Court with a sense of shock, and it is relevant to note that the Appellant was in no way dissuaded from dealing in drugs as a result of the fine imposed upon him for possession in 1975. It therefore follows that the sentence must be upheld, and the appeal against sentence accordingly dismissed.

----------OO----------