2C.L.R. 1987October23 [A LOIZOU,DEMETRIADES,KOURRIS, JJI GABRIELABDELAHADSHARRO, Appellant, v. THEPOLICE, Respondent. (Criminal Appeal No. 4915). 5 Sentence— Unlawful possession ofcontrolled drugs(83gramsofcannabisresin) contrary tosections2,3,6
(1)
(2), 26, 30, 3138 ofpara 1ofPartIIoftheFirst and ThirdSchedule oftheNarcotic DrugsandPhychotropic SubstancesLaw 29/77—Four months' imprisonment —Appellant married withsix children, aLebaneseapprehended in CypruswhilstpassingonhiswaytoSweden, the country of his residence— Sentence not manifestly excessive or wrong in pnnciple. 10 The appellant is a Lebanese married with six children. On 11.987 he arrivedatLamacaPortonhiswaytoSweden— theplaceofhisresidence — throughLamaca Airport When he was going through the control of the Lamaca Airport, he was searchedand,asaresult,itwasfoundthathehadinhisanusS3gramsofresin cannabis,which,ashesaid,hehadit forhisownuse. 15 The maximum sentence provided by Law for the aforesaid offence is 6 months' impnsonment orafine of£400. Thisappeal isdirectedagainst theaforesaidsentence. 20 Held, dismissingtheappeal:
(1)Thoughasubstantialdifferentiation hasto bemadebetweenpossessionofnarcoticsforpurposesoftraffickingandtrade and possession of narcotics for one's own use, possession of narcotics for one's own use is still a senous offence and should, by all means, be discouraged.
(2)In the circumstances the sentence is neither manifestly excessive nor wronginpnnciple. Appealdismissed. 129 Sharro v. Police
(1987)Appeal against sentence. AppealagainstsentencebyGabrielAbdelahad Sharrowhowas convicted on the 18th September, 1987 at the District Court of Larnaca (Criminal CaseNo.9090/87)ononecountofthe offence ofunlawfully possessingcontrolleddrugscontrarytosections2,3, 5 6
(1)
(2),26, 30,31,38 and para. 1of part IIof the First and Third Schedule to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law, 1977 (Law No. 29 of 1977) and was sentenced byArestis, D.J. tofour months' imprisonment. Appellant appeared inperson. 10 CI. Antoniades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. A.LOIZOU, J. gave the following judgment of the Court. The appellant was convicted on his own plea, of the offence of unlawful possession ofcontrolleddrugs,towit,eighty-threegrams 15 of cannabis resin, without permit from the.Minister of Health, contrarytosections2,3,6
(1)
(2), 26,30,31,3&, ofparagraph 1 of PartIIoftheFirstSchedule andtheThirdSchedule oftheNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law, 1977 (Law No. 29 of 1977) as put intoforce byAdministrative Order No. 139of 1979. 20 He was sentenced to four months imprisonment and he has appealed against the sentence on the ground that itis manifestly excessive. The facts of the case, which appear in the judgment of the learned trialJudge, are briefly these. The appellant isa Lebanese, now resident ofSweden, married with six children, their ages ranging between seven months to sixteen years old. On the 11th September 1987, in the morning, the appellant arrivedatLamaca Port on board theship «SUNNYBOAT»on his 30 waytoSweden byairthrough Lamaca Airport. When in the afternoon of that day the appellant was going through the control of Lamaca Airport inorder todepart, he was bodilysearchedand from thissearch itwasdiscovered thathe had packed and placed in his anus eighty-three grams of resin 35 cannabis.Askedabout it,hesaidthathehad itforhisownuseand that he had bought it from Lebanon as he is addicted to this narcotic. 130 " 2C.L.R. Sharrov.Police A. Loizou J. The maximum sentence provided by Law for offences of this nature, tried summarily by a District Court,. is six months imprisonment or a fine of £400.-. The learned trial Judge - and rightly so - stressed the importance of the strict enforcement of 5 this Law so that the use, possession and generally the transportation of narcotics through Cyprus,should bestopped as faraspossible. It istrue that in punishing offences of this nature a substantial differentiation hastobemadebetween possession ofnarcoticsfor 10 purposes of trafficking and trade and possession of narcotics for one's own use. However, possession of narcotics for one's useis stillaseriousoffence andshould, byallmeans, be discouraged. We heard the appellant who has invited us to reduce the sentence imposed upon himorsubstitutesame withone offinein 15 view, inparticular, of hisfamily circumstances. This Court on appeal exercises its powers on well defined principles, the paramount one being that it will not merely interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial Court, which has the primary function of doing so, and reduce or substitute same by 20 another sentence simply on the ground that had thisCourt been taking the case in the first instance it might have imposed a different one. Moreover the appellant hasto establish that, inthe circumstances, the sentence appealed against, is manifestly excessive orwrong inprinciple. 25 On the totality of the facts of the case including the family circumstances of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that the sentence imposed on him isneither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle and, therefore, the appeal must be and is hereby dismissed. Of) ° Appeal dismissed. 131