clr/1988/1988_2_159.pdf

(1986)2 C LR 109 adopted Appellant inAppeal 4857 was sentenced to5years' andappellant in appeal 4858 to 7 years* impnsonmentfor possessing and trading in controlleddrugs (heroin) 10 15 The appellants had delivered 416 5 grams of heroin to ex accused 1and2 for thepurpose of taking theherointo Germany Exaccused 1was sentencedto3 1/2 years' andex accused 2 to2 1/2 years' impnsonment. It must be noted that these ex accused pleaded guilty and gave information to the Police, leading to the arrest of theappellants They,also,gaveevidence atthetnal against the appellants Appellants' complaints are that the aforesaid sentences are manifestly excessive per se and that there had been dispanty of sentences 20 Held,dismissingthe appeals-

(1)Inthelightof thetestlaiddownin Georghiou and Others ν The Republic

(1986)2 C LR 109, the ground inrespect of thedispanty fails

(2)Possession and trading in drugs is a public and social menace 159 Dewedar & Another v. Republic

(1988)andasocial problem andtheCourtshould dealwiththemseverely. Thesentencesare notmanifestly excessive. Appealsdismissed. Casesreferredto: Koukosv. TheRepublic

(1986)2C.L.R.1; 5 GeorghiouandOthersv. TheRepublic

(1986)2C.L.R. 109. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Mohammed Μ. M. Dewedar and Anotherwhowere convictedonthe 18thFebruary, 1987 bytheAssize Court of Lamaca (Criminal Case Νυ. 14412/86) on two counts of 10 the offence of unlawfully pessessing controlled drugs contrary to sections 2, 3, 6

(2), 30 and 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law 29/77 (asamended by Law 67/83) and on two counts of the offence of supplying controlled drugs to other persons contrary tosections 2,3,5(l)(b)

(3)(a), 30 and31 of 15 the above law and were sentenced by Papadopoulos, P.D.C. Constantinides, S.D.J, and Eliades, D.J. to concurrent terms of imprisonmentas follows: Appellant 1to fiveyears' imprisonment on each count and appellant 2 to seven years' imprisonment on each count. 20 Ch. Solomonides, for theappellants. A. M. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. SAWIDES J.: The judgment of the Courtwillbe delivered by Mr.Justice Kourris. 25 KOURRIS J.: Both appeals, which were heard together, were against the conviction and the sentences imposed by theAssize Court of Lamaca on each of theappellants. Appellant in appeal No. 4857 was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for possessing and trading in drugs. For the purposes of this appeal this appellant will be referred to as appellant

1. Appellant in appeal No. 4858was also convicted for possessingand trading indrugs and was sentenced toseven years' imprisonment. For the purposes of this appeal this appellantwill be referred toas appellant
2. During the hearing of the appeal both appellants abandoned 160 30 35 2 C.L.R. Dewedar &Another v. Republic Kourris J. iheirappealagainstconvictionandthehearingproceeded against sentence only. 5 The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the sentences imposed on the appellants are manifestly excessive is twofold: (a)That itismanifestly excessive on itsown merits; and (b)Thatitismanifestly excessive incomparison tothe sentence imposed on ex-accused 1 and ex-accused 2 i.e. that there is disparity of sentences. 10 The main argument of counsel for the appellants against the sentences on the two appellants isthat the trial Court in passing sentence did not give due weight with regard to the personal circumstances of the appellants. He said that the trial Court overlooked very serious mitigating factors with regard to both 15 appellants. He stressed before us that appellant 2 comes from Egypt and he isthe sole supporter of hisfamily which consistsof hisold father and mother and healsopaysthefees and maintains histhreebrotherswhoattenda university inCairo.With regard to appellant 1 hesaidthatheisafirstoffender, comesfrom Egyptand 20 ismarried toarefugee from Morphou withtwominor children, one boy three years old and one girl 16 months old. He alsosaid that he isthe sole supporter of his family. We have considered the submission made on behalf of the appellants and we find that the trial Court did in fact take into 25 consideration illmitigatingfactors putforw(/e bvtheircounsel.We donotproposetosetoutindetailthefactsleadingtothearrestand the conviction of thetwo appellants'save sofar asarerelevant for the purposes of these appeals. The two appellants were indicted before the Assize Court of 30 Lamaca together with another two persons who for purposes of conveniencewillbereferred toasex-accused 1 andex-accused
3. Ex-accused 1, a certain Schaffer, and ex-accused 2, a certain Ward, were leaving Cyprus for Germany and having been searched atthecustomsaquantityofheroine amountingto about 35 415 grams was found in the possession of ex-accused
4. Exaccused 1gave information tothe policeleadingtothe arrest and consequent conviction of both appellants. The trial Court took into consideration the fact that both ex-accused 1and 2 pleaded guilty to the offences charged, gave information to the police 161 KourriaJ. Dewedar&Anotherv.Republic

(1988)leading to the arrest oi both appellants and in passing sentence upon these two accused sentenced ex-accused 1to 3 1/2 years' imprisonment and ex-accused 2 to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment 't should be noted that had these two ex-accused not given information tothepolice the twoappellantswould not have been 5 arrestedand convicted.Itshouldbenotedthatthetwoex-accused gave evidence againstthe appellants attheirtrial. We have also considered the question of disparity of sentence raised by learned counsel for the appellants. The question of disparity of sentence was examined bythe Supreme Court inthe 10 case ofKoukos v. The Police

(1986)2 C.L.R. 1 and inthecaseof Georghiou and Others v. The Republic

(1986)2C.L.R. 109andI need notstatetheprincipleslaiddown inthetwocasessuffice itto saythatinthe case of Georghiou (supra)at p.118isstated: «Thetest laiddown wasthatwhen aCourtwasconsidering 15 an appeal against sentence based on disparity what was relevant was whether right thinking members of the public knowing all the facts and looking at what had happened would say that something has gone wrong here in the administration of justice which has resulted in one or more 20 convicted persons beingtreated unfairly.» Itshouldbe noted thatboth appellantspossessed 416.6gramsof heroine which they delivered to ex-accused 1 and 2 for the purpose of delivering thisquantity to purchasers in Germany. ThisCourtdoesnotassessbutreviewsthesentence imposedby 25 the trial Court. Itdoes not interfere with a sentence, unless such interference isjustified when the sentence ismanifestly excessive orwhen itiswrong in law. Wearesatisfied thatthesentencesimposedupontheappellants are not manifestly excessive. This Court has repeatedly pointed 30 out that possession of drugs is a very serious offence and, in particularpossession forthepurposesofsupplyingthemtoothers. Possession and tradingindrugsisapublicandsocialmenace and a social problem and the Courtsshould deal withthem severely. OF Having considered all the relevant material placed before the AssizeCourtwefind thatthesentencesimposed ontheappellants are notmanifestly excessive and that theAssizeCourt did not err 162 2 C.L.R. Dewedar &Anotherv. Republic Kourria J. inprinciple.Wearealsosatisfied, inviewofwhathasbeenstated hereinabove, that inthe circumstances of the.present casethere hasbeen nodisparityofsentences. Theappealsare,therefore, dismissed. Appealsdismissed. 163