(1988)1988 May 16 (DEMETR1ADES,SAWIDES, KOUBRIS.JJ.) ANDREASMICHAELGEORGHIOU, Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (CriminalAppeal No. 4948). Sentence — Possession of controlleddrugs (4.300grammes of cannabis resin)and possession of such drugs with intent to supply them to others — Four and a half years' imprisonment —τNo reason for interference withthe sentence. The appellant was apprehended, whilst attempting to take out from the controlled area of the Portof Limassol theaforesaid quantity of cannabis resin. He immediately named theperson, who had given himthe drug. Such person and the appellant were jointly charged, but the prosecution offered no evidence against appellant's co-accused. 5 10 In fact, this was one of the argument in support of this appeal. However, counsel for theprosecution explained thattheyhadtoact astheydid,because ontheonehandtheappellant,whowas theonly witness, could notbe called, because thepleaded notguilty and on theotherhandthestatementof theco-accusedtothepolice was not 15 a voluntary one. Held,dismissingthe appeal:
(1)ThetrialCourtwasrightinholding that the role of the appellant inthe participation of the offence was the most difficult one as he was entrusted with the transportationof the drugs outside thecontrolled area of the Umassol Port. ^
(2)Possession of drugs is a public and social menaceanda social problem and theCourtsshould deal with themseverely. Appeal dismissed. 86 2 C.L.R. Georghioav.RepubUc Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Andreas Michael Georghiou who was convicted onthe 10thNovember, 1987 attheAssizeCourtof Limassol (Criminal Case No. 20735/87) on one count of the offence of possessing 4.300 grams of cannabis resin contrary to 5 sections 2,3, FirstSchedule,PartII,6
(1)
(2),24
(1)30 andtheThird Schedule oftheNarcoticandPsychotropicSubstances Law, 1977 (Law No. 29/77)as amended and on one count of theoffence of possessing controlled drugs for the purpose of supplying them to others contrary to sections 2, 3, FirstSchedule, Part II,5
(1)
(3)(β), 10 6
(3), 24
(1), 30 and Third Schedule of the above law and was sentenced by Boyadjis, P.D.C.,Anastassiou, S.D.J., N. Nicolaou, D.J to 4 1/2 years' imprisonment on the second count with no sentence p&ssedonthefirstcount. A. Eftychiou, for the appellant. 15 R. Gavnelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult DEMETRJADES J. read the following judgment of the Court. The appellant was convicted by theAssizeCourt of Limassol and 20 sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment after he was found guiltytotwo charges of (a) possessing 4.300 grammes of cannabis resin which are controlled drugs of class «B» contrary to sections 2, 3, First Schedule, PartΠ, 6
(1)
(2),24
(1), 30 and theThirdSchedule of the 25 NarcoticDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Law, Law 29/77 as amended by Law 67/83, and (b) possessing controlled drugs of class cB» for the purpose of supplying themtoothers,contrarytosections2,3,FirstSchedule, Part Π, 5(l)
(3)(b>, 6
(3), 24
(1), 30 and Third Schedule of the 30 NarcoticDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Law, Law 29/77 as amended by Law 67/83. The facts thatled tothearrest and prosecution of the appellant are inbrief the following: On the 7th Jury, 1987, on information received, the Police 35 -placed under surveillance in the Port of Limassol motor vehicle Registration No.MA 122 (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle). The information thatthe Police hadreceived was thatthe vehicle was goingtobe used for thetransportationof drugs which wereto 87 Demetriades «J. Georghiou v. Republic
(1988)be delivered from the ship SAFUAN «M» which was anchored at the Port of Limassol. At about midday on that day, policemen, whowere keepinga watch for thisvehicle, noticedatrailerdriven by the appellant tostop near itand the appellant toalightfrom it, unlock the driver's door of the vehicle and then go and unlock iti 5 rearrightdoor. Theappellant then checked thearea and returned to the trailer from which he took a black plastic bag which ha placed on the rearseat ofthe vehicle.The appellant then gotin.o the driver'sseat of thevehicle,and droveoff. ThePolicemen w!io were watching themovementsoftheappellant acted immediately 10 and forced theappellant tostop.Theythenopened therear dx>r ofthevehicleand tooktheblackplasticbagwhichwasontheseat. They opened it and found that there were in it a tin, a plastic container and a nylon bag containing 43 blocks of a substance which looked like cannabis resin. The appellant was then asked 15 what the bag contained and he replied «hashish».The appellant wasthen arrested.Thissubstance waslaterexamined andfound to be cannabis resin 4.300 grammes inweight. Lateron that day the appellant identified a person that wasontheship«SAFUANM»as• the person who supplied him with the drugs. This person was 20 charged together with the appellant with the offences earlier refened tobut when thetrialofthecasestarted before theAssizes, theProsecution offered noevidenceagainsthimandasaresultthe case against him was dismissed and he was acquitted. Theappellant originallyappealed againsthisconvictionandthe 25 sentence imposed on him but at the beginning of the hearing of this appeal his counsel abandoned the appeal against conviction and limited it against sentence on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The main argument of counsel for the appellant against the 30 sentence imposed on him bytheAssizeCourtcanbe summarized as follows: (
- a)The trial Court in passing sentence on the appellant disregarded the fact that his co-accused and co-felon was acquitted because the Prosecution did not offer evidence against 35 him and that thus the appellant was left alone to bear the consequences of the offences with which he and his co-accused were facing. In other words, he was made the scapegoat for others. (b)ThetrialCourtdidnotsufficiently takeintoconsideration the 40 88 2 C.L.R. Georghiou v.Republic Demetrladee J. extent and the degree of the participation of the appellant inthe planning and organization ofthe crime and, generally, the roleof the appellant inthecommission of the offences. (
- c)The trial Court, in passing sentence, did not take into t- consideration thepersonal circumstances of theappellant and,in particular, that he is a refugee and a person suffering from personality disorders. Wenowpropose todealwith thefirstpoint oftheargumentsof counsel for the appellant but before doing so we would like to 10 refertothestatementmadebycounselappearingforthe Republic in this appeal, who also appeared as the prosecution counsel in the Assize Court, after he was invited by the Bench to give an explanation whythe Prosecution offered no evidence against the co-accused of the appellant in the Assize Court. In reply to our 15 invitation counsel appearing for the Republicstated that the only available evidence against the co-accused of the appellant was that of the latter and a statement given to the Police by the coaccused. However,hestated,hedecided totakethecoursehedid fortworeasons: 20 (a)Thatsincetheappellantdecidedtoplead notguilty,hecould not callhimasa witnessagainst hisco-accused, and (
- b)having regard to the circumstances under which the coaccused gave his statement to the Police, he and alsothe Police Officers whoinvestigatedthe allegedcommission ofthe offences, 25 came to the conclusion that the statement of the co-accused was not avoluntary one. Forthesetworeasons,counselsaid,hehadnoalternativebutto offer noevidence against the other accused. As regards the first and second submission of counsel for the 30 appellant regarding the role played by the appellant in the commission of the offences for which he was found guilty, his counsel'sargument before theAssizeswasthatthe appellant was not the only person involved in the commission of the offences, thatsomebody else broughtthe drugsfrom abroad, who handed 35 them to the appellant in order to carry them outside the Port of Limassolandtoreturnthemtothatperson,andthat,therefore, the roleoftheaccusedwasverylimitedboth from thepointofviewof degreeofresponsibilityand ofthe periodoftimeduringwhich he was and would have been involved in the commission of the 89 DemetriadesJ. Georghioav.RepnbUc
(1988)offences. Theroleoftheappellant,hefurtherargued,waslimited inthathisinvolvementconsistedonlyinthetransportationofthe drugsfrom theshiptooutsidethePort. The trial Court considered this argument and came to the conclusionthattheroleoftheappellantintheparticipationinthe 5 offence was the most difficult one as he was entrusted with the transportation of the drugs outside the controlled area of the Limassol Port.The trial Court further found thatonce thedrugs weretakenoutsidethePort,theirdistributionand/orexportation from Cypruswasfrom thenonarathermucheasiertask. 10 WeareinfullagreementwiththisfindingofthetrialCourt. < Asregardsthethirdsubmissionmadeonbehalfoftheappellant, we find that thetrial Court did in fact take intoconsideration all mitigatingfactorsputforward byhiscounsel,namelythathewas a first offender, his family commitments, his character and his 15 personalitydisorders. ThisCourt,inagreatnumberofcasesofpossessionofdrugshas pointedoutthatpossessionofdrugsisaveryseriousoffence and, in particular, possession for the purpose of supplying them to others.Possession of drugsisa publicandsocialmenace and a 20 socialproblemandtheCourtsshoulddealwiththemseverely. HavingconsideredalltherelevantfactsplacedbeforetheAssize Court,wefindthatitwasopentoittoimposethesentenceoffour and a half years' imprisonment which we consider not to be excessive. Theappeal,istherefore, dismissed. Appealdismissed. 90 25