2C.L.R. 1988June29 (A LOIZOU.Ρ , DEMETRIADES,PIKIS,JJ } PETROSCHRISTOFIDESPILATOS, Appellant, v. THE REPUBUC, Respondent. (CriminalAppeal No. 4992). 5 *U 15 Sentence — Possession of controlleddrug (Cannabis resin), supplyingit to otherpersons and usingacontrolleddrug— 18months', 4years' and six months' imprisonment respectively — Appellant 23 years old, single— Two other cases involving supply of very small quantities of cannabis resin to third persons taken into consideration — Previous convictions on other not similar offences — Approach ofAssize Courtgratifying. Theappellantsupplied twoyoung menwithaquantityofcannabis resin and took in exchange £70. The circumstances showed that appellant was a well known source of drugs supply. In passing sentence the Assize Court took into consideration two other cases involving supply of small quantitiesof cannabis resin. The appellant, a young man of 23, was burdened with various other previous convictions, in respect of offences, notsimilar to the aforesaid offences. Held,dismissingthe appeal:
(1)The most disturbing feature of this case and indeed an aggravating factor is that the supply was available to very young people. 20
(2)The thought that the trading of narcotics starts taking its direction tolocal consumptionis alarming.
(3)This Court is gratified that the Assize Court approached mis case inthe right way. 25
(4)It is high time that the sentences currently imposed by the Courtsfor offences of thisnaturebe increased Appealdismissed. 91 POato·v.Republic
(1988)Casesreferredto: Makkiv. TheRepublic
(1972)2C.L.R.76; Howellv. TheRepublic
(1972)2C.L.R. I l l ; BraidiandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1985)2C.L.R.137; El-Etriand Others v. The Republic
(1985)2C.L.R.40. 5 Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentenceby PetrosChristofides Pilatoswho was convicted onthe 12thMay,1988 atthe AssizeofNicosia(Criminal Case No. 8489/88) on one count of the offence of unlawfully possessing controlled drugs contrary to sections 2, 3, 6{1)
(2), 10 6
(2)(β) and 30
(1)
(2)
(3)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotopric . Substances Law, 1977 (Law No. 29/77), on one count of the offence of unlawfully possessing controlled drugs with intent to supply them toothers contrary tosections 2,3,5(l)(b)
(3)(a),5
(3)(b) and 30
(1)
(2){3) of the above law and on one countof the offence 15 of using controlleddrugs contrarytosections2,3,10(a), 10
(6)and 30
(1)
(2)
(3)of theabove law andwas sentencedby Papadopoulos, P.D.C., Hji Constantinou, S.D.J, and Eliades, D.J. to eighteen months' imprisonmentonthe firstcount,four years' imprisonment on count 2, and to six months' imprisonment on count 3, the 20 sentences to run concurrently. M. Stamatahs, for theappellant. Gl Hadjipetou, for the respondent. A. LOIZOUP. gavethefollowingjudgment of the Court.Bythe presentappealtheappellantcomplainsthatthe sentenceimposed 25 by the Assize Court of Nicosia for possession and supply to another person of a controlled drug, namely 5.98 grams of cannabis resin, and also for using such drug contrary to the NarcoticDrugsandPsychotropicSubstances Laws, 1977-1983, is manifestly excessive. 30 The sentences imposed ontheappellantwere eighteen months on the first count,four years' imprisonment on the second count and six months'imprisonmentonthethirdcount,thesentencesto run concurrently. The circumstances under which the appellant committed the 35 offences inquestion,for whichhepleadedguiltybefore theAssize Court are briefly the following. 92 2 C.L.R. PUatosv.Republic A.Loboa P. TherewerefouraccusedontheInformation,allyoungpersons. Thefirsttwoaccusedcameoutof«Mythos»pubinNicosia,sothat thesecond accused would buya quantityof cannabisresin ofa valueofseventypounds.Theymettherethethirdaccusedandthe 5 appellant who wasthe fourth accused. The appellant agreed to supplythefirstaccusedwiththequantityheaskedandsuggested tohimthatheshouldgoandwaitforhimintheMunicipalGardens ofNicosia,whilsthe himself wenton hismotor-cycle toEleonos streetinStrovolosandtookaquantityofcannabisresinwhichhe 10 had hidden behind a pole near a windmill, and he went to Eleftherias Square. There he gave a quantity of cannabis resin wrapped in an aluminium foil, to the second accused, a young national service man, and the latter opened it and paid to the appellant the sum ofseventy pounds.Atsomestageduringthat 15 encounter theywere seen bythird accused goingaway towards the walls of the city and return some time later holding a lit handmade cigarettefrom whichthethreeofthemweresmoking byturn.Itcontainedcannabisresin. The appellant asked also that two other casespending inthe 20 DistrictCourtofNicosiaunderNos3/1988,8490/88betakeninto consideration. These cases were in respect of possession and supplytoathirdpersonofverysmallquantitiesofcannabisresin. Theappellanthadthefollowingpreviousconvictionswhichhe admitted. 25 CaseNo.1284/84,8thJuly, 1983,forconductinghimself ina mannerlikelytocauseabreachofthepeace,£15fine. Case No.20535/83,3rd March, 1984, for assaulting aPolice Officer intheexecution ofhisduties,andconductlikelytocause breach of the peace. He was sentenced to three months' 30 imprisonment for theassaultandtwoweeksforthe misconduct. Fourothercasesweretakenintoconsiderationforcausingbodily harm,actsofindecencyandmisconduct. CaseNo.4797/85,3rdJuly,1985.Affray andconductlikelyto causebreachofthepeace£60fineonthefirstcount,£20fineon 35 thesecondcount.Boundoverinthesumof£200fortwoyearsto keepthepeace. CaseNo.2008/84,12th October, 1984,for
(1)assaultcausing actualbodilyharm,
(2)forfailingtoproducehisidentitycard,
(3)for conduct likely to cause breach of the peace,
(4)malicious 40 damagetoproperty,
(5)carryinganoffensive weapon inorderto 93 A. Loizou P. PUatos v. Republic
(1988)terrorize. He was sentenced to nine, one, one, six, and three months' imprisonment respectively, all sentences to run concurrently. Inpassingsentence tourothercasesweretakeninto consideration. Case No.29744/85,27th January 1986,fordepartingfrom the Republic without a permit from the Minister of Interior, fifteen days' imprisonment. The appellant istwenty-three years of age, single.He cohabits witha youngwoman ina rented two-room flat.Theotherroomis occupied byanother young woman, a friend. 5 10 TheAssizeCourt inpassingsentenceobserved thatthefirsttwo accused who were users of narcotics, knew from where to be supplied and referred to a number of judgments of mis Court relating to the sentences imposed in cases involving narcotics, it proceeded to impose the sentences complained of. The cases 15 referred to by the Assize Court are the following. Makki, Ibrahim H. v. The Republic
(1972)2 C.L.R. 76; Michael Howell, v. The Republic
(1972)2 C.L.R. I l l ; Hanzal Mahmoud Braidi and Another v. The Republic
(1985)2 C.L.R. 137;and AhmatAli ElEtriand others v. The Republic
(1985)2 C.L.R. 40. 20 Nodoubt thisisa casewhere the appellant isobviously known to narcotic users as a source of supply. But the most disturbing feature of this case and indeed an aggravating factor is that the supply wasavailable to very young people.The thought that the supplyand tradingofnarcotics,whichsofaroccupiedourCourts, 25 was intended for other countries and other places, now it starts takingitsdirectiontolocalconsumption,isalarming. Weareterribly disturbed by this fact anc!our Courts should show no mercy to thosewhotradeandsupplyouryouthwithsuchkindof disastrous materials. We are gratified that the AssizeCourt approached this 30 case intherightway.Wefindnoreasonwhatsoeverjustifying mis Court on appeal, to interfere with the sentence imposed on the appellant. It is high time that the sentences which have been currently imposed by the Courts were considered, generally speaking, to be on the lenient side and that they should be a 35 startingpointforanupward increase ratherthanbeconsidered as a measureofcomparisonfortheimpositionofsentencesinsimilar cases. No doubt the quantity and category of narcotics involved haveabearingonthelengthofthesentencebutotherfactorssuch as the circumstances and the system followed for the supplyand 40 the persons to be supplied are also important factors in 94 2CUR. POatoev. Republic A.LofaooP. determiningtheappropriatesentenceinsuchcases. For all the above reasons the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appealdismissed. 95