Court affirms 9-month sentence for Indian hemp possession, rejecting excessive sentence appeal based on drug addiction treatment needs.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court dismissed Christofis Georghiou's appeal against a 9-month prison sentence for possessing 50 grams of Indian hemp. The trial court imposed this term based on psychiatric reports identifying the appellant as a drug addict requiring institutional treatment. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the punishment was appropriate given the social dangers posed by habitual narcotic use.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IADangerous Drugs Law, Cap. 148; Dangerous Drugs Regulations, 1957: A sentence of imprisonment for possession of Indian hemp is not excessive when the accused is a drug addict in need of treatment, and the appeal against such a sentence must fail.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*1131] 1966 November 8
(VASSILIADES,AG.P., TRIANTAFYILLDES,STAVRINIBES,JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Christofis Georghiou,
Appellant,
v.
The Police,
Respondents.
(Criminal Appeal No.2850),
Criminal Law - Sentence - Possessing Indian hemp contrary to the Dangerous Drugs Law, Cap. 148 and the Dangerous Drugs Regulations, 1957 (as amended) - Appeal against sentence as being excessive - Sentence imposed by trial Court on the footing that Accused is a drug addict in need of treatment - Affirmed.
Appeals in Criminal Cases - See under "Criminal Law" above.
A. HjiIoannou, for the Appellant,
Ach. Prangos, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: -
VASSILIADES, AG.P.: This is an appeal against a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment, imposed by the District Court of Nicosia on the appellant for the possession of 50 grams of the drug known as indian hemp. The charge was based on the relevant provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Law, (Cap. 248) and the Dangerous Drugs Regulations, 1957, as amended at the time of the offence, viz. the 20th June, 1966. The punishment provided by the statute for the offence in question is three years imprisonment and a fine up to £50.
The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge; and the trial Judge, taking into consideration the reports of the Probation Officer and of Dr. Drymiotis, a Government Mental Specialist, imposed the sentence in question, on the footing that the accused is a drug addict in need of treatment in an institution. The Probation Officer's report as well as the Psychiatric Report are on the record as Exhibits 'A' and 'B' respectively, and speak for themselves.
This is one more of those pathetic cases where the Victim of habitual use of narcotics has reached the stage of being dangerous to himself and his family, as well as to the community as a whole. The dangers from the spreading, of such a social plague as the use of narcotics, need no stressing in this Judgment.,
After due consideration of the matter before us, including the evidence of Dr. Drymiotis before this Court, - (which was made available at such short notice, and was received under the provisions of section 25(3) of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960) - we have come to the conclusion that this appeal must fail; and the sentence imposed by the trial Court be affirmed.
We have the assurance of learned Counsel for the Republic that the appropriate Government Specialist shall [* 1133] keep a constant watch on this case in co-operation with the Prison doctor as well as the Welfare Officer concerned, so as to give this unfortunate drug–addict the opportunity to have all available medical and social assistance in combating his affliction.
Appeal dismissed; with directions in an order under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure law (Cap.155) for the sentence to run from the date of conviction.
Order in terms.