Court of appeal increases sentences in meth case

The court of appeal has increased the prison sentences of two individuals for the possession of 211 grams of methamphetamine with the intention to supply, deeming the sentences imposed on them by the court of first instance “insufficient” for the seriousness of the offences. According to the unanimous ruling dated September 30 and made public on Monday, the court accepted the appeals of the attorney general of the Republic, increasing the sentences of the first defendant from four to five and a half years in prison and from three and a half to five years in prison for the second defendant. The two individuals were found guilty of conspiracy and the unlawful possession of a controlled drug with the intent to supply. In addition, one of defendants faced a charge of illegally staying in the Republic after his temporary residence permit expired. The decision followed the criminal court’s sentencing, which had ruled different sentences for the two individuals, arguing that the second defendant was young and had a clear criminal record, whereas the first defendant already had a previous conviction. The attorney general appealed the sentences, arguing that they were “inadequate” and that the trial court failed to give due weight to the seriousness of the offenses, the need to impose deterrent sentences and the aggravating factors. In its decision, the court of appeal reiterated that it does not primarily re-determine the sentence imposed by the court of first instance and that intervention is only possible when the sentence is objectively manifestly insufficient or excessive or when an error of principle is established. The court of appeal ruled that there was a “clear discrepancy” between the seriousness of the offenses and the sentences imposed, as well as a “substantial deviation” from the framework established by case law in similar cases. In its ruling, the court emphasised the seriousness of drug-related offenses and the need to impose deterrent sentences, particularly in cases of possession of drugs for the purpose of supplying them to third parties. At the same time, the court ruled that the criminal court had correctly taken into account the aggravating and mitigating factors including the admission of guilt of both defendants, as well as the fact that they were not the final traffickers of the drugs, but functioned as links in the trafficking chain. However, the court of appeal ruled that these factors alone were not enough to justify sentences that did not reflect the severity of possessing a large quantity of methamphetamine with the intent to supply. The court also emphasised that, despite the need to individualise the sentence, the personal circumstances of the defendants had limited weight when it comes to serious drug offenses, arguing that the “protection of society as a whole” and the effective implementation of the law took precedence. The methamphetamine had been discovered in the bedroom of house where the two defendants were living during a police raid in Nicosia, with the criminal court later finding that the drugs were in their joint possession for the purpose of supplying them to third parties.