Court of appeal increases prison sentences for possession of methamphetamine with intent to supply

Nicosia, Cyprus. The court of appeal has increased the prison sentences of two defendants convicted of possessing 211 grams of methamphetamine with intent to supply, ruling that the original terms were insufficient given the seriousness of the offences.

Sentences increased following attorney general’s appeals

In a unanimous ruling dated September 30 and made public on Monday, the court accepted appeals by the attorney general of the Republic. It increased the first defendant’s sentence from four years to five and a half years and the second defendant’s sentence from three and a half years to five years.

Both defendants were found guilty of conspiracy and unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply. One also faced a charge of illegally staying in the Republic after his temporary residence permit expired.

The criminal court had imposed different sentences because the second defendant was young and had no previous convictions, while the first defendant had a previous conviction.

The attorney general argued that the sentences were inadequate and that the trial court had failed to give sufficient weight to the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrent sentences and the aggravating factors.

Grounds for intervention

The court of appeal reiterated that its primary role is not to reassess sentences imposed at first instance. It said intervention is possible only when a sentence is objectively and manifestly insufficient or excessive, or when an error of principle has been established.

The court found a “clear discrepancy” between the seriousness of the offences and the sentences imposed, as well as a “substantial deviation” from the framework established by case law in similar cases.

It emphasised the seriousness of drug-related offences and the need for deterrent sentences, particularly where drugs are possessed for supply to third parties.

Mitigating factors did not justify original terms

The appeal court found that the criminal court had correctly considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, including both defendants’ admissions of guilt and the fact that they were not the final traffickers but acted as links in the trafficking chain.

However, it ruled that those factors alone did not justify sentences that failed to reflect the severity of possessing a large quantity of methamphetamine with intent to supply.