APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
|
|
Lord CarlowayLord Menzies
|
|
Appellant: MC McKenzie; Beaumont and Co
Respondent: Hughes AD; Crown Agent
9 May 2012
[1] On the 28 December 2011 the appellant, who is
aged 25, pled guilty at a first diet at Dumfries Sheriff Court to concern in the supply
of Cannabis. On 24 January 2012 he was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, discounted
from 12 months but including 3 months for a bail contravention. That gave
the appellant an earliest release date which the court has been told was 8 June 2012.
[2] The circumstances of the offence were that the
appellant had been stopped on 3 April 2011 on the A74(M) and found to
be in possession of 140 gms of Cannabis, with a retail value of about £1,350.
The Crown accepted that the supply was of a social, rather than a strictly
commercial, type involving the purchase, with pooled cash of £600, of a bulk
quantity of the drug for distribution to friends. The appellant had travelled
to Liverpool from Edinburgh to source a cheaper
supply than was available locally.
[3] The appellant's background is that he
appears to have had a settled childhood, leaving school at 16 with
7 standard grades. He has worked as an electrician since then. He lives
with his mother and has a partner and a young child. The appellant has two
previous convictions, one in 2003 for possession of a knife in public, which
attracted a fine of £120, and a second in 2006 for assault, which resulted in a
£450 fine. However, for reasons which are not immediately clear, the appellant
has recently been in significant and repeated trouble. On 19 March 2012 he was sentenced to
10 months imprisonment for a further assault, whilst on bail, and this pushed
his earliest release date on to 22 June 2012. The court has also been advised
that he has been found guilty of further charges of breach of the peace and
vandalism. Sentence has been deferred by the sheriff in respect of these
matters until the 8 June 2012, which was the original earliest release date.
[4] It is apparent from these facts that,
although the appellant has had a reasonably stable lifestyle and lacked a
significant criminal record until recently, in the last 12 months or
thereby he has appeared on three separate petitions dealing with a variety of
different offences. It was submitted that, having regard to the nature of the
supply in this case, the sentence imposed by the sheriff at Dumfries was excessive. However, having
regard to the quantity of Cannabis found and the surrounding circumstances
regarding the appellant's recent upsurge in offending, the court does not
consider it can classify the sentence in those terms and this appeal is
accordingly refused.
jaw