The Cyprus Court of Appeal has increased the prison terms imposed on two people convicted of possessing and intending to supply 211.10 grams of methamphetamine, ruling that the original sentences were clearly inadequate given the seriousness of the offences.
The two defendants had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to unlawfully possess, possession and possession with intent to supply a Class A controlled drug. One of them also faced a charge of unlawfully remaining in the Republic after his temporary residence permit had expired.
211 grams of methamphetamine found
The case came to light after police received information that drugs and firearms were allegedly being concealed at a residence and other premises where one of the defendants was staying.
Police obtained a search warrant and searched the property, where both defendants were staying.
Officers found 211.10 grams of methamphetamine in the bedroom occupied by the second defendant. Further investigation established that the two had conspired in April 2024 to unlawfully possess the drug, which they jointly held with the intention of supplying it to others.
Original sentences challenged
The Nicosia Criminal Court had initially sentenced one defendant to three and a half years in prison and the other to four years for possession with intent to supply.
The difference reflected factors including the younger defendant’s age and clean criminal record, while the other had a previous conviction. The second defendant also received an additional six-month sentence for unlawful residence.
The Attorney General appealed, arguing that the sentences were clearly inadequate and that the Criminal Court had failed to give sufficient weight to the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrent sentences and the aggravating factors.
It was also argued that excessive weight had been given to mitigating circumstances.
Court stresses seriousness of drug offences
The Court of Appeal reiterated that it does not interfere with a sentence simply because it would have imposed a different one.
Intervention is justified when a sentence is objectively manifestly inadequate or excessive, or when an error of principle has occurred.
The court stressed the seriousness of drug-related offences and the need for deterrent sentences, noting that possession of drugs for supply to third parties contributes to the spread of drug use.
It found that although the Criminal Court had properly considered the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating factors, its final assessment of the sentences did not reflect the seriousness of the case.
The defendants’ guilty pleas, their claimed role as intermediaries in the distribution chain and their assertion that they had acted under pressure from influential individuals were taken into account.
However, the Court of Appeal stressed that even if they were not the people who would ultimately sell the drugs, they remained links in the distribution chain, with drug users as the final recipients.
Prison terms increased
The Court of Appeal found a “manifest mismatch” between the seriousness of possessing 211.10 grams of methamphetamine for supply and the sentences imposed by the Criminal Court.
It also found a significant departure from the sentencing framework established by case law in similar cases.
The four-year sentence was therefore increased to five and a half years, while the three-and-a-half-year sentence was increased to five years.
The additional six-month sentence for unlawful residence was left unchanged.
The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals filed by the Attorney General. The two defendants will now serve five and a half years and five years in prison respectively, while the remainder of the original judgment remains in force.
Also read: Life sentence handed down for Kofinou student murder
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
