At Supreme Court: DPP wins appeal against “too lenient sentence”

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed against a non custodial sentence imposed by the Intermediate Court in a drug offence case. The Supreme Court has, this week, found the accused guilty and sentenced them to jail term instead of the original fine only. The respondent No.1 (Jean Percy Stephane Jonas) and the respondent No.2 (Abdool Cader Jilany Jeewa) were convicted for the offence of unlawful possession of 24,430 Subutex tablets in breach of the Dangerous Drugs Act under counts II and III respectively. Each was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 100,000 during the initial trial at the Intermediate Court. Following this ruling, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has appealed against the sentence imposed under counts II and III on the following grounds: 1. The sentence imposed under counts II and III is unduly lenient and wrong in principle; 2. The learned Magistrate was wrong not to impose a custodial sentence on the respondents under counts II and III; 3. The learned Magistrate failed to give sufficient consideration to the seriousness of the offence and to the value of the drugs when sentencing the respondents under counts II and III. During a raid on the flat of Jean Percy Stephane Jonas, ADSU officers found concealed in a wardrobe under some clothes eight strips containing 56 Subutex tablets. They then proceeded to search the residence of his neighbour Abdool Cader Jilany Jeewa. The police secured 24,430 Subutex tablets contained in 6 carton boxes. The street value of the was about Rs 24.5 million. It turned out that Jonas was paid to keep the drugs for one Dany Raymond. He had then left the drugs at Jeewa’s place. The latter understood that they were dealing with drugs when Jonas opened the boxes in his presence. Jonas had removed the eight strips of Subutex tablets to give them to Dany Raymond but the police secured them before he could do so. According to the DPP, the Rs 100,000 fine was not a sufficient deterrent given the massive quantity of drugs found and their huge street value. “In fact, the learned Magistrate ought to have imposed a custodial sentence,” said the representatives of the DPP. The appeal bench recalled an important legal point: “An appeal against sentence by the DPP is exceptional and involves double jeopardy for the offender (Sabapathee v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2014 MR 324])... We are, however, of the opinion that this is a fit case for us to intervene. At the time of commission of the present offences, the law provided for a penalty of a fine not exceeding Rs100,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.” The Supreme Court ruled that in the present case, “the learned Magistrate was right in considering that a deterrent sentence was called for but that she fell into error when she imposed a non-custodial sentence in the form of a fine of Rs. 100,000 on the respondents. As a matter of fact, the sentence was far from being a deterrent.” The Supreme Court stated that even though both accused deserved a custodial sentence, they are entitled to a substantial discount because of the delay since they were first sentence and since the commission of the offence. “We instead substitute a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment on respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 under counts II and III respectively.”