Rolle v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Adams, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 September 1983
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: Magistrate Appeal Side No. 74 of 1983
• Date: 13 September 1983

Supreme Court

Adams, J.

Magistrate Appeal Side No. 74 of 1983

Rolle

and

Attorney General

Appearances:

Mr. Thomas Evans for appellant.

Mr. Vincent Peet for the respondent.

Criminal law - Sentences — Unlawful possession of marijuana

Adams, J.

1 The applicant James Rolle filed a notice of motion for the following relief:–

• (1) Application for Leave to Appeal against the Judgment delivered on 30th August, 1983, on Appeal from the Magistrate's Court wherein he sentenced the Appellant to Six (6) months imprisonment without the option of a fine.

• (2) A Certificate that the following question of Law which the Appellant intends to argue an Appeal is of general public importance, namely:

2 Whether in the case of offences created by Regulatory Statutes such as The Dangerous Drugs Act, the court ought to impose a fine with prison sentence in default of payment except in extreme cases where maximum penalty is considered appropriate.

3 (3) That the Appellant, James Rolle, be admitted to bail pending the determination of the Appeal.”

4 He also filed an application by way of summons for a stay of execution of the sentence of six (6) months' imprisonment. Application for leave to appeal. was abandoned at the hearing.

5 The applicant (mistakenly called an “appellant” in the notice of motion and in the summons) was sentenced by a Bahamian magistrate on 11th September, 1980 to a peremptory term of two years' imprisonment with hard labour for being in unlawful possession with two other defendants of 6 crocus bags of Indian hemp. The quantity of marijuana was considerable and was being used for commercial purposes and regardless of the alleged practices of local Magistrates should normally attract a custodial sentence. I need only refer to “Principles of Sentencing” by D.A. Thomas (1970) where the learned author says at page 165:–

“Similarly in Lansdowne the appellant admitted possession of a quantity of cannabis; accepting that there was no suggestion that the appellant was a peddler, and that all the cannabis had been grown in the appellant's garden for his own use, the court stated that the offence would ‘attract imprisonment..even if you grow the cannabis yourself’ but reduced the sentence from eighteen months’ imprisonment to a period of about nine months. As the amount involved declines, the sentence-diminishes; in a case where a man was convicted of possessing ‘a very, very small amount’ of cannabis the sentence was reduced from twelve months to three.”

6 For the reasons stated in my written judgment dated 30th day of August, 1983 I reduced the sentence to six months' imprisonment. I did so mainly because a co-defendant who had a record of previous convictions was fined one thousand dollars and consequently there was a marked disparity in the sentences. I am not disturbed by the fact that my leniency was not appreciated.

7 Section 17(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, chapter 34, states as follows:–

“17(1) Any person aggrieved by any judgment order or sentence given or made by the Supreme Court in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, whether such judgment, order or sentence has been given or made upon appeal or revision from a magistrate or any other court, board, committee or authority exercising judicial powers, and whether or not the proceedings are civil or criminal in nature may, subject to the provisions of the Constitution and of this Act, appeal to the court on any ground of appeal which involves a point of law alone but not upon any question of fact, nor of mixed fact and law nor against the severity of sentence.

Provided that no such appeal shall be heard by the court unless a judge of the Supreme Court or of the court shall certify that the point of law is one of general public importance.”

8 It is clear that an “aggrieved” person may not appeal against the severity of sentence. The imposition of a sentence involves a judicial discretion based on many factors such as an...