Appeal Court confirms jail, fine sentence

An appeal court yesterday confirmed a judgment handed down by the Magistrates` Court jailing a Rabat man for 15 months and fining him Lm500 for the possession of about 100 grammes of cannabis which was meant for sale. Brian Caruana, 32, was originally...

An appeal court yesterday confirmed a judgment handed down by the Magistrates` Court jailing a Rabat man for 15 months and fining him Lm500 for the possession of about 100 grammes of cannabis which was meant for sale.

Brian Caruana, 32, was originally found guilty of possessing the drug in circumstances denoting it was not for his personal use and keeping a firearm without a licence on and before January 8, 1997.

He appealed claiming the circumstances of the case did not suggest the cannabis found in his possession was not for his personal use.

The judgment by the Magistrates` Court, he pleaded, was "unsafe and unsatisfactory" and, consequently, the punishment was too harsh because it should not have reflected possession with intent but simple drug possession.

After reviewing he case, Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono noted that Caruana had released a statement in which he said he had never sold drugs although, sometimes, people went to his house to ask for it. He also said he smoked the occasional joint but was not an addict.

The judge noted that the Magistrates` Court had not found Caruana`s statement credible because there were signs that clearly indicated the drugs were not for Caruana`s exclusive use.

Such signs were the nature of the drug, which was in plant and seed form, the amount found and the way it was distributed. Caruana was not an addict, as he admitted in the statement, and, therefore, he had no reason to keep such a large amount of cannabis at his house.

For these reasons, the judge ruled that the Magistrates` Court was right in reaching the conclusion it had and that the conclusion was in no way "unsafe and unsatisfactory".

He also ruled that the magistrate had taken all the necessary factors into consideration when handing down judgement, that the 15-month jail term was within the parameters prescribed by law and that, according to law, a jail term was mandatory in view of the circumstances.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.