Randy Casimir v The Police

DOMINICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MAGISTERIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 1991 BETWEEN: RANDY CASIMIR Appellant and THE POLICE Respondent Before: The Honourable Sir Vincent Floissac – Chief Justice The Honourable Mr. Justice Singh – Justice of Appeal (Ag.) The Honourable Mr. Justice Matthew – Justice of Appeal (Ag.) Appearances: Mrs. Z. Dyer for the Appellant Mrs. D. Wilson for the Respondent 1992: September 15 & 17 J UDGMENT FLOISSAC, C.J. On the 4th December, 199′, before Chief Magistrate Emmanuel sitting in Magistrate’s Court District “E” of Dominica, the appellant pleaded guilty of the of [ence of having in his posses­sion a certain controlled drug (namely 2.3 kilos of cannabis) with intent to supply it to another contrary to section 7(3) of the Drug (Prevention and Misuse) ,\cl No. 20 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ,\ct). Whereupon the learned Magistrate convicted the appellant of tile of fence and imposed on the appel­lant a fine of “$50,000.00 to be paid by five installments of $10,000.00 each, commencing on the 31/12/91 and continuing until the 30/4/92” or un allen1ative sentence of three years imprison­ment in the event of the appellant’s default in payment of the fine. The appellant has appealed against l1is sentence. ‘The important question of principle involved in the sentence in this case is whether the montary value of the control led drug found in the unlawful possession of an of fender is a relevant factor in the determination of the severity or otherwise of the punishment of the offender for such unlawful possession. Normally, the monetary value of the subject matter of the crime is a relevant factor unless the legislative policy on intention in regard to the crime otherwise indicates. Since no such legis­lative policy on intention is discernible, the judicial discretion inherent in the sentencing for drug offences should be exercised with clue regard to the principle that in the absence of aggra­vating circumstances surrounding an offence, the sentence for the offence should bear some reasonable relation to the monetary value of the subject matter of the offence. In this case, the subject. matter of the offence was 2.3 kilograms of cannabis. Counsel agreed that the street value of the cannabis was approximately $5,000.00. ‘The appellant had no previous conviction. Nor were there any aggravating circumstances surrounding the offence. In these circumstances, a fine of $50,000.00 transcended that which was necessary to deter the appellant. from repeatir s the offence or to serve as a warning to others. The concept of a fine measured by reference to “three times the street value of the cont.rolled drug” _is enshrined in section It is a flexible concept which does not require fines to be rreasured mathematically and without regard to the circumstances of the case. However, in the particular circumstances of this case, we should be guided by that cohcept. 111e fine is accordingly reduced to $15,000.00 payable williin 6 weeks from the date hereof. In the event of the appellant’s default. in payment of the fine, the appellant shall be imprisoned for a term of one year. SIR VINCENT FLOISSAC CHIEF JUSTICE SATROHAN SINGH JUSTICE OF APPEAL (AG.) ALBERT N.J. MATTHEW < p style=”text-align: right;”>JUSTICE OF APPEAL (AG)