Appeal judges admit a sentence handed down to a drug dealer was ‘lenient’ but say they will not interfere with the sentence handed down.

Robert James Quine, 29, received a suspended sentence despite admitting possessing cocaine with intent to supply, as well as possession of ketamine and cocaine.

Those dealing in class A drugs, such as cocaine or heroin on the island, can generally expect a lengthy prison sentence.

But at the Court of General Gaol Delivery in September, Deemster Graeme Cook said he was taking the unusual decision to suspend the sentence due to strong mitigation, including Quine’s ADHD.

A few years ago, the Caldwell-Camp sentencing guidelines were introduced by the Appeal Division, setting out a stricter sentencing policy for those convicted of supplying class A drugs.

This means anyone committing such an offence will ordinarily face between five and 12 years in jail, depending on the quantity of drugs involved and any aggravating or mitigating factors.

The Attorney General decided to appeal the sentence handed to Quine, arguing it was too lenient.

The appeal hearing took place earlier this month but Appeal Judges Anthony Cross KC and Michael Hopmeier KC decided not to alter the sentence.

While accepting the sentence was ‘borderline unduly lenient’, they took into account issues such as double jeopardy and the passage of time from arrest to sentence in deciding not to increase the term.

They also considered the rehabilitation process already underway in determining not to interfere with the sentence.

The court previously heard how Quine, of Port St Mary, was found in the back of a vehicle parked on Port Erin promenade on June 6, 2023 with a backpack containing 12.9g of the class B drug ketamine, with a street value of more than £500, and 0.7g of cocaine.

Quine was arrested and his home searched, where police found 17.7g of cocaine worth more than £1,400, along with digital scales and a ‘tick list’ – evidence he was dealing.

Mr Wood, mitigating, highlighted that Quine was suffering from undiagnosed ADHD, of which substance misuse can be a symptom. He confirmed that since the offences his client has received a formal diagnosis.

Prison sentences can only be suspended if they are two years or under, and such terms are rare under the Caldwell-Camp guidelines.

However, Deemster Cook told Quine: ‘You have been diagnosed with ADHD, which has had an impact on how you deal with life.

‘Rest assured, I have applied the principles of Caldwell-Camp strictly. This is the first time I have reduced a sentence to this extent for such offences.’

At the appeal hearing earlier this month Roger Kane, representing the Attorney General, said the sentence was unduly lenient and argued the court should have adopted a starting point of six years’ custody, not five years.

He also argued the period of two years which the Deemster had allowed by way of reduction from the starting point by reason of personal mitigation, was too long and should have been nearer six months.

Mr Kane suggested that a prison sentence of at least three years would have been appropriate in this case and the two-year prison sentence was unduly lenient.

Advocate Stephen Wood, representing Mr Quine, argued the Deemster was entitled to apply a starting point of five years’ custody with the Caldwell-Camp guidelines not being ‘tram lines’.

Mr Wood also said the reduction of two years by reason of personal mitigation may have been generous but not unreasonable.

The appeal judges noted the strong mitigation in this case which included ‘excellent’ written references and a positive probation which recommended a suspended sentence.

The appeal judges also addressed the length of time between arrest and sentence.

In their ruling, they said: ‘In this case we are satisfied the undue length of the passages of time set out above was a material fact which the learned Deemster was entitled properly to take into account.

‘The respondent [Quine] had continued for over two years since his arrest to live a lawful productive life, both keeping out of trouble and continuing his important work for the community.

‘It seems clear that the learned Deemster took the view that, notwithstanding the very serious charges faced by this respondent, he considered it was in the public interest that the respondent should be permitted to continue his positive steps towards rehabilitation rather than be immediately incarcerated.

‘By reason of the two-year passage of time between being arrested and sentenced, the Deemster was able to gauge the progress made by the respondent in terms of changing the course of his previous criminal activity and clearly formed the view that the respondent was making genuine positive efforts to rehabilitate himself and keep out of trouble, which the Deemster no doubt believed would continue.’

While conceding the sentence was very lenient for such offences, the judges said the Deemster is not obliged to strictly adhere to the Caldwell-Camp guidelines.

They said: ‘It is clear from his express sentencing remarks, that the learned Deemster had the guidelines of Caldwell-Camp well in mind when sentencing this respondent and appreciated that he was taking an exceptional course on the facts of this case.

‘Having heard the submissions, we conclude, on the particular facts of this case, that the sentence of two years’ custody suspended for two years was undoubtedly lenient and arguably, on a strict application of Caldwell-Camp, it was unduly lenient.

‘It seems to us that the allowance of two years (deducted from the five-year starting point) for mitigation was indeed arguably too generous.

‘We do not agree however that the Deemster was obliged on the facts of this case, including an assessment of the role of the respondent, to apply a starting point of six years as submitted by the Appellant.

‘We should also add this in respect of the Deemster’s sentencing remarks, the respondent was expressly and properly warned of the likely consequences should he revert to any drug dealing or indeed commit any criminal offence within the period of the suspension of the prison sentence.’

The Attorney General’s reference was dismissed but order as to costs were made.