A leading member of an organised crime group whose jail term was increased when he lost his appeal has failed to get his original sentence restored.
Garry Dentith was jailed for seven years and three months in January this year after admitting the importation and supply of cannabis and five counts of money laundering involving £192,855 of criminal proceeds.
The 42-year-old, of Princes Street in Douglas, was arrested as part of Operation Artemis, which smashed an organised crime group operating in the island.
He was said in court to have played a leading role in the gang and was ‘high up in the chain in the Isle of Man’.
Dentith appealed against the sentence handed down by Deemster Cook, his lawyer arguing it was ‘manifestly excessive’.
But in a judgment, the appeal court ruled the Deemster had actually been too lenient and erred by giving a reduction in sentence. It increased his sentence from seven years three months’ custody to seven years six months’ custody.
Dentith then lodged a second appeal to try to restore his orginal sentence or, failing that, getting permission to take his case to the Privy Council. But Judge of appeal Anthony Cross KC and Deemster Richard Pratt ruled there was no arguable point of law and the appellant had been given a clear warning several weeks before the appeal hearing that his sentence could be increased or decreased.
And they also dismissed his application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, saying: ‘There is in our view no serious miscarriage of justice in increasing the sentence of seven years and three months to seven years and six months.’
The court had previously heard that Dentith had been a drug dealer for a considerable period of time and was part of an organised crime group whose offending was so serious that a lengthy gaol term was required.
At the first appeal, his lawyer Paul Rodgers had argued that Deemster Cook had erred in principle in applying a discount of only 3% for the appellant’s human rights and those of his partner and stepson.
But the appeal judges said no such rights were triggered at all in this case and the woman named in court was the appellant’s girlfriend, not his partner and the child was not his stepson but the child of his then girlfriend.
They said they regretted to say that Mr Rodgers’ submissions ignored the reality of the evidence.