The Dictates of the Law

A very shy inexperienced looking 20 year old boy stood shaking in the dock for half an hour while the Judge passed sentence on him. The boy had pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing cannabis for supply.

He had purchased nearly a pound of cannabis for $300 and would have made a profit of $950. A term of imprisonment is mandatory for this offence unless special circumstances can be shown. Counsel for the defendent attempted to show that these circumstances were present in this case.

Mr Anastasiou told the court that this was the defendent's first offence, that basically he was a realistic sober young man with an excellent work record, that it would be unlikely that he would reoffend and that since his father had died 8 years ago he had been his mother's sole support.

A Doctor's note was given in evidence to show that the mother had been sick and still was, suffering from hypo-tension.

Counsel had certainly won the heart of the public present but each factor was in turn rejected by Mr Richardson. Nothing could change the fact that the defendant had deliberately and voluntarily, with an implicit knowledge of the illegality of doing so, and with no external pressures on him, engaged in the business of supply of drugs for financial gain.

It was that, for which the law lays down a term of imprisonment, despite any personal views that the defendant may have had on the particular drug.

However, Mr Richardson said that his discretion could come into play as far as the length of the sentence was concerned and that in view of the factors put forward by Mr Anastasiou, a short prison sentence of 6 months would be sufficient to allow the defendant to mend his ways.

Thus the judge had combined the dictates of the law with the needs of the defendant.