R v Simmons

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judge: Baker P,Bell JA,Bernard JA
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2016
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bermuda)
• Date: 14 November 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal 2016 No 5

[2016] Bda LR 105

In The Court of Appeal for Bermuda

Before:

Baker P; Bell JA; Bernard JA

Civil Appeal 2016 No 5

Between:

The Queen

Appellant

and

Daymon Simmons

Respondent

Ms V Greening for the Appellant

Mr M Daniels for the Respondent

The following cases were referred to in the judgment:

Richards v RBDLR [1991] Bda LR 1

R v DavisBDLR [2006] Bda LR 49

Gibbons and Beach v RBDLR [2009] Bda LR 41

Appeal by Crown against sentence of 6 years — Possession of cocaine, cannabis and cannabis resin — Increased penalty zone — 30 grams of cannabis, 385 grams of cocaine, 1 gram of resin — Manifestly inadequate

JUDGMENT of Bell JA

1. This an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, Simmons J, on the grounds that it is manifestly inadequate. The application for leave to appeal was unsuccessful and this Court ordered on 17 June 2016 that the matter should be listed for a half a day of the session, and that if the application for leave to appeal were to be successful, the hearing of the appeal would follow. We have today heard both the application for leave to appeal and the substantive appeal.

2. On 5 April 2016, the Respondent was convicted on his own guilty plea on the following charges:

• • Count 1: Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Supply in an Increased Penalty Zone, contrary to section 63, as read with section 27A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972. The drug in that case was cocaine.

• • Count 2: Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Supply in an Increased Penalty Zone, contrary to section 62, as read with section 27A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972. The drug in question was cannabis.

• • Count 3: Possession of a Controlled Drug in an Increase Penalty Zone, contrary to section 63, as read with section 27A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972. The drug was cannabis resin.

• • Count 4: Possession of Drug Equipment in an Increased Penalty Zone, contrary to section 92, as read with section 27A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972. The equipment in question was a silver grinder.

• • Count 5: Occupier Permitting Activity to Take Place, contrary to section 13(1)(d) of the Misuse of Drug Act 1972.

3. On 17 May 2016, the Supreme Court sentenced the Respondent to a term of 6 years' imprisonment in respect of count one, 18 months' imprisonment for count two, 18 months' imprisonment for count three, 15 months' imprisonment for count four, and four years' imprisonment for count five...