APPEAL COURT JAILS FREED DEALER

A heroin dealer who provoked controversy when he was put on probation
by a judge was yesterday starting a five-year jail term after his
sentence was overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The case involving Craig Davidson is believed to be the biggest swing
in an appeal by the Crown against an unduly lenient sentence.

The original two-year probaton order made by Lord Osborne attracted
severe criticism, not only because Davidson, 24, escaped jail, but
also because a single mother who stored his drugs had been given an
18-month prison term by a differentjudge.

Davidson, of Marchburn Road, Aberdeen, admitted being concerned in the
supplying of heroin between June 1997 and January last year.

Police had been tipped off and found heroin wont UKP1,750 hidden in
the kitchen of a house in Balnagask Road, Aberdeen. He had 24 previous
convictions, including some for drugs offences, and was on probation
at the time.

When he appeared before Lord Osborne at the High Court in Edinburgh,
the judge said: "I have no confidence that the imposition of a prison
sentence will do any good to anyone.

"What on earth is the point of the state spending huge amounts of
money maintaining people in prison when all that happens is their drug
habit is exacerbated?"

Lord Osborne made it a condition of probation that Davidson attend a
detoxification centre.

A few weeks earlier, at The High Court in Aberdeen, Tracey Reid, 26, a
frst offender, of Balnagask Road, Aberdeen, admitted being concerned
in the supplying of heroin by providing a safe house for Davidson's
drugs.

The judge in her case, Lord Marnoch, said he was reluctant to jail
Reid but felt he had to, in order to deter others.

Yesterday, the Crown challenged Davidson's sentence of probation which
the advocate-depute, Raymond Doherty, QC, described as unduly lenient.

Mr Doherty said Lord Osborne had taken the view that it was obvious
from Davidson's record that previous jail sentences had achieved
nothing and that the most constructive course would be to address the
root of Davidson's drug-taking problems.

Mr Doherty said: "In approaching matters as he has, the judge has
focused solely upon the question of rehabilitation of Davidson to
the-exclusion of other valid interests, in parlicular the public
interest in a crime being marked with due punishment."

The defence counsel, Herbert Kerrigan, QC, argued that while the
sentence could he seen as lenient, it was not unduly lenient. He said
Davidson had taken advantage of the opportunity given to him and had
responded positively to treatment in the detoxification unit.

Mr Kerrigan added the public would not be protected by dumping people
in jail if they came out and resumed their old pattern of drug offending.

Lord Cullen, the Lord Justice-Clerk, who heard the appeal with lords
Milligan and Bonomy, said: "We consider that, having regard to the
circumstances of this offense and its gravity, the sentencing judge
did not reflect the need to take into account public interest in
retribution and deterrance of others.

"We do not find there to be exceptional circumstances in this case to
justify a non-custodial sentence. His disposal was outwith the range
of disposals appropriate for an offence of this gravity."