An appeals court this afternoon confirmed a first court's judgement of 10 years and six months imprisonment imposed on Briton Daniel Holmes.

Holmes' wife burst into tears when the judgement was read by Mr Justice David Scicluna, who presided the court with Justice Abigail Lofaro and Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon.

She repeatedly said later: 'It's not over, even though it may seem like that.'

Daniel's father Mel said that the family would be taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights (read his comments further down).

32 PLANTS AND 600 GRAMS OF LEAVES

The court said Holmes made a number of incorrect assertions in his appeal. He had been found in possession of 32 plants. He had also had an extra bag containing 600 grams of cannabis leaves. It was those leaves which were taken into consideration, not the stalks as Mr Holmes had claimed.

The court expert had testified that 5,000 joints could have been made from the leaves that were found in the bag. Furthermore, this was a continuous offence, which had continued for five months and was premeditated.

In his police statement Mr Holmes had assumed full responsibility for the plants. While he had tried to minimise the effect of the cannabis, he had admitted to having been addicted to it. However no evidence existed to show that he was in fact addicted.

PUNISHMENT 'WELL WITHIN PARAMETERS OF THE LAW'

The court said the punishment was well within the parameters of the law.  While the maxim was life imprisonment, the first court had applied an article of the law which brought that to a minimum of four years and a maximum of 30.

The court said this was more than just small production for personal use. There were 32 plants besides the tried cannabis leaves and a number of sachets.

Regarding the suffering by the Holmes family, the judges said that the court could not take such suffering into consideration and a person should have thought of such suffering before committing the crime.

‘When we’re not crying we are numb’

Daniel's father Mel said after the decision that his family did not expect Daniel to be let out but they expected a more reasonable sentence.

"We thought it would come down to somewhere near the minimum sentence  – something like four to six years. Daniel did not expect not to be punished, but it should never have gone to the high court anyway, he was a first time offender, so it should have been heard in the Magistrate’s court where the maximum is 10 years, and we expected the appeal judges to take into account that he was a first-time offender."

The family, he said, would definitely take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, whatever the Constitutional Court said.

"We won’t just be doing it for Daniel, we will be doing it for all the Maltese people who have supported us and also want change. They deserve a better system."

He said that when in 2007 or 2008 the family contacted Fair Trials International, they wrote to the Justice Minister and Attorney General at the time asking for information, and were quietly told afterwards by their lawyer not to do that again because it would get worse for Daniel.

"We backed off in the hope that by not involving outside agencies, things would calm down. Now they have given us no choice. The whole world is going to know what happened in the past seven years."

Mr Holmes said that his son would have been much better off if he had opted for trial by jury but he was given bad advice by his lawyer.

"The prosecution and our lawyer were debating between four and eight years. Daniel pleaded guilty on legal advice to get it over with quickly. The Attorney General came back later and said he wanted 14 years...

"We are numb. When we’re not crying we are numb. But this is not over by a long shot. I’m mostly sorry for his wife and daughter. Marzena told us the other day that when Rainbow was leaving the room after a visit, she asked if daddy could come with us...

"The judges are right when they say they can’t be swayed by emotions, but they should be swayed by evidence. They have disregarded the fact that the crime was committed by two people, and the amount of cannabis should have been split between both the co-accused."

JAILED IN 2011

Back in 2011, Holmes was jailed for 10-and-a-half years and fined €23,000 for cultivating cannabis in a Gozo apartment five years earlier, when he was 28.

Another Briton, Barry Lee, was also arrested over the same plants. He committed suicide while awaiting trial at Corradino Correctional Facility in 2010.

Mr Holmes has claimed the five cannabis plants and other baby plants were grown to sustain his and Mr Lee's habit, but he was convicted on cultivation, trafficking, possession and importation charges.

In his appeal he claimed that only half of the drug seized belonged to him and it was for his personal use.

He argued that he was jailed on the incorrect assumption that the weight of the plants amounted to more than a kilogram when this included the stem and roots, which if excluded would substantially reduce the amount.

And while the court-appointed forensic expert had valued the drug found at €11,693 the judge declared it as being €13,802, which led to a higher term of imprisonment.