Attorney Richard Barton Challenges Summary Court’s Cannabis Sentence For A Tourist. Barton Says A Two Year Suspended Sentence Is “Excessive” For The Tourist’s Importation Of 94 Gummies, Cannabis Cream & Pre-Rolled Ganja.
blackboxinsightsnews 
Attorney Richard Barton
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
On Friday, July 25, 2025, Attorney Richard Barton appeared before Justice Richards in the Grand Court to appeal the Summary Court judgment of Chicora Welborn, who imported 94 gummies, a jar of cannabis cream and pre-rolled ganja spliffs into the Cayman Islands. Barton argued on the Grand Court appeal that the combination of a four-month custodial sentence (suspended for two years) and a substantial fine imposed by the Summary Court was “manifestly excessive,” breaching the “totality principle” set out in the former Chief Justice’s sentencing guidelines. Barton doubled down by saying that the starting point for the Summary Court’s sentence lacked “scientific analysis.” Arguing to the contrary, Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions responded to Barton, saying that the Summary Court’s judgment was correct because any importation of drugs across an international border warrants a custodial sentence to deter such actions. After hearing from Barton and DPP Crown Counsel, Justice Richards asked them to do further research on cannabis importation sentences, which will be analysed by Justice Richards to issue a ruling of the Grand Court in a few weeks. This ruling is expected to set a precedent for the Summary Court magistrates to follow.
Barton’s arguments
Summarising the background of the Summary Court’s ruling in the Welborn case, Barton noted that his client, Welborn, arrived in the Cayman Islands on March 9. Reportedly, when the bags were requested for inspection, Welborn immediately declared the contents.
According to Barton, further examination revealed the following:
**94 gummies containing Delta THC, weighing 10.96 ounces
**Jar of cream containing Delta THC, weighing 1.09 ounces
**Four pre-rolled ganja spliffs, weighing 1.4 grams
Reportedly, the Summary Court used six months’ imprisonment as a starting point for Welborn’s sentence. This was reduced to four months after considering mitigating factors. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended for two years, meaning that she will not go to prison if she does not commit another crime in the Cayman Islands during that period.
In addition, the Summary Court fined Welborn over ten thousand dollars.
Concerning the foregoing, Barton suggested that when the custodial sentence, large fine and the Summary Court’s overall approach were taken together, the “totality” principle under the former Chief Justice’s guidelines was offended. This totality principle indicates that “The Court, when sentencing for more than a single offence, should pass a total sentence which reflects all the offending behaviour before it and at the same time, is a sentence which is just and proportionate.” It was suggested in this case that there should not be a combination of a substantial fine, costs and prison time as this approach resulted in “double punishment” for Welborn.
Regarding the starting point of six months imprisonment used by the Summary Court, Barton said that “there’s no scientific analysis or any discernible way in which we can identify the rationale behind the starting point of six months.”
Barton added:
I say this because… it’s such a departure from what would have been the guidelines’ recommendation.
In cases that exhibit a significant amount consistent with trafficking, one would expect there to be a period of custody attributed to it. But the magistrate departed so fundamentally from the starting position.
Barton implied that the mitigating factors in his client’s case ought to have reduced the sentence to a non-custodial one. These mitigating factors include Welborn having no previous convictions, cooperating with the authorities, and putting forward a character reference letter that speaks to her philanthropic work and the high regard in which she is held in her community within Texas, as well as her professional commitment to serving a charitable cause.
Barton noted further that there was no need for the Summary Court to apply prison time in Welborn’s case as a deterrent because she didn’t bring the items to the Cayman Islands for the purpose of drug trafficking and did not exhibit any “characteristic that would concern the court to the degree that she has to be sent a strong message so that her liberty is stripped from her. “
Barton concluded by noting that if a consistent approach to cannabis importation is not applied in the courts, then it would be challenging for defence counsel to competently advise clients.
Responding to Barton, DPP Crown Counsel said that the Summary Court’s approach cannot be criticised.
DPP Crown Counsel explained:
This was importation of drugs.
The mischief that the offence is aimed at is undermining the integrity of an international border.
It must be the case that where you cross an international border within amount of drugs, the custody threshold must be passed.
DPP Crown Counsel added:
If that submission is correct… then in this circumstance the learned magistrate was correct to determine a short custodial sentence was appropriate.
DPP Crown Counsel further supported the Summary Court magistrate by stating that the six-month starting point used by the Summary Court and the weight given to mitigating factors cannot be criticised.
DPP Crown Counsel then addressed Barton’s suggestion that it would be difficult for defence counsel to advise clients in the absence of consistency.
DPP Crown Counsel said:
…it would be amiss of those defending not to advise someone arrested at an international border with drugs that the first place they may well be heading is custody. That must be right, not you’re going to get a fine.”
In the circumstances, DPP Crown Counsel concluded that the sentence passed by the Summary Court magistrate was “not manifestly excessive.”
However, DPP Crown Counsel agreed with Barton that imposing a custodial sentence together with a large financial penalty was “double punishment.”
After hearing from Barton and DPP Crown Counsel, Justice Richards noted that whatever judgment is passed in the Grand Court would essentially be setting the rules for the Summary Court. In the circumstances, Justice Richards asked Barton and DPP Crown Counsel to conduct further research and submit a schedule of cases and penalties to aid in her ruling in the next couple of weeks.
Note to readers
Under the former Chief Justice’s sentencing guidelines, the “totality principle” states:
The Court, when sentencing for more than a single offence, should pass a total sentence which reflects all the offending behaviour before it and at the same time, is a sentence which is just and proportionate. This is so whether the sentences are concurrent or consecutive.
It is usually impossible to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence for multiple offending simply by adding together notional single sentences. It is necessary to address the offending behaviour, together with the factors personal to the offender as a whole.
The Alternative Sentencing law reflects the totality principle :
Section 4 Alternative Sentencing law 2008
A court shall, in imposing a punishment under this Law, take into account the following principles .. (e) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
Regarding previous cases of cannabis importation by tourists, below are some media reports of Summary Court rulings. It should be noted that the media reports most of these judgments as the Summary Court rarely publishes them.
Cases:
