It would appear that many people welcome the news that Nelson Bascome Jr.'s sentence for importing cannabis will be appealed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Bascome, the son of MP and former Health Minister Nelson Bascome, received three years probation for importing half a pound of cannabis into the Island.

Acting Puisne Judge Archie Warner handed down the sentence after noting that "the son of a king should be treated no differently from the son of a peasant".

That may have led one to believe that Bascome would receive a prison sentence or a suspended sentence, in line with anecdotal evidence on past sentencing practices for drug importers.

But Mr. Justice Warner went on to say that the accused, who had pleaded guilty and stated that the act was a result of his drug addiction, was a model candidate for the Alternatives to Incarceration scheme, which is aimed at keeping drug users out of prison and giving them a chance to kick their addictions.

That may be so in this case, although it is worth noting that in spite of his guilty plea, Bascome demonstrated a marked lack of contrition for his crime.

And just as it would be wrong for Mr. Justice Warner to give Bascome a lenient sentence based on who he is, it would also be wrong for him to overcompensate by handing down an overly harsh sentence which is out of line with sentencing practices. It is a common legal tenet that justice should be blind.

DPP Kulandra Ratneser has described the sentence as "manifestly inadequate" in all respects and public opinion, on the whole, seems to be with him. Certainly, people found guilty of importing drugs in the past four or five years have almost always received prison sentences, and in the case of visitors caught with much smaller amounts of cannabis than Bascome, they have been fined $1,000 apiece because the charge is importation and not possession.

Because the sentence in this case is seemingly at variance with the public perception of past practices, it is important that the Court of Appeal consider it. Justice, another legal tenet states, must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Mr. Justice Warner inserted an interesting test for the Court of Appeal when he pointedly said that Bascome was a candidate for ATI.

Generally speaking, convicted drug importers have been treated harshly by judges because the act of importing the drug is seen as worse than purchasing it on the Island.

But the appeal judges will have to decide if a person who imports a drug ? but maintains that it is for his or her own use ? is a candidate for ATI, which was coincidentally put into place by Mr. Bascome along with then-Home Affairs Minister Paula Cox.

ATI is aimed at assisting drug users who often get little or no help in prison and can come out in worse shape than when they went in ? as well as carrying the stigma of being a former inmate.

Should someone who knowingly imports drugs be treated in the same way as an addict who buys drugs on the street? And where does the line get drawn? Clearly someone who imports millions of dollars worth of drugs cannot expect leniency.

But are drugs with a maximum street value of $11,000, as in Bascome's case, low enough to justify probation and referral to the ATI programme? That is the question that the Appeals Court will have to decide, and it will have ramifications far beyond Nelson Bascome Jr.