Two men have been told they can’t appeal their 20-year and 13-year prison sentences for drug offences.

Matthew Lovell and Richard Le Cras were jailed earlier this year after both admitting their parts in supplying controlled drugs.

Lovell was given the longer sentence of 20 years and six months in prison after also admitting money laundering.

He and Le Cras – who was jailed for 13-years and seven-months – had applied for leave to appeal their sentences, arguing that they were both “manifestly excessive”.

The appeal court judge told them they’d been sentenced correctly and refused leave to appeal during a hearing last week.

Pictured: Guernsey’s Royal Court.

In both cases, Judge The Rt Hon Dame Julia Macur JA said the men had been sentenced in line with the Richards’ Guidelines – a 25-year-old blueprint for sentence starting bands for drug importations and supply. 

She told Lovell that it was “not arguable that the sentences were wrong in principle or
manifestly excessive”.

She also dismissed concerns that his money laundering offences had been dealt with too severely.

In Le Cras’ case, Dame Julia also said that “it is not arguable that the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive”.

She also said there had been “a significant and, arguably, merciful reduction in the context of the criminality found” in the sentence he had been given.

Pictured: The men were jailed after a customs investigation found they were storing drugs at a vinery on Pointes Lane.

The case attracted attention when Lovell and Le Cras were sentenced in September due to the length of the prison terms each man was given.

Deputy Andy Cameron said they were “wildly excessive” and that they went far beyond what was necessary to punish wrongdoing and protect the public.

“The offences were serious and there had to be consequences,” he said on social media.

“But these were non-violent crimes, and sentences of this length feel wildly excessive.”

Deputy Cameron’s comments echoed others shared by some members of the public on social media.

They also echoed concerns raised by lawyers in recent years who have called for the Richards’ Guidelines to be replaced by sentencing guidelines based on the experience of other jurisdictions, the impact of custodial sentences, and rates of re-offending.

In September, the Home Affairs Committee told Express that it is still looking into changing sentencing guidelines – calling it a “priority” – but said it couldn’t give any details yet about how punishments for offences might change.