Bermuda home were yesterday told their 12 year prison sentence could not be reduced.

William and Barbara Roberts were told by Court of Appeal President Sir James Astwood that their jail term for possession of $1.5 million worth of the drug must stand as a warning to others.

Sir James told William Roberts, 72, and Barbara Roberts, 60, that the offence could have been life if it had been proved at their Supreme Court trial that they had been involved in importation or conspiracy to deal in drugs.

And he said: "This court recognised...that age and previous record are to be taken into account at sentencing, but that in drug offences these factors would be given little weight except in the most exceptional circumstances.

"We would say further that the health of the persons convicted for like offences should be given little weight also.

"For to do otherwise would be an open invitation to use sick persons as couriers and custodians and the like, who, if caught and convicted, would expect to be treated leniently because of their poor health.

"We do not accept such a suggestion.'' The Court of Appeal earlier this month rejected appeals by barrister Julian Hall against conviction of the couple.

But Mr. Hall then asked the three-judge panel to cut the sentences because of the Roberts' age and previous good character, as well as Mr. Roberts' poor health.

The two pleaded guilty to possession of the drug with intent to supply at Supreme Court in November last year.

But the couple, of West Side Road, Sandys, insisted the drugs had washed up near their dock.

Mark Pettingill, who appeared in Supreme Court for Mrs. Roberts, added that she did not even know what the substance was.

In the appeal against sentence, Mr. Hall also cited the 1985 Paul DeSilva case, where a man who found 13 pounds of cannabis on a beach, worth at that time around $58,000, was jailed for three years.

Sir James said: "In the DeSilva case, this court did not consider three years' imprisonment as excessive and expressed a view, if anything, the sentence was on the low side.'' He added the case was not quoted on sentencing grounds by Mr. Hall, but because the drugs had been discovered by accident and with no "proven or established connection'' with importation and trafficking.

And Sir James told the court: "After considering the submissions made to us and having regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the background of the appellants, we have come to the conclusion that the sentences imposed are not manifestly harsh and excessive, nor in any way wrong in principle.

"We therefore dismiss these appeals against sentence.''