The Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that a drug dealer's sentence was too lenient — but because he is on parole he will not face a longer term in custody.

Judges yesterday granted an appeal by the Crown that George Lambert's original jail sentence was "inadequate". However, the appeal was annulled because he was already on parole.

Lambert, 55, was jailed for three years last July after being convicted of running a 'drugs factory' in his Sandys home.

He was found guilty in May 2006 of possessing cannabis with intent to supply and possession of drug equipment. He previously admitted two charges of cannabis possession and another of having drug equipment relating to a small amount of cannabis for personal use.

Police found 687 grams of cannabis with an estimated street value of $34,300 during a raid at Lambert's home in Scaur Lane on March 13, 2004. They also found five buckets, an electric saw and plastic wrappings used for preparation of the drug.

The Court of Appeal yesterday heard that Lambert was released on parole in April.

Crown counsel Carrington Mahoney argued Lambert's sentence should be increased to six years. "I'm looking at the principle that it should have been more in the range of six years," he said.

Elizabeth Christopher, defending Lambert, listed previous similar cases, referring to one defendant jailed for three years for possession of 413 grams of cannabis and another jailed for a year for 227 grams.

However, President Justice Edward Zacca told her: "None of these cases you can rely on because they are all guilty pleas, and one of these cases got three years for 47 grams."

Ms Christopher said: "If you look at the range of cases it could be said it's outside of the range.

"I don't think it's right that right-thinking members of society would think it was manifestly inadequate."

But President Justice Zacca said: "Having regard to the principles established in such cases presented to us here today, we consider that the sentence of three years is inadequate, and that at least a sentence of four and a half years ought to have been imposed. But having regard to the fact that the defendant is on parole and has been released, we make no further order."