Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/141 - AG v O'Hara [1998] UR 141 (3 July 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/141.html
Cite as: [1998] UR 141
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
3 July 1998
Before: FC Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Potter and Quérée
AG
-v-
Thomas Christopher O’Hara
1 count of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978
Count 1: amphetamine sulphate
2 counts of possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978
Count 2: cannabis resin
Count 3: cannabis resin
Breach of Probation Order made on the 5 November 1997
On 1 April 1996: the accused was bound over for 12 months in the Magistrates Court on 1 count of possession of a controlled drug
(cannabis)
On 26 March 1997: the accused was charged in the Magistrates Court with:
1 count of possession of a controlled drug (herbal cannabis) (count 1)
1 count of possession of a controlled drug with intention to supply (herbal cannabis) (count 2)
1 count of being drunk and disorderly (count 3)
1 count of possession of a controlled drug (cannabis resin) (count 4)
Breach of probation order made on 1 April 1996
A 1 year Probation Order was imposed concurrent on all counts, with the following conditions attached:
count 1: Attendance at SMART course
count 2: 45 hours community service
On 3 July 1997: Breach of Probation Order imposed on 26 March 1997
Breach admitted. Probation Order to continue. To start SMART course again
On 2 September 1997: re conviction of 26 March 1997: count 2: Community Service completed: Probation Order discharged
re count 2.
On 5 November, 1997: Breach of Probation Order imposed on 26 March 1997.
Breach admitted. Probation Order discharged; 1 year Probation Order with 120 hours of community service substituted.;
Plea: Guilty. Breach admitted
Age: 20
Details of Offence:
O’Hara was found in possession of 18½ white tablets containing 3% by weight of amphetamine sulphate, street value £370. Lower end of commercial quantity of drug. The total amount of cannabis subject to counts 2 and 3 on the indictment was 7.86 grams representing two deals or 1/8 of an ounce and therefore a personal amount only.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth. Effectively fatherless for 14 formative years from the age of 6 years following desertion of father from the matrimonial home with consequential effect upon outlook. Signs, according to his Probation Officer that " he is beginning to manage his own temperament ". First custodial sentence.
Previous Convictions:
Possession of cannabis x 3;
Possession of herbal cannabis with intent to supply x 1;
One public order offence for which non-custodial sentences were imposed.
Conclusions: Count 1: 6 months Youth Detention
Count 2: 1 month Youth Detention concurrent
Count 3: 1 month Youth Detention concurrent
Breach of Probation Order: Discharged; following sentences substituted Count 1:1 month Youth Detention
Count 3: 1 month Youth Detention concurrent
Count 4: £50 fine or 1 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment
Total sentence of one month Youth Detention imposed in respect of breach of Probation Order to follow, consecutively,
sentence of 6 months Youth Detention moved for on main counts.
Sentence and Observations of the Court: Conclusions granted
Serious offence. O’Hara still a drug trafficker even if only supplying friends. Court having read letter from O’Haras mother and a reference (the former containing sensitive personal information concerning the circumstances of the desertion and the family history) recommended that the three months which O’Hara had already served on remand count towards the sentence imposed by the Court set out above.
P Matthews Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate CM Fogarty, for the accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: O’Hara may not consider himself to be a drug dealer, but whether he supplies friends or strangers is to us irrelevant. A drug dealer is one who sells drugs to others for cash, and a drug dealer has to obtain those drugs from someone. O’Hara declines to name his supplier, and why does he do that? Because this is not a friendly trade to be involved in.
These present offences also place O’Hara in breach of the Probation Order of one year that was imposed by the Magistrates on 5 November 1997. It is true that he has worked out the original Probation Order which was discharged, and that included possession of herbal cannabis with intent to supply, and we are left to deal with the lesser offences of simple possession of cannabis and a public order offence.
Of the most recent offences that we are dealing with today, the most serious is clearly the possession of the amphetamine sulphate with intent to supply, and we have heard from the Crown Advocate that hidden about his person, after he had been arrested in the very early hours of the morning, and wrapped in cling film, were 18½ tablets of amphetamine sulphate containing 3% by weight. That was a commercial quantity, albeit a small commercial quantity of a drug worth, on the streets, some £370. We have, of course, confiscated the £220 which might very well be the proceeds of other dealing.
Miss Fogarty has said all that could be said on behalf of her client and, if we may say so, she has said it very well. We have read O’Haras mothers letter, and it might well be that in the future he could give her some of the support that she is giving to him at this moment, but we feel that a custodial sentence must inevitably follow because the offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.
Now, stand up please, We are going to follow the conclusions of the Crown, but I am going to say something at the end about that. On count one you are sentenced to 6 months Youth Detention; on count two 1 month Youth Detention; and on count three one month Youth Detention, concurrent, that would make a total of six months Youth Detention, and we will order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
On the breach of the Probation Order, which we have to deal with: count one: 1 months’ Youth Detention consecutive to the terms above; count three: 1 month concurrent to count one; and on count four: a £50 fine or one weeks’ Youth Detention in default. We discharge the Probation Order, and I have to say that you will be liable to supervision once you are released from Youth Detention, but we are going to specifically ask, because of the attempts that you appear to be making to put yourself onto a better road, that the three months you have already spent on remand should be taken into account in calculating the sentence.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994: Article 4
Attorney General -v- Bateman (8 May 1996) Jersey Unreported
Attorney General -v- Golding (15 November 1996) Jersey Unreported
Attorney General -v- McDonough (7 March 1997) Jersey Unreported
Attorney General -v- Spencer (13 June 1997) Jersey Unreported
Attorney General -v- Le Mottee (20 June 1997) Jersey Unreported
Attorney General -v- Venton (30 January 1998) Jersey Unreported