Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

30 January 1998

Before: FC Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and Jurats

Le Ruez and Quérée

AG

-v-

Jason Charles Venton

3 counts of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

counts 1, 7: Cannabis resin.

Count 8: Amphetamine sulphate.

1 count of using a motor vehicle on the road when the condition of the body structure is defective, contrary to Article 53 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) (Jersey) Order, 1956. (count 2);

1 count of using a motor vehicle on the road when the breaking system and windscreen wipers are not maintained in good and efficient working order, contrary to Article 56 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) (Jersey) Order 1956 (count 3);

1 count of using a motor vehicle which emitted an oily substance, contrary to Article 59 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use ) (Jersey) Order, 1956. (count 4);

1 count of causing or permitting a vehicle on the road during the hours of darkness, without obligatory lights, contrary to Article 2 of the Road Transport Lighting (Jersey) Law, 1956. (count 5);

1 count of using a motor vehicle on the road during the hours of darkness without illuminating the registration mark of the vehicle, contrary to Article 22 of the Motor Vehicle Registration (General Provisions ) (Jersey) Order, 1993. (count 6);

1 count of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another contrary to Article 6 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

(count 9); amphetamine sulphate.

Age: 30

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

Count 1personal quantity i.e. a nugget of cannabis resin

Count 7 - ditto - but on another date

Count 81 wrap of amphetamine sulphate

Count 961.42 grams amphetamine sulphate. Value £614

Details of Mitigation:

Defendants life in a mess when offences committed. Evicted from accommodation.Ex wife in hospital so Venton had been looking after own two children. When wife was discharged from hospital, she took children away. Relationship has improved since then and includes access. Furthermore, the Defendant had benefited from time in prison: studying, training as a chef and addressed alcohol problem.

Previous Convictions:

[1] DIC, [2] No insurance, [3] No insurance, [4] Production of cannabis, [5] Possession of ecstasy, [6] Receiving or hiding stolen goods value £313, [7] Breach of binding over order.

Conclusions:

Count 1:1 months imprisonment

Count 2:£125 fine or 2 weeks imprisonment in default of payment

Count 3:£125 fine or 2 weeks imprisonment in default of payment

Count 4:£125 fine or 2 weeks imprisonment in default of payment

Count 5:£100 fine or 1 weeks imprisonment in default of payment

Count 6:£100 fine or 1 weeks imprisonment in default of payment

Count 7:3 months imprisonment, consecutive to sentence on count 1

Count 8:3 months imprisonment, concurrent with count 7, but consecutive to count 1.

Count 9:15 months imprisonment, concurrent with count 7 and 8 but consecutive to count 1.

The default sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently with each other, but to follow consecutively sentences imposed on Counts 1, 7, 8, and 9.

nb Full discount of 1/3 for a guilty plea, not included. On indictment, a not guilty plea was entered and the case was set down for trial. The plea was changed to guilty, at a later date, after an experts report on drug misuse had been commissioned and disclosed.

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Conclusions granted, except for count 9, on which a sentence of 12 months imprisonment was imposed, and all sentences to run concurrently .

Total: 12 months imprisonment.

The Solicitor General

Advocate A Messervy for the accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: It does seem extraordinary that a mature man of 30 who has already served a term of imprisonment for growing cannabis and possessing ecstasy should again be involved in the drugs scene.

Fortunately Venton has admitted the obvious which is that the 61.42 grams of amphetamine sulphate was in his possession with intent to supply. We have only to note that there was sufficient - and there are no trading standards in this business - to make 10 wraps with a street value of some £614.20, to realise how serious the matter is.

The policy of this Court is well known; we will continue to deal severely with those who trade in these dangerous substances. It avails little to say that he had personal drugs to escape from reality whilst awaiting his previous prison sentence when he was found with a sufficient amount of drugs to sell on to others.

The learned Solicitor also dealt with a defective vehicle which, on the face of it, would have been dangerous enough to other road users if it had been driven alone, however we must recall that 12 persons were seen getting into the van at Minden Place car park.

 Although the fines are not at all unreasonable in the circumstances, he clearly has no means to pay them. However, today, in Court, his mother offered to pay the fines for him and that clearly took Mr Messervy by surprise. We have no doubt that his mother could ill-afford the payment and, as it is, she has told us that she could pay a maximum of £50 per week.

The default sentences would, in our view, be too harsh a penalty on a man who has shown remarkable efforts to improve himself whilst on remand in prison. These efforts, which, we repeat, are remarkable, allow us to treat him as an exceptional case. In the circumstances we are going to impose the fines, but we are going to make the default sentences run concurrently.

As to the term of imprisonment, which we regret is inevitable, we will take a slightly different view to that of the Solicitor General. Count 9 is the most serious, and we are going to reduce the sentence moved for on this count to 12 months, all the other counts will be made concurrent, making a total of 12 months imprisonment. The term that you have spent on remand will be taken into account.

We order the forfeiture and the destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Current Sentencing Practice: Release 24: 1- xi - 92

R -v- Maund (1980) 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 289: (J1-3B 01)