Jersey Unreported Judgments

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 23 October 1998, following a guilty plea to:

1 count of supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

count 1: diamorphine.

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 4: diamorphine

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

count 3: diamorphine.

Age: 26

Details of Offence:

Defendant found at girl-friends home in possession of ten wraps containing 50% by weight of diamorphine with a street value of £2,472. Admitted to supplying a similar amount, perhaps slightly less, to his "customers" during the previous week. Defendant also in possession of small quantity of cannabis for his own consumption and a small quantity of (again high-strength) heroin for his own consumption. Police Officers also found £520 in cash at the premises. Total value of heroin in possession of defendant and trafficked by him about £4,500, enough to make up between 150 and 450 individual doses, depending upon preference of the user.

Details of Mitigation:

Unfortunate and in some ways a pathetic background. Claimed he recognised that he was an addict who needed help. Probation Service recommendation that sentencing be adjourned so that defendant could be assessed at Alpha 2000 Drug Rehabilitation Hostel in Hampshire.

Previous Convictions:

Eight, from 1991. Motoring, one public order, four for drugs, the last conviction had resulted in a two year sentence for inter alia trafficking in amphetamines. He had only been released from prison a few weeks prior to committing the current offences.

Conclusions:

Starting point 9 years imprisonment. The defendant had "drafted his own indictment" on the matter of actual supply and in addition to full one-third discount for the guilty plea, Crown invited Court to allow a further year to take this into account.

count 1:5 years imprisonment

count 2:2 months imprisonment, concurrent

count 3:6 years imprisonment, concurrent

count 4:8 months imprisonment, concurrent

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Defendant had had opportunities to reform himself in the past and had not availed himself of them. It was not possible to defer to the request that sentencing be adjourned for assessment. The Courts policy in these matters is clear and there was no reason why defendant should not suffer the appropriate penalty.

count 1:4 years imprisonment (correct starting point 8 years imprisonment)

count 2:2 months imprisonment., concurrent

count 3:5 years imprisonment, concurrent

count 4:8 months imprisonment, concurrent

£520 Confiscation Order; forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

A J Olsen, Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate A D Robinson for the accused

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF: The Court is bound to have some sympathy with persons like this defendant who have become addicted to a vicious drug such as heroin. That sympathy, however, must be tempered by the duty which the Court has to impose punishment upon those who traffic in Class A drugs and spread the incidence of the vicious habit to which they are addicted.

The Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions made by counsel for Nicolle as to whether it should order an adjournment so that the defendant can attend the drug rehabilitation hostel in Hampshire, to which our attention has been drawn.

Nicolle has been given several opportunities over the years to reform himself and he has not taken advantage of those opportunities. He has, as counsel has cogently argued, had a wretched past and an appalling upbringing and indeed all those matters were drawn to the attention of this Court in January, 1997, when Nicolle appeared for sentencing on charges of trafficking in Class B drugs. Only a short time after he was released from prison, having served his sentence for those offences, he was trafficking again but this time in Class A drugs, that is to say heroin.

The Court has reluctantly reached the conclusion that it is not possible to adjourn this case for the purpose advocated by counsel and that there is no sufficient reason why Nicolle should not suffer the penalty which he has brought upon himself by trafficking in these drugs. The Court wishes to make it clear that medical help is available in the prison for those who seek to take advantage of it and the Court expresses the hope that Nicolle will take advantage of that medical help.

Having considered the submissions of both counsel the Court has determined that the appropriate starting point, in this case, is one of eight years imprisonment and that will affect slightly the conclusions moved by the Crown Advocate. The sentence of the Court, therefore, is as follows: on count 1, you will be sentenced to four years’ imprisonment; on count 2, you will be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, concurrent; on count 3, you will be sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, concurrent; on count 4, you will be sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of five years imprisonment. We further order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie (1995) JLR 136 CofA

AG -v- Jouan (12 January 1996) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Jouan (2 February 1996) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Mawdsley (20 March 1996) Jersey Unreported

Mawdsley -v- AG (8 July 1996) Jersey Unreported CofA.

AG -v- Muat (16 March 1998) Jersey Unreported

Whelan: "Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey" p35

AG -v- de la Haye and Kearney (15 December 1995) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- McDonough (7 March1997) Jersey Unreported