ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
11 December 1998
Before: F C Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Potter and de Veulle
AG
-v-
Mark Fairclough Jeffery
4 counts of: possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978
count 1: cannabis resin
count 2: cannabis resin
count 4: cannabis
count 5: cannabis resin
1 count of: possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply to another, contrary to Article 6(2) jof the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.
count 3: cannabis resin.
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
On the 30 May 1998, Jeffrey was stopped by the police for driving a vehicle erratically. The officer smelt a faint aroma he associated with the smoking of cannabis emanate from the vehicle. Asked if he was in possession of anything he should not have Jeffrey immediately produced a small wooden box from his trouser pocket. The box contained a small quantity of cannabis resin (885mg) and fragments of herbal cannabis (81mg) (Counts 1 and 2 respectively]. Jeffrey was warned to attend at Police Headquarters on 24 June 1998. Jeffrey attended as arranged. In the meantime a search warrant was obtained. During a search of Jeffrey’s flat on the 24 June 1998, police removed 75mg of herbal cannabis (count 4) and 30g of cannabis resin (count 5). In the front glove compartment of Jeffreys vehicle the police recovered 165.4 grams of cannabis resin ( count 3), 56g ( or 2 "ounces") of which Jeffrey stated he intended to sell for £160 per ounce to raise £320 cash to give to his mother who was due to visit her sick parents in England.
Details of Mitigation:
Plea of guilty. Co operative and frank with the police. Long term dependent user of cannabis. Intention only to supply 2 ounces ( and this was a "one off" supply) and not a small time dealer in drugs. Since arrest had made contact with Alcohol and Drugs Service and making efforts to reduce dependence on cannabis. Window of opportunity for Jeffrey to abstain totally from cannabis use and in the opinion of the Probation and the Alcohol and Drugs Service is now a particularly suitable candidate to benefit from a "tough abstinence orientated probation order".
Previous Convictions:
1988 - possession with intend to supply cannabis resin and growing cannabis plants - 9 months imprisonment
1994 - Breach of the peace - binding over order
Conclusions:
count 1: 3 months imprisonment
count 2: 3 months imprisonment, concurrent
count 3: 12 months imprisonment, concurrent
count 4: 3 months imprisonment, concurrent
count 5: 3 months imprisonment, concurrent
Sentence & Observations of the Court:
2 year Probation Order, with condition he submits to random urine testing for cannabis, to be monitored by the Probation Service.
Given the exceptional circumstances of this particular case, and this particular individual, the Court is willing to take a risk and adopt a tough abstinence orientated probation order.
P Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate S A Pearmain for the accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: An investigating officer looking into the affairs of Jeffery described him in his report as a "small time street dealer". The prosecution accepts that he was motivated in selling a small amount of cannabis by his desire to obtain money to assist his mother to fly to England to visit her ill parents. As Mrs Pearmain has said, he has pleaded guilty and has been co-operative throughout.
The Crown recommends a total term of 12 months imprisonment. The facts of this case, and that is not disputed by either the prosecution or the defence, are that the trafficking is minimal, and he may not even be the "small time street dealer" that was defined on the facts of this case.
The charge is the sale of "2 ounces" of cannabis, with no evidence of widespread dealing. We are bound, as are all Inferior Courts, by the rulings of the Court of Appeal, and particularly in this case by the judgment in Campbell, Mac Kenzie, and Molloy, (1995) JLR 136 CofA but we feel that perhaps there should be an opportunity in what we shall call, for the purposes of this case, an exceptionally marginal case, to exercise the same discretion as the Court exercised in Attorney General -v- Buesnel.(1996) JLR 265.
In the sentencing facts put out to us by the learned Crown Advocate, there was in fact an addendum, which reads as follows:
"The Attorney General has considered the report which advocates that Jeffery is a suitable candidate for a creative sentence - a tough abstinence orientated probation order - as is suggested in the current draft of the Jersey Drug Strategy 2000 to 2004. The current sentencing policy of the Court in cases of a second offence of possession of a "class B" drug with intent to supply ( supply of class B drug ) is that a custodial sentence is imposed, unless there are exceptional circumstances",
For this reason the Crown maintains the conclusions for a custodial sentence. If however the Court is minded to adopt the suggestions set out in Mr Saunders report, the Crown will be happy to assist the Court in drafting the terms of a Probation Order.
The Alcohol and Drugs Service put forward a suggestion which we are prepared to follow, but this may be a once and only opportunity if it is not grasped by Jefferys. Stand up please, we are going to make a Probation Order of 2 years. That is on condition that you attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service as instructed by your Probation Officer, and we need you to agree that you will submit to random urine analysis tests for cannabis, and those are to be motivated and organised by the Probation Services. We want the Probation Service to supervise and report back to us. The forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is also ordered.
Authorities
Campbell, Mac Kenzie, and Malloy -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA
A.G -v- Buesnel (1996) JLR 265
A.G -v- Thomas (8 March, 1996) Jersey Unreported
A.G -v- Broadhurst (29 October, 1995) Jersey Unreported
Wood -v- A.G (1994) JLR N.15
A.G -v- Wakeling (1996) JLR N.18
A.G -v- Roberts, Gleeson (23 November 1992) Jersey Unreported