ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
13 September, 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff,
Jurats Potter, Le Breton
AG
v
Jody Mulholland
FIRST INDICTMENT
1 count of breaking and entering and larceny (count 1);
2 counts ofpossession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978
count 2: amphetamine sulphate
count 3: LSD
1 count of failing to stop and report accident, contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (count 4);
1 count ofusing a motor vehicle uninsured against 3rd party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948 (count 5);
1 count of driving without licence, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (count 6);
1 count of dangerous driving, contrary to Article 14(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (count 7);
1 count of using motor vehicle with bodywork in dangerous condition, contrary to Article 80 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction & Use) Order, 1956 (count 8);
1 count of using motor vehicle when suspension not in good order, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Motor Vehicle (Construction & Use) Order 1956 (count 9);
1 count of using motor vehicle with insecure battery, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Motor Vehicle (Construction & Use) Order 1956 (count 10);
1 count of using motor vehicle with braking system that is not in good order, contrary to Article 56 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction & Use) Order 1956 (count 11);
1 count of using motor vehicle with improperly maintained direction indicators, contrary to Article 56 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction & Use) Order 1956 (count 12).
1 count of using motor vehicle with improperly maintained silencer, contrary to Article 57(2) of the Motor Vehicle (Conditions & Use) Order 1956 (count 13); and
1 count of using motor vehicle with defective tyres contrary to Article 58 of the Motor Vehicle (Conditions & Use) Order 1956 (count 14);
SECOND INDICTMENT
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: heroin
1 count of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:
count 2: heroin.
Age: 19
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
FIRST INDICTMENT
1.Commercial premises. One co-accused. Goods valued at £3,847.
2.354 milligrams
3.7 sheets of LSD - Found at home address.
SECOND INDICTMENT
1.Varied.
2.474 milligrams - Value £150 - £250. Commercial quantity at low end of scale. Holding for a friend for little personal gain.
Details of Mitigation:
Fully co-operative save for initial denial of charge 1. Youth. Weak and foolish rather than criminal. Difficult childhood.
Conclusions:
First Indictment
Count 1: 12 months Youth Detention.
Count 2:12 months Youth Detention
Count 3:12 months Youth Detention.
Count 4:£200 fine or 4 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment; 12 months’ disqualification from driving.
Count 5:£200 fine or 4 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment; 12 months’ disqualification from driving.
Count 6:£50 fine or 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment.
Count 7:£50 fine or 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment.
Count 8:£50 fine or 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment.
Count 9:£20 fine or 1 week Youth Detention in default of payment.
Count 10: £10 fine or 3 days Youth Detention in default of payment.
Count 11: £50 fine or 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment.
Count 12: £20 fine or 1 week Youth Detention in default of payment.
Count 13: £20 fine or 1 week Youth Detention in default of payment.
Count 14: £50 fine or 2 week Youth Detention in default of payment.
Second Indictment
Count 1: 3½ years Youth Detention.
Count 2:3½ years Youth Detention
All sentences to run concurrently.
TOTAL: 3½ years Youth Detention; £720 fine or 21 weeks and 3 days Youth Detention in default of payment.
Sentence & Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted, save that all sentences, including fines and default sentences to run concurrently and save that 3½ years Youth Detention sentences on second indictment reduced to 2½ years Youth Detention.
TOTAL: 2½ years Youth Detention; 12 months disqualification from driving; £200 fine or 4 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment; concurrent.
T J Le Cocq, Crown Advocate
Advocate W Grace for the Accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is, on the face of it, a difficult case but it is made easier for us by the Crown’s acceptance of all the reasons given by the Defendant for his various criminal acts. Those accepted explanations reduce what could have been most serious offences to a much lesser level of criminality.
Let us take first of all the most important matter before us today - the drug trafficking count, count 1 of the Second Indictment. We are bound to follow the Court of Appeal in Campbell, MacKenzie & Molloy -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 C.of A., where the Court of Appeal said this:
"In the passage from the judgment of Clarkin which we have cited above this Court laid down a band of starting points between six and nine years imprisonment. A starting point of nine years imprisonment was considered to be appropriate for an offender whose involvement in drug dealing was akin to that in Fogg v. Att. Gen."
We propose to vary the lowest point of the band established in Clarkin, and we accordingly state that it is seldom that the starting point for any offence of trafficking in a class A drug on a commercial basis can be less than 7 years. Of course, there have been cases where that lower starting point has been taken. In that regard we have revisited the case of A.G. -v- Postill (2 October 1995) Jersey Unreported, where six years’ Youth Detention was taken as a starting point.
The basis upon which the Crown reaches its conclusion is that Mulholland held these drugs for an unnamed person for a comparatively short period of time and for a small reward. It was the intervention of plain clothes police officers in an unmarked car that put an end to his plan. Again, the burglary, which looked serious on the face of it, involved him peripherally. The motoring offences could have had appalling consequences, and we say that because he hit a car stopped at a pedestrian crossing and might like to consider what might have happened with his defective brakes had there not been a car there to stop him and he had hit a pedestrian crossing at the time.
The reports lead us to the conclusion that counsel has repeated before us: Mulholland is probably more stupid than anything else and perhaps he would agree with us in the light of what we have heard in Court today.
We still intend to take a starting point of 6 years but the guilty plea, the peripheral involvement in all the offences, his comparative youth - he is 19, 18 at the time - and the very helpful and detailed background reports lead us to the conclusion that we can perhaps show more leniency than the Crown in its conclusions.
Your Counsel has worked very hard on your behalf. We believe, and we hope the authorities will take note, that you need to work on your anger control and we have no doubt that you will receive help from Mr. Saunders who has recommended a course of treatment.
The fines are more difficult because there is apparently no money to pay them; but we can deal with that when we look at the totality principle.
I am bound by law to tell you in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Justice Youth Offenders (Jersey) Law 1994, that the Court considers there is no other method of dealing with you because of the offence of trafficking in class A drugs is so serious that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided. I have to tell you further that when you have served your sentence of Youth Detention you will be liable to a period of supervision either by a probation officer or by some other person.
I am going to sentence you formally in this way: First Indictment - count 1: breaking and entering and larceny, 12 months Youth Detention; count 2: possession of a controlled drug, 12 months Youth Detention; count 3: possession of a controlled drug, 12 months Youth Detention; count 4: failure to stop and report a road accident; £200 fine - 4 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment, 12 months disqualification from driving; count 5: using a motor vehicle without insurance, £200 fine - 4 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment - 12 months disqualification from driving; count 6: no driving licence, £50 fine - 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment; count 7: dangerous driving, £50 fine - 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment; count 8: using a motor vehicle in a dangerous condition, £50 fine - 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment; count 9: using a motor vehicle with defective suspension, £20 fine - one week Youth Detention in default of payment; count 10: using a motor vehicle with an insecure battery, £10 fine - 3 days Youth Detention in default of payment; count 11: using a motor vehicle with defective brakes, £50 fine - 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment; count 12: using a motor vehicle with defective indicators, £20 fine - 1 week Youth Detention in default of payment; count 13: using a motor vehicle with a defective silencer, £20 fine - 1 week Youth Detention in default of payment; count 14: using a motor vehicle with defective tyres, £50 fine - 2 weeks Youth Detention in default of payment. Second Indictment - count 1: possession of a class A controlled drug, heroin, with intent to supply - we believe your Counsel has saved the day here and we are going to sentence you to 2½ years Youth Detention; count 2: possession of a class A controlled drug, heroin, 2½ years Youth Detention. All sentences, fines, default sentences and periods of disqualification, respectively, to run concurrently making a total of 2½ years Youth Detention; £200 fine, or 4 weeks imprisonment in default of payment, with 12 months disqualification from driving, and of course we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
I think you owe a debt this morning to your Counsel.
Authorities
AG v Aubin (14 May 1987) Jersey Unreported
AG v Moore, McCaffrey (24 January 1997) Jersey Unreported
AG v Gaffney (5 June 1995) Jersey Unreported
Campbell, MacKenzie & Molloy v AG (1995) JLR 136 C.of A
Whyte v AG (17 March 1999) Jersey Unreported [1999.052]
AG v Postill (2 October 1995) Jersey Unreported