ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
15 October, 1999
Before: F C Hamon Esq, Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Le Ruez and Le Brocq
AG
v
Stephen John Langley
2 counts of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978;
Count 2: diamorphine.
Count 3: cannabis resin.
1 count of possession without the authority of the Defence Committee, a weapon designed to discharge of any noxious thing contrary to Article 19 of the Firearms ( Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4 )
(Count 1 of Indictment (possession with intent to supply ) diamorphine, contrary to Article 6 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, to which the accused pleaded not guilty, was not before the Court, as he was acquitted by the Inferior Number on 7 September 1999]
Age: 33
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
Langley was arrested at his home address and found in possession of 7.4 grams of heroin in his jeans pocket ( count 2 ). Made earlier admissions that drug belonged to him and was for his personal use. Co-operative with the police during interview and answered all bar two questions. Stated that the 7.4 grams was the remains of an underweight "½ ounce" of heroin that he had purchased two weeks previously. Stated that he purchased heroin in bulk because it was cheaper to do so and because he had ready access to cash from his gambling winnings. Police verify that Langley won £7,500 from gambling within the 4 weeks preceding his arrest on 21 January 1999. On the morning of his arrest he had attended voluntarily at the Alcohol and Drugs Service with his wife, with a view to breaking his heroin addiction. Staff of the Alcohol and Drugs Service who interviewed Langley formed the view that he was serious in his intention to break his habit. An appointment was made for Langley to see a doctor in one week and advised to take the 7.4g heroin until that appointment. Langley first started taking heroin 4/5 months prior to his arrest and at the date of his arrest was injecting up to 1½ to 2 grams per day (on the highest of differing accounts Langley gave of his addiction to police and medical staff). Following his arrest on 21 January 1999 Langley was remanded in custody, but was eventually remanded on £1,000 bail on 24 February 1999 by the Magistrates Court. Between 24 February 1999 and 18 June 1999, when he was indicted before the Royal Court, Langley was on bail and sought assistance from the Alcohol and Drugs Service, received Naltrexone implants and succeeded in breaking his habit. When presented on indictment before the Royal Court on 18 June 1999 he was remanded in custody with no further bail application being made. Langley had served 151 days ( or the equivalent to 7 months 12 days sentence ) whilst on remand to 15 October 1999 ( date of sentence ).
Langley was acquitted on count 1 - possession of 7.4g of heroin with intent to supply - by Inferior Number on 7 September 1999 and remanded in custody to 15 October 1999 to receive sentence in relation to counts 2, 3, and 4.
Count 3: simple possession of 349mg of cannabis resin.
Count 4: Langley admitted possession of a stun gun in operational condition, capable of discharging an electric shock of 63,400 volts. Stun gun found under his bed. Langley stated that he had purchased the gun to protect him from his violent Irish father-in-law. Purchased as a result of his drug induced paranoia. No evidence that the gun was ever used or taken out into a public place.
Details of Mitigation:
Plea of guilty. Co-operative with the police ( but did not name supplier of drugs or the stun gun). Truthful with the police during interview and answered all questions ( other than naming his supplier of drugs and stun gun). Formed intention to break habit prior to his arrest, and since arrest has broken habit. Wife shortly to give birth to first child. Turning point in his life. Expressed remorse and willingness to remain drug free with assistance of his wife, who was largely responsible for "frog-marching" Langley to the Alcohol and Drugs Service when she discovered his addiction.
Previous Convictions:
Minor motoring, malicious damage, public disorder offences and one conviction of possession of cannabis resin (1990).
Conclusions:
Count 2: 18 months imprisonment.
Count 3: 1 week imprisonment.
Count 4: 3 months imprisonment.
All Concurrent. TOTAL: 18 months imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
12 months probation; 120 hours Community Service, with condition of attendance at Alcohol and Drugs Unit, and random tests for opiates.
Buesnel case permits individualised sentence in appropriate circumstances, such as in present case.
P Matthews, Crown Advocate
Advocate J C Gollop for the Accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The amount of heroin found in Langley’s possession was not small. 7.4 grams of heroin could make at least 74 score bags, and could provide a casual abuser with 222 doses. However, this is a strange case.
Langley went to an Inferior Number trial on a charge of possessing heroin with intent to supply. He was found not guilty. So the story that he told the police from the start is correct. He became a heroin abuser because of a painful back complaint, and after his prescribed drugs had been stolen from him. He took advice; it was bad advice, and he rapidly became addicted.
Three things are important. First, he went with his wife to see the Drug and Alcohol Service before he was arrested. Second, he has persevered with his course of freeing himself from heroin. He is now, apparently, drug free.
Third, and even more strangely, he is a gambler and a successful gambler. We say that because one might have questioned how he funded his drug habit, but he had legitimately made some £7,500 just before Christmas, and that explains perhaps the purchase of the bulk heroin, which was for him at that time, one week’s supply.
He was released on bail, and volunteered during that time to attend the Drug & Alcohol Service. He had an implant, but he lapsed - with serious medical consequences for him - on one occasion.
He is 33 years old, and his record on the face of it, is not serious. There is one drugs offence but it is some nine years ago, when he was found in possession of a cannabis joint in Alderney. We also have to say that the raid carried out by the police revealed no other drugs and no drug dealing paraphernalia, but it did reveal a stun gun with a potential to deliver 63,400 volts. He has not named his supplier of heroin, and he had not named the person who apparently sold him the stun gun in a pub for £60.
The feeling of the experts who examined him was that he was suffering from drug-induced paranoia at the time that he bought the gun; it was bought apparently to protect himself from his Irish father-in-law.
His wife is due to give birth to a child in a short time. We would say this: his wife, with her family background, must have had no doubt about the dangers of the use of heroin, and it was apparently she who discovered him using the heroin, and, in the words of the probation officer, "frog-marched" him to the Drug and Alcohol Service.
He has been on remand now for 7 months and 12 days, and the only previous period of incarceration on his record was six weeks for the small amount of cannabis, already mentioned.
This Court, of course, is bound by the judgements of the Court of Appeal and by the Superior Number, and in particular we have looked carefully at the judgement of the Superior Number in AG -v- Buesnel [1996] JLR 265. What that Court said at page 269 of the judgment is this:
"If the quantity of the drugs cannot be described as small, or other aggravating factors are present, a custodial sentence should usually be imposed"
It is that word "usually" which has given us pause for thought. The judgment then goes on to say this:
"In certain cases, where the Court is persuaded that the balance tips in favour of reform, a sentence requiring attendance at some educational therapeutic course may be appropriate."
In order to ensure that we had understood the judgment of AG -v- Buesnel correctly, we have had a careful look at the case of AG -v- Roche, (4th July 1997) Jersey Unreported, and it may be useful, so that our judgement may be understood, if we read the whole of that short judgment:
"Roche was caught red handed, as the Crown Advocate submitted, in possession of a substantial quantity of heroin. We accept his explanation and sentence him on the basis that it was for his personal use. We have given anxious consideration to the recommendations of the Probation Officer and, indeed, we are grateful to her for her balanced and helpful report. However…."
and this is the passage that we think is important.
"…However we have reached the conclusion that this is not a case where the balance tips in favour of reform…"
Then the Court went on to sentence Roche to two years imprisonment, and it is quite clear from the judgement in Buesnel, which is supplemented by what we have read from the judgment in Roche, that the Superior Number intended to break from the straight- jacket of the Attorney General -v- Young (1980) JJ 281.
We first of all say this: we will continue to punish those who possess heroin in large amounts, if for no better reason than that serves to deter others in the increasing and worrying abuse of this substance in this Island. Heroin addiction leads to serious crime of many kinds, because the habit must be fed, and those who deal in drugs are often persons of the most dangerous and violent nature. However, for the reasons we have set out, and because we feel that we can do this under the strictures given to us by Buesnel, we are sentencing you to 12 month’s probation. You are going to continue to submit to random urine testing; you will continue attending the Drug and Alcohol Services, as directed by your Probation Officer. You are also to do 120 hours of community service within the first 12 month’s of the Order.
If you break any of these conditions, or if you fall back into your heroin addiction, you will be brought back to Court, and I have to tell you - I am sure you know it - you will be sentenced accordingly, and the time you have already spent on remand will not assist you in any way at all. So it is entirely up to you. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, and of course of the stun gun.
Authorities
AG -v- de la Haye & Kearney (15 December 1995) Jersey Unreported.
AG -v- Buesnel [1996] JLR 265.
AG -v- Rennie & Williams (9 September 1996) Jersey Unreported.
AG -v- Roche (4 July 1997) Jersey Unreported.
AG -v- Jones (1 May 1998) Jersey Unreported.
AG -v- Douglas (31 January 1992) Jersey Unreported.
AG -v- Young (1980) JJ 281