Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26 October, 1999

Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and

Jurats Myles and Allo

AG

-v-

Logan Michael O’Neill

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded in custody by the Inferior Number, ‘en police correctionnelle’ on 5 October 1999 following conviction on a not guilty plea to count 1, and following guilty pleas to counts 2-5 - which pleas were entered on 9 July 1999 - to the following counts:

Age: 19

Details of Offence:

Count 1: Defendant observed by police officers in St. Helier nightspot at approximately 10.30 pm. On apprehension, was found with eleven wraps containing amphetamine sulphate in trouser pocket. Total rate 9.23 grams with a street value of £110. Defendant denied possession with intent to supply, claiming he thought that the wraps contained glucose and that they had been given to him by "a little green man in a spaceship, like, come down from Mars" and later at trial before the Inferior Number, that they were for his personal consumption. The Jurats convicted the defendant after a one day trail on 5 October 1999.

Count 2: Some of the amphetamine sulphate found about the defendant’s person would have been for his own consumption.

Count 3: The police officers also found a piece of cannabis resin on the defendant’s person at the time of the search of the St. Helier nightspot. This was cannabis resin, weighed 2.25 grams and had a street value of £20.

Count 4: The defendant stole 2,600 cigarettes from Stampers Supermarket at St Ouen’s Village. Ran out of store without paying and was pursued by the manager. Manager caught defendant, who abandoned cigarettes and ran off. Total value £300. All recovered. Defendant initially denied involvement, but finally pleaded guilty when confronted with video evidence.

Count 5: Defendant borrowed grandmother’s cash card and obtained her PIN in order, he said, to draw £10 to enable him to purchase some food. Instead he withdrew £210, but handed his grandmother a receipt for £10, not disclosing that he had without her authority drawn £200 from the automatic telling machine. Grandmother reported facts to the police upon seeing her bank statement. Defendant immediately admitted involvement in this offence.

Details of Mitigation:

1) Re drugs - very small quantity. Only one previous drug offence, and that did not involve dealing. 2) Youth - defendant still 19. 3) Gap in record between 1994 and 1998. 4) Defendant has drug problems. 5) Had "messed up his life" and been greatly troubled by parents’ separation and subsequent divorce.

Previous Convictions:

Many, beginning when he was aged 11 - malicious damage, larceny; 1994: multiple larcenies, breaking and entering, motoring offences, receiving, etc. - probation, conditional upon residing at Les Chênes; 1998: possession of amphetamines, dishonesty, public order, malicious damage - one year probation.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of the Court: Conclusions granted

A J Olsen, Crown Advocate

Advocate N J Chapman for the accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Mr. Chapman has said all that he could on his client’s behalf. This Court found the defendant guilty of possessing 11 wraps of amphetamine with intent to supply. He was arrested at the Warehouse nightspot where large numbers of young people congregate but fortunately his behaviour led to his arrest before he was lost in the crowd.

Amounts of less than 1 kg fall below the Band ‘C’ described in Campbell, Molloy & MacKenzie -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA and therefore we have little to guide us from the Court of Appeal, but the seriousness of any drug dealing means that a sentence of detention is inevitable. The cases we have been shown are of little help except to set high limits of custody for sentencing.

O’Neill has a record, including only this year a drug related offence, but the report of Mr. Saunders, if I may say so, is depressing. O’Neill clearly has a drug problem and it may be the debts that led him to steal from the supermarket and from his grandmother are related. We just do not know.

O’Neill, I have to tell you that under Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 you have to go into Youth Detention because the totality of your offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified. We note, however, that the Crown Advocate does not want the possession of amphetamine sulphate to be recorded, as you were found guilty on count 1, the more serious offence and therefore we are going to grant you an absolute discharge on count 2. The conclusions of the Crown are going to be followed and on count 1 you are sentenced to 12 months Youth Detention; on count 3 you are sentenced to 1 month Youth Detention, concurrent; on count 4 you are sentenced to 1 month Youth Detention, consecutive; on count 5 you are sentenced to 1 month Youth Detention, consecutive, making a total of 14 months Youth Detention and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and I must tell you that under Article 10 of the Law you may be liable to supervision when you come out of Youth Detention.

Authorities

AG -v- Lundy (20 July 1995) Jersey Unreported.

AG -v- McDonough (7 March 1997) Jersey Unreported.

AG -v- Spencer (13 June 1997) Jersey Unreported.

AG -v- Le Mottée (20 June 1997) Jersey Unreported.

Campbell, Molloy & MacKenzie (1995) JLR 136 CofA.