Jersey Unreported Judgments

 

            2000/167

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

18^th August, 2000

 

Before:    M.C.St. J.Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

                                                      Jurats Potter and Allo.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Ricky Sharman

 

1 count of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

                  Count 1: cannabis

                 

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 2: cannabis.

 

Age:   24

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Defendant's flat searched under warrant.   Officers found 5.27 grams cannabis for personal use [count 1] and 9 bars weighing 26.55 grams each, totalling 239.02 grams, street value £1,440, i.e. approximately 67 deals [count 2].

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Did not name supplier, but otherwise co-operative.   Claimed that he had some debts to clear.   Probation report alleged remorse and low risk of reoffending.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Irrelevant [one for driving without due care and attention].

 

Conclusions:               Count 1:                             2 months' imprisonment.

                      Count 2:   8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

                      Count 1:   £500 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment.

                      Count 2:   1 year probation order; 150 hours community service; to attend a drugs and alcohol awareness course.

 

 

                                                          The Solicitor General

                                             Advocate W. Grace for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.    The normal policy of the Court is that, even in cases of comparatively modest amounts, anyone who possesses class B drugs with the intention of selling them will be sent to prison.   However, the Court has in exceptional cases imposed non-custodial sentences and Mr. Grace has submitted that this is one of those cases.   He has relied upon many factors, not all of which I propose to recite, but he referred in particular to the guilty plea, and to the immediate co-operation, in that the defendant showed the police where the drugs were at a time when their search had not hitherto revealed it.   He is a person of good character and we have read and absorbed the character references which have been supplied.   He has the support of his family, which is an important factor, and the probation service are of the clear opinion  that there is a low risk of re-offending.   The offence seems to have been committed on the spur of the moment in order to repay some debts.   We have had to consider whether those factors put together tip the balance and are able to say they just do.

 

2.    Stand up.  In the circumstances, on count 1, you will be fined £500, or one month's imprisonment in default; on count 2, you will be placed on probation for 12 months with a condition that you undertake 150 hours of community service and we will order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  We make it a condition of the probation order that you attend the drug awareness course, run by the  Alcohol and Drug Service. 

 

 

Authorities

 

A.G. -v- Swift (15^th May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Botting (7^th June, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Rodrigues (9^th June, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Such (21^st November, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Such (20^th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

Campbell, MacKenzie & Malloy -v- A.G. (1995) JLR. 135 C.of A.