Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/173

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

1^st September, 200

 

Before:  Mrs. J.G.B. Myles, Lieutenant Bailiff,

and Jurats Quérée and Le Breton

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Vincent John Cooper

 

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jerey) Law, 1978:

count 1: MDMA.

 

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

count 2: cannabis resin;

count 3: cannabis resin;

count 4: cannabis resin.

 

Plea:  

 

Age:   18.

 

Details of Offence:

 

The accused was stopped and searched at Snow Hill car park and found in possession of 15 Ecstasy tablets together with some cannabis resin.  His home was subsequently searched and further cannabis found.  The 15 Ecstasy tablets had a street value of up to £225.  The total weight of the cannabis resin was approximately 31 grams or a little over an ounce with a total street value of £174.  The accused had been taking drugs since the age of  11 years and admitted supplying friends to order.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

In view of the accused's heavy use of Ecstasy and the small number of tablets found in his possession, the plea of guilty to a charge of possession with intent to supply was of value.  He had a poor background and reading difficulties.  Youth, but not good character.

 

Previous Convictions.

 

Had a poor record of convictions showing 2 convictions for simple possession of cannabis  and Ecstasy, and had been placed on probation on no less than 6 occasions and breached every Order.

 

Conclusions:

 

count 1: 3 years' Youth Detention;   (6 years starting point);

count 2: 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent;

count 3: 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent;

count 4: 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent.

TOTAL:  3 years' Youth Detention.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

count 1: 2 years' Youth Detention;

count 2: 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent;

count 3: 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent;

count 4: 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent.

TOTAL:  2 years' Youth Detention.

The Court stated that it could not avoid a sentence of youth detention because of the accused's history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and his inability or unwillingness to respond to them.  The Court also noted that the accused had told his Probation Officer that he was not sure he would be able to keep off drugs.   Nevertheless, the Court was minded to reduce the conclusions somewhat in view of his difficulties.

 

 

A.D. Robinson, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs. C.R.G. Deacon for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE LIEUTENANT BAILIFF:

 

1.            Cooper is a young, 18 year old, man with a most unfortunate background who has been before the Court since the age of thirteen.  His record is extensive but, despite the many opportunities to benefit from the support of the Probation Service, he has breached the orders made on six occasions.

 

2.            This Court feels unable to avoid a custodial sentence because there is nothing to give us confidence in his ability to abide by a further community based sanction.  However, we accept in mitigation that he wrote his own indictment as to trafficking in class A drugs and was co-operative with the police thereafter.

 

3.            We have read his letter concerning his future intentions which are admirable but he has also told the Probation Officer in interview that he did not feel confident that he can remain clear of cannabis upon his release from the present time he has spent in prison.

 

4.            He is still a young man and we would hope that during the time in custody he will take advantage of the help available in prison.

 

5.            In view of the mitigation that Mrs. Deacon has put before us we feel able to reduce the Crown's conclusions somewhat.  Cooper, stand up, please.  Under the provisions of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994, we have to explain to you why we are passing a sentence of Youth Detention and the reason for this is because under paragraph 2(a) you have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties.  We now sentence you as follows: on count 1, you are sentenced 2 years' Youth Detention; on count 2, you are sentenced to 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent; on count 3, you are sentenced to 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent; on count 4, you are sentenced to 2 months' Youth Detention, concurrent, making a total of 2 years' Youth Detention.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

AG -v- Postill (2^nd October, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

Mason -v- AG (24^th June, 1996) Jersey Unreported CofA.

 

Walker -v- AG (16^th June, 1997) Jersey Unreported CofA.

 

AG -v- Crozier (22^nd August, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA.