Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/233

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

24^th November, 2000

 

                                         Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

                                                        Jurats Quérée and Bullen.

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Peter Alan Charles Simmons.

 

 

1 count of: supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                  count 1: MDMA.

 

Age:   22.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

A drugs search warrant at the defendant's home revealed roach ends containing traces of cannabis in his bedroom.  A deal list was also found containing names and numbers.  At interview at Police Headquarters, the defendant admitted the deal list was a note of money owed for drugs he had sold to friends to fund his own drug habit.  Police expert calculated the deal list equated to the sale of 52 ecstasy tablets.  At interview, the defendant admitted selling a significant number of ecstasy tablets over the preceding year.  He took two to three ecstasy tablets every weekend.  Prosecution sentenced on the basis of supply of 52 tablets, other admissions being uncorroborated.  The defendant had been remanded on a warning for sentence.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Guilty plea, youth, no previous convictions.  Truly wrote his own indictment.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions:   2 years' imprisonment; starting point: 7 years.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:   1 year's probation order; 240 hours' community service.

 

Court took unusual step of placing the defendant on probation but warning him that, with a conviction for supplying drugs on his criminal record, the likelihood of escaping a prison sentence, should he appear before the Court again was very remote indeed.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Grace for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            Defence counsel submitted to us that Simmons would not be here if he had not made a full confession to the police.  It is true that the only evidence against Simmons is a list of names and numbers found in his possession which a police expert would say is a deal list.  It is not, however, difficult to imagine that a defence could have been constructed which might have given rise to some doubt.  It is, therefore, not inaccurate to state that Simmons would not be before the Court but for his openness and frankness when interviewed by the police.  He did indeed write his own indictment.

 

2.            That does not, of course, excuse his conduct.  The supplying of class A drugs is a very serious matter and the Crown has adopted entirely the correct approach in moving conclusions.  It is only because of the unusual circumstances which we have outlined that we have felt able to depart from the usual policy of sending to prison those who supply class A drugs.

 

3.            Simmons, the Court is going to take the unusual course, as I have said, of sentencing you to perform community service.  The Court hopes that you will realise that with a conviction for supplying drugs on your record, the likelihood of your escaping a prison sentence should you come back before us on another occasion is remote indeed.  You are sentenced to 1 year's probation, subject to the condition that you perform 240 hours' community service to the satisfaction of a community service organiser.

Authorities

 

 

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

 

A.G. -v- Le Maistre (2^nd May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Cousins (10^th December, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

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