Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/39

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2^nd March, 2000

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats

                                                   Le Ruez, Quérée, Le Brocq, Bullen,

                                                   Le Breton, Georgelin and Allo

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Seamus Martin Wilkie

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded, on 4^th February, 2000, by the Inferior Number, following conviction before the Inferior Number, en police correctionnelle, on 18^th January, 2000, on count 1 of the indictment set out below, and following a guilty plea, entered on 3^rd September, 1999, to count 2, and a change of plea, entered on 18^th January, 2000, to count 3:

 

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 1: MDMA;

 

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

                    count 2: MDMA; and

 

1 count of:   intentionally obstructing police officers, in the exercise of their powers, under Article 17 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:  (count 3).

 

Age:  23.

 

Details of Offences:

 

Wilkie was seen acting suspiciously in the early hours of the morning in the street by two police officers.  The police officers approached him and advised him that they wished to detain him under the Misuse of  Drugs Law for the purpose of a search.  Wilkie became agitated and a struggle ensued resulting in four police officers having to restrain Wilkie and handcuff him.  He was physically carried to a police vehicle.  When searched at Police Headquarters he was found to be in possession of 27 ecstasy tablets and £150 in cash.  At trial he denied possession of the tablets with intent to supply same but said that he had been offered the tablets in the toilets at 'The Warehouse' for the sum of £200 by a stranger.  He further contended that they were for his personal use given his habitual use of the drug.  Such a scenario was not accepted by the Crown who contended that he was drug dealing and the Inferior Number convicted him of that offence.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The Crown contended that there was little available by way of mitigation save for his relative youth and his personal circumstances as set out in the Social Enquiry Report.  Through his counsel he expressed remorse that he had become involved in drugs as he had not appreciated the full dangers of that involvement.  Whilst he came from a close and supportive family he experienced problems from an early age and it was suggested that he may have been suffering from Attention Deficiency Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  He was assessed as a high risk to re-offend but as previous custodial sentence did not appear to have affect then careful consideration should be given to imposing a highly intensive package of community enforcement orders.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Five previous convictions for burglary, larceny, public order assaults with last appearance before the Magistrate's Court in April 1999 for charges of possession of cannabis and ecstasy.

 

Conclusions:

 

count 1:       6 years' imprisonment;

count 2:       to remain on file;

count 3:       3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

TOTAL:      6 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:   Conclusions granted.

 

The Court gave very careful consideration to all of the surrounding circumstances and reached the conclusion that Wilkie was a dealer of Class A drugs albeit at the lower end of the scale.  He did not co-operate at all with the police enquiries.  The Court concluded that there were no grounds for reducing the starting point sought by the Crown of 7 years and the Court agreed with the Crown that there was little to take into account by way of mitigation.  He was a young man but proper credit had been given for that fact by the Crown and therefore the conclusions were granted.  Confiscation Order in the sum of £150.  Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

 

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.J. Chapman for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:  The Court has given careful consideration to all the surrounding circumstances in this case and has reached the conclusion that Wilkie is a dealer in Class A drugs, albeit at the lower end of the scale.  He did not co-operate with the police and indeed was fortunate in our judgment to escape a charge of perverting the course of justice by giving a false address and sending the police to execute a warrant at the premises of perfectly innocent people.  There are no grounds for reducing the starting point to one of lower than seven years' imprisonment.

 

As the Crown Advocate has rightly said, there is little to take into account in mitigation.  The only factor which we are prepared to accept is that Wilkie is still a young man.  We think that the allowance made by the Crown for that factor is correct and the conclusions are accordingly granted.

 

Wilkie, stand up, please.  On count 1, you are sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment; on count 2, this will remain on file; on count 3, you are sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 6 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

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

 

AG -v- Molloy (19^th October, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Rennie & Williams (9^th September, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

 

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

 

AG -v- Brownlie (24^th January, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Howard (8^th August, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

Whyte -v- AG (17^th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported CofA.

 

AG -v- McCarthy (1^st November, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Bray (8^th November, 1999) Jersey Unreported.