Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/69

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

14^th April, 2000.

 

Before:    M.C .St.J Birt, Esq., and

                                                      Jurats Rumfitt and Le Brocq.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Keith Harvey Taylor

 

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

                    Count 1: MDMA.

 

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

                    Count 2: amphetamine;

                    Count 3: cannabis resin.

 

 

Age:   26.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Taylor was searched by a mobile police patrol on his way to a rave at Portelet Holiday Village.  He advised the officers he had purchased the ecstasy in a pub that night, and also the amphetamine.  He said he would not recognise his supplier again.  He admitted the drugs belonged to him.  He intended to take a couple of the ecstasy tablets himself and to give the other tablets to his friends at the rave without charge.  He was not a regular drug user.  He did not consider giving the drugs to his friends amounted to "supplying".

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Relative youth; had written his own indictment; ready admissions and guilty plea; background report showed him to be a man of integrity and to have real remorse; believed his friends to be willing drug users.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions:               Count 1:                             9 months' imprisonment.

                      Count 2:   £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, concurrent.

                      Count 3:   £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, concurrent.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:   12 months' Probation Order with 150 hours community service.

Count 2:   £100 or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.

Count 3:   £100 or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, concurrent.

 

The Court endorsed the principles set out in Byrne, and in ordinary course would have imposed a prison sentence.  In the light of the powerful mitigation that existed in this case the conclusions would however be varied on an individual basis.

 

 

The Attorney General.

Advocate R. Juste for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.   The Court wishes to begin by responding to the request of the Attorney General that we give some guidance on whether the principles set out in R -v- Byrne (1996) 7 Cr.App.R.(S) 34 should be applied in Jersey.  That case held that even where supply is of a modest number of tablets and for no reward and is made to friends, a prison sentence is appropriate.  In the case of Byrne itself the supply was to be to friends in a nightclub and the accused was found in possession of 18 ecstasy tablets.  The Court there held that a sentence of 12 months was appropriate.

 

2.      The reasons given were that by, in effect, entering into a form of joint venture with one person having the tablets and then giving them to friends, this has the effect of saving others in the group from the risk of detection and it also affords encouragement to others to use controlled drugs.

 

3.      We endorse the principle set out in Byrne and we therefore state that in the ordinary course a person who supplies controlled drugs to friends, even for no reward, can expect to face a prison sentence.

 

4.      However in this case there is very powerful mitigation.  The Court does not propose to go through it all.  It has been strongly put forward by Miss Juste.  To pick out just two points: these were very few in number, namely 5 tablets, and the accused made it clear during the interview that although he did not know the supplier, whom he met in a public house, he would do his best to try and help the police to identify that supplier.  The Court gives particular credit for that.  There were a number of other strong mitigating factors put forward to us by Miss Juste.

 

5.      In the circumstances we think that this is a case which - despite the general principle I have described - we can deal with by way of a non-custodial sentence.  Accordingly, Mr. Taylor, we are going to place you on probation for 12 months and you must complete 150 hours community service during that period.  That is on count 1.  On count 2, you are fined £100, or 1 week's imprisonment in default; on count 3, you are fined £100, or 1 week's imprisonment in default; the two periods in default to be concurrent.  We will give you 1 month in which to pay and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Authorities

 

 

AG -v- Rowe (18^th June, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

AG -v- Gotel (5^th August, 1993) Jersey Unreported.

AG -v- Wilson (24^th March, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

R -v- Byrne (1996) 7 Cr.App.R.(S) 34.