Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/179

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

7^th August 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Lee Thomas John Buckley.

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 15th June, 2001, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

1 count of:	Driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended (count 1);
1 count of:	Driving uninsured, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 (count 2);
1 count of:	Driving without a licence, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended (count 3);
1 count of:	Driving a defective motor vehicle, contrary to Article 106(1) of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use)(Jersey)Order, 1998 (count 4);
3 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 5; heroin; Count 8: cannabis; Count 9: methadone hydrochloride.

 

And following conviction by the Inferior Number (en police correctionelle) on 15^th June 2001:

 

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 6: heroin.

 

[On 15^th June 2001, the Defendant was acquitted by the Inferior Number on Counts 10 and 11, and the Court ordered that count 7 should remain of file.]

And following an admitted breach of a 1 year Probation Order, with 80 hours' community service, made in the Magistrate's Court on 2^nd September 1998 on guilty pleas to:

 

1 count of:	Breaking and entry and larceny; and
1 count of:	Larceny.

 

Details of Offence:

Count 6: On 2^nd August 1999 a person matching the Defendant's description was seen driving a Ford Fiesta hire car into the grounds of Mont à l' Abbé school to collect a package from under a school garden shed, which was suspected to contain illegal drugs.  The witness, a teacher, reported the incident to the police.  The Ford Fiesta hire car was tracked down by police officers to a car park opposite the Defendant's home.  Observations were made on the vehicle.  Later that morning the Defendant was arrested when returning to the vehicle.  Hidden inside the car, in a compartment within the glove-box, were two plastic bags, one containing 26.88 grams of heroin and the other containing 10 individual "wraps" of heroin weighing a total of 8.47 grams: total street value in excess of £11,000.  The Defendant's fingerprints were on the plastic bags.  The Defendant gave "no comment" responses throughout police interviews.  The teacher positively identified the Defendant at an Identification Parade. In a Financial Interview the Defendant did not disclose any source of income to sustain his drug-taking habit apart from parental financial support.  He was, therefore, to be regarded as actively involved in the commercial supply of heroin in the island.

Counts 5, 8, 9:  Small quantities of illegal drugs in the possession of the Defendant for his personal use on 25^th May 1999 and 2^nd August 1999.

Counts 1-4:  Defendant was involved in a minor road traffic incident on 13^th May 1999 when he drove his mother's car, without a driving licence or insurance, into the rear of another car. 

 

Breach of Probation Order

Count 1: On 4^th March 1998 between 09.40 and 11.40, the Defendant broke into an unoccupied private residence and stole various items with a value in the region of £1,250.  A person matching the Defendant's description was observed running from the premises.  Virtually none of the stolen property was found.  The Defendant initially denied any involvement in the burglary

Count 2:  On the 15^th January 1998 the Defendant stole property valued at £54 from Voisins Department Store.  He was arrested when leaving the store.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The Defendant's drug addiction since the age of 16 years' had ruined his family's life.  The Defendant's mother wrote to the Court describing the problems suffered and explained that whilst on bail, awaiting trial for 11 months, the Defendant had transformed his behaviour and had managed to stop using any illegal drugs.

 

Previous Convictions:

A number of previous convictions but none relating to the supply of illegal drugs. 

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 6:	7 years' imprisonment;
Count 8:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 9:	3 months' imprisonment.

 

All concurrent.

Breach of Probation Order:

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive;
Count 2:	1 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

TOTAL: 8 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Counts 1-4:	£200 fine or 14 days' imprisonment in default of payment, on each count.
Counts 5, 8 & 9:	Conclusions granted.
Count 6:	6 years' imprisonment. (starting point: 9 years)

 

Breach of Probation Order:

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent;
Count 2:	1 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

TOTAL: 6 years' imprisonment.

Those who spread the misery of drug abuse must accept full responsibility.

 

 

Advocate B. Lacey, Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs. S. A. Permain for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Buckley has been convicted of a serious offence of possession with intent to supply of nearly 35g of heroin with a street value of approximately £11,000.  He has also pleaded guilty to other offences and falls to be sentenced for breach of a probation order imposed as long ago as 2^nd September 1998.

2.        Mrs Pearmain, who appeared for the accused, has asked us to treat him as a victim, rather than as an evil trafficker.  In support of that submission she has referred us to a long and moving account of the misery caused to Buckley's family, written by his mother.  In a sense, of course, every abuser of heroin is a victim, but we reiterate that those who spread the misery of drug abuse to other families must accept responsibility for their actions. 

3.        The accused has spent one year and one month in custody on remand and has been on bail for a further twelve months, pending the resolution of these charges.  We have been told that much of this delay results from changes of plea by the defence and the entry of not guilty pleas, which then went to trial.  Notwithstanding all that, we think that delays of this order are an affront to the judicial system and require to be taken into consideration in arriving at a just result.  It is not acceptable that the procedural wheels should grind so slowly.  We appreciate that steps are already being taken by the Attorney General and the Magistrate to address these problems, but it is a factor which features in the decision at which we have arrived. 

4.        The Crown Advocate has referred us to a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Rimmer & Ors-v-AG (19^th July 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA, where the Court laid down guidelines for the appropriate starting point in drug trafficking cases involving heroin. For the weight of heroin involved, the band is eight to ten years'.  The Crown Advocate has submitted that the proper starting point is one of ten years' imprisonment.  Defence counsel has urged upon us that the bottom of the band, that is to say eight years' is the appropriate point.  In our judgment, the proper starting point in this case is midway down the band set by the Court of Appeal, that is one of nine years'.  We propose to apply the same deductions, as moved for by the Crown Advocate, in respect of the youth and other mitigating circumstances applicable to the accused, that is three years.   

5.        The sentence of the Court is both, accordingly, as follows:  On count six you will be sentenced to six years' imprisonment; on count eight to three months' imprisonment, concurrent; on count nine to three months' imprisonment, concurrent; on count five to three months' imprisonment concurrent;  on each of counts one to four of the indictment you will be fined the sum of £200 or, in default of payment, fourteen days' concurrent in each case.  In respect of the offences for which you were placed on probation in 1998 you will be sentenced on the count of breaking and entry to twelve months' imprisonment and on the count of larceny to one months' imprisonment.  All those sentences will run concurrently with each other and concurrently with count six.  You are, therefore, sentenced to a total of six years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

 

Authorities

AG-v-Muat (16^th March 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/52]

AG-v-Trinidade (20^th July 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/141]

AG-v-Présumé (1^st November 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/213]

AG-v-Le Mière & Purden (26th November 1997) Jersey Unreported;

Rimmer & Ors-v-AG (19^th July 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA.