Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Sale [2001] JRC 187 (24 August 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_187.html
Cite as: [2001] JRC 187

[New search] [Help]

2000/187

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24th August 2001

Before:

M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Rumfitt and Le Breton.

The Attorney General

-v-

Ross Kenneth Sale.

Breach of a 2 year Probation Order, with 150 hours community service, made by the Royal Court on 19th November 1999 (see Unreported Judgment of that date) following a guilty plea to:

1 count of:

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

Count 1: cannabis resin;

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug with intention to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

Count 2: cannabis resin;

1 count of:

Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

Count 3: cannabis resin.

Plea: Breach admitted.

Conclusions:

1 month's Youth Detention on each count, concurrent.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

A.R. Binnington, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Lawrence for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1. Sale, you were given a chance by this Court when you were originally placed on probation. You were given a second chance when you breached that Probation Order by possession of ecstasy. You knew, furthermore, that you were not allowed to travel out of Jersey without your probation officer's consent because you applied to do so to this Court and were refused because you had already been in breach once. On this occasion you lied to your probation officer and, as a result, you travelled to Holland without his consent.

2. The directions of probation officers are to be obeyed and this Court will do all that it can to ensure that there is adequate sanction if people disobey the orders of probation officers, who are there to help you and to try and achieve an improvement in behaviour.

3. We have listened to what Mr. Lawrence has said, most strongly, on your behalf. We take account of the fact that you are only nineteen and, therefore, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Young Offenders (Jersey) Law 1994 apply to you. We have also read carefully the references that have been handed up and we are pleased to note that you do appear to be making considerable efforts.

4. Nevertheless, in view of this failure to respond to a non-custodial sentence, because of your deliberate breach of what the probation officer has said, we think that there is no alternative now to a custodial sentence. We take into account the community service that you have done, we take into account the length of probation that you have now served, but we think that the way this has to be dealt with is by a short, sharp shock to bring home to you that orders must be obeyed. The sentence of the Court will therefore be one month's Youth Detention, concurrent, on all counts and we remind you that you may be subject to supervision when you are released.

No Authorities