Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/32

4 pages

 

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th February, 2001

 

      Before:         M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

                                                      Jurats Myles, Rumfitt, Quérée, Georgelin and

                                                      Le Breton.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

John Paul Carter

 

Sentencing by Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by Inferior Number on 12^th January, 2001, following guilty pleas to:

 

3 counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug contrary to       Article 61 of the Customs & Excise (Jersey) Law 1999

 

                  Count 1: MDMA.

                  Count 2: Lysergide.

                  Count 3: Cannabis resin

 

Age:   19

 

Plea:   Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

John Paul Carter on 29^th September, 2000, was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug specified in Section 1(c)  Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, namely MDMA (ecstasy)

 

John Paul Carter on 29^th September, 2000, was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent  evasion of the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug specified in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, namely Lysergide.

 

 

John Paul Carter on 29^th September, 2000, was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent  evasion of the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug specified in Part 11 of the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, namely cannabis resin.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Guilty plea, although it was accepted that he was caught red handed.   Co-operative in interview.  Youth.   Record, although not blameless was not significant.   Difficult personal circumstances and remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

South Hampshire Juvenile - 05/08/98

Handling stolen goods (receiving): conditional discharge 6 months.

 

South Hampshire Magistrates - 20/10/99

Possession of a Class B drug - Cannabis resin: Fine £50

 

South Hampshire Magistrates - 25/01/00

Possession of a Class B drug - Cannabis resin: Fine £135.

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions:                                                                            

 

Count 1:     3 ½ years' Youth Detention.

Count 2:     9 months' Youth Detention.

Count 3:     3 months' Youth Detention, all concurrent.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:     2 ½ years' Youth Detention.

Count 2:     9 months' Youth Detention.

Count 3:     3 months' Youth Detention, all concurrent.

 

 

 

                                           A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate

                                            Advocate J.C. Gollop for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.    This Defendant has pleaded guilty to importing 99 ecstasy tablets, 11 tabs of LSD and half an ounce of cannabis.

 

2.    The decision of the Court of Appeal in Gregory -v- A.G. (1997) JLR 1 Cof A, has been subject to strong criticism in Whelan's Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (May '96-'97 Noter Up): pp 10-18.   In particular it is suggested that a key English decision which addressed the point at issue was not cited to the Court of Appeal with the result that Jersey law has departed from English law in its approach to an offence which is in identical terms in both jurisdictions.   The Attorney General may wish to consider re-arguing the point when a suitable case arises in order to see whether the Court of Appeal wishes to depart from Gregory in the light of the additional authorities and arguments.   But, in the meantime, the principle established by Gregory forms the law of the Island.   Accordingly this Court proceeds on the basis that the drugs imported by the Defendant were for his own use and the Campbell  guidelines are not applicable.

 

3.    This Defendant is a young offender and we begin therefore by considering Article 4 of the Criminal Justice Young Offenders (Jersey) Law (1994) but we have concluded that the offending in this case was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

 

4.    The next matter is to consider the starting point.   We have listened carefully to Mr. Gollop's submissions and in our judgment the correct starting point is  4 ½ years.   We next consider the mitigation which is then to be deducted from that starting point.  We take into account the guilty plea and the Defendant's general co-operation with the police, his youth, his background and circumstances, as set out in the Social Enquiry Report showing that he has indeed had a difficult background.   We further take into account his remorse, as evidenced in his letter to us, his determination to conquer his drug problem, and the great strides that he has made since he has been on remand in custody.   He is clearly putting his time there to good purpose.

 

5.    Taking all these matters into account we think that the right sentence is as follows: on count 1, 2 ½ years' youth detention; count 2, 9 months' youth detention; on count 3, 3 months' youth detention, all of those to be concurrent making a total of 2½ years' youth detention.    I must warn you that you may be subject to a period of supervision when you are released from youth detention.  We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

A.G. -v- Bouhsine (10^th February, 1992) Jersey Unreported.

 

Gregory -v- A.G. (1997) JLR 1 Cof A.

 

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (May '96-'97 Noter Up): pp. 10-18.

 

A.G. -v- Cappie, Halewood (4^th December, 1991) Jersey Unreported.

 

Campbell & Ors. -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 Cof A.