Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/33

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th February, 2001

 

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

                                                      Jurats Myles, Rumfitt, Quérée,

                                                      Le Breton, and Georgelin.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Daniel Derek Anthony Casey

 

 

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

 

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.

 

Age: 25.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Daniel Derek Anthony Casey, on the 26^th August 2000, in the Royal Square in the Parish of St. Helier had in his possession a controlled drug specified in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the said Law, namely "MDMA" with intent to supply it to another person.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Making strenuous efforts whilst in prison to improve himself and overcome his drug addiction.   Good work record whilst in Jersey, no previous drug conviction, difficult background in Northern Ireland.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Londonderry Magistrates Court - 24.09.97

No insurance                      Fine £200, disqualified until test passed.

Unaccompanied 'L' driver Fine £100.

No 'L' plates displayed      Fined £50.

No driving license              Fine £100.

No insurance                      Fine £150, disqualified until test passed.

No vehicle test certificate  Fined £75.

Unaccompanied 'L' driver Fined £75.

Obstructing police              Fined £75.

                                          Londonderry Magistrates Court - 24.01.94.

Handling                            Fined £75, detained in Young Offenders Centre 1 month - suspended 1 year.

 

Conclusions:

 

The courts' stated sentencing policy in these cases is quite clear and a custodial sentence is the appropriate sanction.   Taking the conventional minimum starting point of 7 years imprisonment laid down by the Court of Appeal in Campbell and others which has remained undisturbed since 1995 (see Wilkie v AG (26^th July 2000) Jersey Unreported at paras 30 to 32) and making a deduction of 2 years in order to reflect the guilty plea and Casey's early admissions together with a further deduction of 6 months to reflect the other mitigating factors to which reference was made, the Crown moved for a sentence of 4 ½ years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence & Observations of the Court:

 

4½ years' imprisonment.

 

 

 

A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A.D. Hoy for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            This is yet another case of a person selling drugs in order to fund his own habit.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply in relation to 112 ecstasy tablets.

 

2.            The first matter we have to consider is the starting point.  We have considered the points made by Mr. Hoy in relation to the list of cases to which he referred us, but we remind ourselves of what was said in Campbell & Ors -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA, namely that it is seldom that a starting point of less than 7 years will be appropriate.  In our judgment this is not one of those cases.  For what the defendant did and having regard to the number of ecstasy tablets we think the correct starting point is 7 years.

 

3.            We have next to consider the mitigation.  In that respect the Crown has identified individual deductions relating to separate aspects of the mitigation.  Whilst it is of course a matter for the Crown as to how they work out the deductions, we have to say that that is an approach which did not find favour in the Court of Appeal in the case of Kenward -v- A.G. (2000) JLR 251, where the Court said this at p.254 in relation to a breakdown of individual aspects of mitigation:

 

"Breaking the allowances down in this way does help this Court to understand the reasoning of the Court below, but it also gives ammunition to counsel for applicants to argue that a particular part of the allowance is not sufficiently generous and also to try to draw out inconsistencies with other decisions."

 

The Court of Appeal went on to say at p.255:

 

"Rather than a compartmentalized approach, we prefer the comprehensive approach found in Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice, 2000 ed., para. 5-160, at 552, where it refers to offenders who have assisted the police:

 

"[For such assistance] the discount is greater than the normal discount for pleading guilty: R. v. Wood, but the sentencer should determine the final sentence by calculating a single discount taking into account all the relevant factors, including the plea of guilty and the assistance given to the authorities: R. v. Sehitoglu and Ozakan."

 

4.            We respectfully agree with those observations.  We think that a breakdown of individual deductions encourages unproductive comparison with other cases and we invite the Crown to consider proceeding in this way in the future.  Certainly what the Court has to do is to decide deductions in the aggregate, taking account of all the mitigation.

 

5.  That mitigation comprises the guilty plea; the fact that the defendant has no previous convictions for drug offences; and the contents of the social enquiry report which set out the very difficult background which he has had.  In addition it has been emphasised to us, and we accept, that the defendant has a good work record. We have seen a number of references.  He also has a steady relationship.

 

6.   We take account of all these factors and the matters raised by Mr. Hoy.  One of the Jurats would reduce the conclusions to 4 years, but the remaining Jurats believe that the conclusions are correct.

 

7.   Stand up, please, Casey.  The sentence of the Court is 4½ years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Authorities

 

 

Campbell & Ors -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

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.

 

AG -v- Such (9^th June, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

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

 

AG -v- Edingborough (20^th January, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- McMinn (2^nd March, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

Kenward -v- A.G. (2000) JLR 251 CofA.

 

Wilkie-v-AG (26^th July, 2000) Jersey Unreported CofA.