Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/180

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th October, 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Jacques Michel Chartier

 

2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.
	Count 1:  Cannabis. Count 4: Cannabis.
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 2: Cannabis. Count 5: Cannabis.
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 3: Cannabis.

 

[On 20^th September, 2002, Defendant pleaded guilty to counts 2, 3, and 5; counts 1 and 4 to remain on Court file].

 

Age:     35.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The defendant and another man, while sitting in a parked van, were approached by the police and searched.  Two bags of herbal cannabis were found in the defendant's cap.  The defendant also produced 2 wraps of cannabis from his trouser pocket.  A further amount of cannabis was discovered behind the driver's seat.  The defendant admitted to having just supplied the other person in the van with 53.65 grams of cannabis (Count 3).  He admitted to possession with intent to supply of the remaining amount of cannabis located in the van, which totalled 186.82 grams (Count 2).

During his detention, the defendant volunteered that there were further controlled drugs at his home address and agreed to the premises being searched without a drug warrant.  Acting upon this information, officers searched his home and located a total of 812.16 grams (Count 5).  The total amount of cannabis involved was just over one kilo, with a street value of between £5,936.00 and £6,095.00.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, full co-operation with police from an early stage, drugs found in a communal area and, by admitting that they were his, therefore wrote his own indictment to Count 5.  Vulnerable character and hopeless businessman, no previous drug convictions.

 

Previous Convictions:

Minor miscellaneous motoring offences, grave and criminal assault, possession of an offensive weapon, resisting police arrest.

 

Conclusions:

Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Confiscation Order: £4,590.45.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

1 year Probation Order, with 150 hours Community Service Order.

This was an exceptional case.  Court felt able to order 150 hours Community Service and Probation for 1 year.  Court indicated that it had been minded to order a prison sentence, one of 9 months would have been appropriate.  The defendant should consider himself very fortunate.

Confiscation Order granted in the sum of £4,590.50.

 

 

 

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R Juste for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The defendant has admitted to possession of approximately 1 kilo of cannabis with the intention of selling it.  In normal circumstances there can only be one penalty for such an offence, and that is a sentence of imprisonment.

2.        But Advocate Juste has argued that this is an exceptional case which justifies a non-custodial sentence.  She has relied on a number of matters.  The first and most important is the circumstances of the offence: the defendant had incurred business debts a while ago when a business venture folded.  He had succeeded in paying off those debts, but had incurred personal debts whilst doing so.  The position was then exacerbated by the fact that he suffered a back injury which meant that he was unable to work; he also developed a drink problem.

3.        He ended up borrowing £1,000 from a friend as part of his ordinary personal debts.  The day before the offence the friend came round and disclosed that he in turn had, in fact, borrowed money from a drug dealer.  Chartier was told that he had to sell drugs, which the friend had brought round, in order to repay the debt, or else.

4.        It is clear from all the reports that the defendant is a vulnerable and naive person, and he could not see any way out other than to comply.  He took the drugs and was arrested the next day.  We emphasise that this is different to the normal situation, where a person incurs a debt because of the purchase of drugs.  In those circumstances, it is clear that the existence of the debt and any persuasion applied as a result is not a mitigating factor.  Here the defendant borrowed money from a person he had no reason to think was involved with drugs and for a purpose unrelated to drugs.

5.        Secondly he is a man of 35 and has no previous drug convictions; indeed he has had no convictions at all for some 17 years, apart from two minor public order offences.

6.        Thirdly, Advocate Juste referred to his guilty plea and his co-operation.  She emphasised that this was at a high level and that the defendant had written his own indictment in relation to Counts 3 and 5 as the possession of the cannabis, as far as those two counts are concerned, could not have been proved unless he had admitted it.

7.        Fourthly, she referred to the detailed contents of the Social Enquiry Report and the references and asserted that the offending was wholly out of character.  We have considered carefully all that Advocate Juste has said, and have taken account of all the mitigation which arises from the papers before us.  We are satisfied that, taken in the round, this is an exceptional case and that we can proceed by way of a non-custodial penalty. 

8.        Mr Chartier, you may consider yourself very fortunate.  The sentence of the Court is as follows: there will be a Community Service Order of 150 hours.  We are advised that, notwithstanding the defendant's back injury, he is capable of undertaking certain types of community service work.  We add that, had we not imposed community service, the prison sentence we would have been thinking of would have been 9 months, because we feel that the Crown's conclusions did not make adequate allowance for all the mitigation available from the correct starting point of two years.

9.        Secondly, we impose a Probation Order for one year and we make it a condition that you attend the SMART course and that you attend the Drug and Alcohol Service as directed by the Probation Service in order to deal with your alcohol problem.  We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

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

R-v- Dore (1997) Cr. L. R. 299.