Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/200

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

18^th October 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Michel

 

2 counts of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.
	Count 1: MDMA. Count 5: Cannabis.
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.
	Count 2: MDMA. Count 6: Cannabis.
2 counts of:	Offering to supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.
	Count 3: Cannabis
	Count 4: Cocaine

 

[The Crown accepted not guilty pleas to counts 3 and 4 and did not proceed with count 2].

Age:     23.

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

The Police undertook with the assistance of a U.K. Police Drugs Unit an undercover operation targeting members of the public selling drugs.  Michel struck up a conversation with two of the undercover Officers in a Pub.  He asked the Officers if they were looking for some "pills" and having received a positive response Michel then approached another male in the same Pub and then supplied 2 Ecstasy tablets to the Officers for £20.  A subsequent search warrant at his home address revealed a personal amount of Cannabis (approximate value £38).  The sum of £290 in cash was also found.  In interview Michel admitted supplying the Officers with the 2 Ecstasy tablets but said it was done to impress the female officer.  He also admitted that the £290 in cash was from the sale of 2 ounces of Cannabis which he had sold to friends.  The Crown did not view this as a case of commercial supply and therefore the guide-lines case were of no assistance.  The crimes had to be looked at in general terms.  The supply of the 2 Ecstasy tablets was viewed as one step up from personal possession. 

The Crown sought a Confiscation Order in the sum of £325.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Michel was not a drug trafficker.  The drugs were only momentarily in his possession/supply.  The supply of the 2 ecstasy tablets had been engineered by the Test Purchase Officer because Michel was attracted to the female Officer.  When Michel had gone out that night and into the Pub it was not his intention to supply drugs to anyone.  In relation to the supply of Cannabis to his friends, he was deserving of further credit as he wrote his own Indictment in this regard.  The Cannabis offences were within the Magistrate's Court jurisdiction.  Michel was now distraught at the effect that these offences had upon his family and particularly his mother who was in ill health.  Apology offered to Court.  He has now turned his back on all drugs.  References handed up.

 

Previous Convictions:

1 offence for drunk and disorderly for which bound over for 6 months.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 5:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	240 hours community service order; 6 month binding over order, on condition of receiving treatment as directed by Alcohol and Drugs Service, of abstaining from all drugs; and of undergoing random urine tests.
Count 5:	180 hours community service order; 6 month binding over order, on condition of receiving treatment as directed by Alcohol and Drugs Service, of abstaining from all drugs; and of undergoing random urine tests.
Count 6:	£250 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment; 2 weeks to pay.

 

A difficult case.  The court was divided.  One Jurat would impose 12 months' imprisonment whilst the other Jurat said that because the circumstances were exceptional and coupled with the mitigation contained within the Reports a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.  The Deputy Bailiff sided with the later Jurat.  Michel should consider himself fortunate as the supply of drugs normally results in a prison sentence.  Michel was specifically warned if he failed to comply with the Court sentence or re-offended he would go to prison.  The supply of ecstasy tablets would have warranted a 12 month sentence and the supply of Cannabis a 6 month sentence.

 

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        As with the previous matter (A.G.-v- Dickenson (18^th October, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2000/201]) these are difficult cases.  Again the Court is divided. One Jurat would have imposed a sentence of 1 year's imprisonment; the other Jurat believes the circumstances surrounding the offence, coupled with the very powerful mitigation contained in the reports and references, mean that we can treat this case as being exceptional and proceed by way of a non-custodial penalty.  Again, I side with the latter Jurat. 

2.        The sentence of the Court is as follows: on count 1: 240 hours' community service.  On count 5: 180 hours' community service, those both to be concurrent.  You will also be bound over for 6 months on those offences on condition that you undertake treatment as directed by the Drug and Alcohol Service.  There will be two conditions, first that you are abstinent from all controlled drugs, and secondly that you undergo random urine tests in order to see that you are.

3.        In relation to count 1 the prison sentence we had in mind was 1 year and on count 5 the prison sentence we had in mind was 6 months.  On count 6 we impose a fine of £250 or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment and you will have two weeks to pay.  We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

4.        So again like the last defendant you can consider yourself fortunate.  If you supply drugs, even in circumstances such as this, you are committing a serious offence which normally results in prison.  If you fail to undertake the community service, commit any other offences, or if you breach the terms of the Drug and Alcohol Service conditions and take further drugs, you will be brought back here and you will then go to prison.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Nafkha (16^th November, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/226B].

A.G. -v- Stephens (8^th December, 2000) Jersey Unreported [2000/244].

Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. (2001) JLR 626 CofA.

A.G. -v- Flynn (23^rd October, 1998) Jersey Unreported [1998/213].

A.G. -v- Wood (15^th February, 1994) Jersey Unreported.