Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/201

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

18^th October 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

Steven Justin Dickenson

[The Crown did not proceed with counts 1,3 and 5, which are to remain on the file].

Age:     26.

Plea:    Guilty

Details of Offence:

The Police with the assistance of a U.K. Police Drugs Unit conducted an undercover operation targeting members of the public selling drugs.  The two female undercover Police Officers were introduced to Dickenson in a nightclub and he offered to supply 1 Ecstasy tablet for £10.  The Officers duly purchased the 1 tablet.  Two days later they met Dickenson by coincidence outside a public house and on that occasion he supplied 5 Ecstasy tablets to the Officers for £45.  The Officers then asked Dickenson whether he could get 20 tablets and arrangements were made for the Officers to telephone Dickenson so that they could then meet.  The next night the Officers met with Dickenson and he supplied 15 tablets for £120.  At the time of his subsequent arrest and search he was found to be in possession of a personal amount of Cannabis (approximate value £20).  When interviewed under caution he initially denied having ever supplied Ecstasy tablets to anyone but then admitted that he probably had sold Ecstasy tablets to the undercover Officers on three occasions although he claimed he could not specifically remember the amount of tablets that he sold or the money that he received.  He denied having ever sold Ecstasy tablets before.  He claimed (which was denied by the Officer) that he had kissed one of the Officers and that he had only supplied them as a favour.  The Crown took this to be a case of commercial supply and therefore the guide-line cases applied.  Insofar as concerns the supply of the total of 21 Ecstasy tablets a starting point of 7 years was taken.

A Confiscation Order in the sum of £1.00 was sought.

Details of Mitigation:

These offences committed against a background of Dickenson having suffered from a drink and Ecstasy problem.  A 7 year relationship had recently ended and he was out socialising seeking a new relationship.  Dickenson was attracted to one of the undercover Officers and he actually told her that he liked her.  Despite the denial that a kiss had taken place there was photographic evidence which was open to interpretation that there had been a physical closeness.  5 and 15 tablets had been sold at a loss which he had done to impress the females.  He was motivated to impress them and he was encouraged to supply the Ecstasy tablets by the undercover Officers.  The Court was asked to treat the case as exceptional and insofar as concerns the starting point to take a lower starting point of 6 years.  By way of mitigation he had his guilty plea, residual youth, no previous for drugs and he had been on remand for approximately 5 months and 10 days - his first experience of custody.  He was now reconciled with his former girlfriend.  Reference was made to the Social Enquiry Report which described his involvement in these offences as motivated by a desire to impress rather than financial gain.  He was considered to be at a low risk of re-offending and therefore Probation was not appropriate.  References were provided.  If a custodial sentence was inevitable then it should not exceed 2 years.  The Defence argued that the circumstances were exceptional.  Dickenson's criminality was minor and therefore suggested Community Service Order and treatment order.

Previous Convictions:

1 appearance in 1994 in the Magistrate's Court for offences of Malicious Damage and being carried in a motor vehicle which had been taken without the owner's consent.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Confiscation Order in the sum of £1 granted.

In normal circumstances a person who sells 21 Ecstasy tablets over three occasions could only expect to receive a custodial sentence.  In this case the Jurats were divided.  One Jurat would impose a sentence of 2 years imprisonment.  The other Jurat considered the case to be exceptional and in particular there was no evidence that Dickenson had dealt in Ecstasy.  He did so on this occasion to impress.  The Deputy Bailiff cast his vote in favour of the non-custodial option.  Dickenson warned to consider himself as being very fortunate and if he breached the Court's Order or re-offends or takes drugs then the likely sentence would be a custodial one.  Had the Court not imposed a non-custodial sentence then it would have imposed a term of 2 years' imprisonment. 

Count 2:  Supply of Ecstasy: 240 hours Community Service and bound over for 12 months on condition that he undertakes a Treatment Order with the Alcohol and Drugs Service and remains abstinent from Ecstasy and undertakes routine urine tests.

Count 4:  Supply of Ecstasy: 240 hours Community Service and bound over for 12 months on condition that he undertakes a Treatment Order with the Alcohol and Drugs Service and remains abstinent from Ecstasy and undertakes routine urine tests concurrent with Court 2.

Count 6:  Supply of Ecstasy: 240 hours Community Service and bound over for 12 months on condition that he undertakes a Treatment Order with the Alcohol and Drugs Service and remains abstinent from Ecstasy and undertakes routine urine tests concurrent with Counts 2 and 4.

Count 7:  Possession of Cannabis: 240 hours community Service and bound over for 12 months on condition that he undertakes a Treatment Order with the Alcohol and Drugs Service and remains abstinent from Ecstasy and undertakes routine urine tests concurrent with Counts 2, 4 and 6.

An order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs was made.

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

Advocate R Juste for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        In normal circumstances where a person sells 21 ecstasy tablets over 3 occasions a substantial prison sentence is the only course which is likely to follow.  In this case, one Jurat would have imposed a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment.  The other Jurat considers that the case is exceptional, because of the circumstances in which it was committed, and the matters referred to in the various reports which are before us.  In particular that Jurat considers that there is no evidence that the defendant had ever dealt in ecstasy before, but that he did so on this occasion, in order to impress one of the female undercover police officers.  The Jurats being split I come down on the side of the second Jurat. 

2.        The sentence therefore is as follows: on count 2; you will be sentenced to community service of 240 hours, you will also be bound over for 12 months, on condition that you undertake treatment as directed by the Drug and Alcohol Service, and that you remain abstinent from ecstasy and are subject to random urine tests.  On count 4 and count 6; there is a similar sentence concurrent; and on count 7 the binding over order is again made concurrent. 

3.        You can consider yourself very fortunate. If you breach this order, in other words if you commit any further offences or if you do not do the community service, or if you start taking drugs, you will be brought back and the likely course then is that you will be sent to prison.  We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  Had we not imposed community service, we would have imposed a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment.

Authorities

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