Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Kean [2003] JRC 022 (31 January 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2003/2003_022.html
Cite as: [2003] JRC 22, [2003] JRC 022

[New search] [Help]

[2003]JRC022

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

31^st January 2003

Before:

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Brett Kean

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.

Count 1: MDMA.

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 2: MDMA.

[On 4^th December 2002, the Crown abandoned the prosecution in relation to Count 2].

Age: 25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant was arrested in Parade Gardens, St Helier at approximately 11.15 a.m. on 12^th April, 2002. When searched a pill bottle containing 26 scored tablets was found on Defendant's person. The tablets were analysed and found to contain ecstasy (MDMA) with an average content of 79mgs per tablet. Street value of tablets: £300. Wholesale value between £150 and £250. Defendant maintained that the drugs were for his personal use.

Previous Convictions:

Several, including 2 drug-related offences.

Conclusions:

Exceptional case because of the delay and content of Reports before the Court.

That the Defendant be placed on Probation for one year upon the following conditions:

(i) That he attend the SMART course or programme;

(ii) That he attend the Alcohol and Drug Service as required and that he comply with treatment conditions as required by the said Service;

(iii) That he remain abstinent from all non-prescribed drugs this to be tested or verified by routine and random urine testing.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

Conclusions granted.

D.E. Le Cornu, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

The BAILIFF:

1. The Court is going to grant the conclusions. I do not think it is necessary for me to add very much to what the Crown Advocate has already said. You understand the reasons why the Crown has not moved for a custodial sentence, and we accept that those are unusual and exceptional circumstances which enable us to depart from the usual principle that custodial sentences are imposed for possessing with intent to supply Class A drugs.

2. We hope that you will take advantage of the programme which has been mapped out for you, and that we will not see you in this Court again. In respect of the counts to which you have pleaded guilty we place you on probation for a period of 1 year, on condition that you attend the SMART Course or programme, and that you attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service as may be required and comply with the treatment conditions set out by the Service. You will remain abstinent from all non-prescribed drugs and will submit to routine or random urine testing from time to time.

3. We do not think it is necessary to impose a condition about psychiatric treatment, because we think that you are sensible enough to continue that while it is beneficial to you. You are free to leave the Court. The drugs will be forfeited and destroyed.

Authorities

A.G. -v- da Silva (15^th December, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/250].