Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC182

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

16^th October 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Peter Dean Steadman

Paul Robert Coles

 

Peter Dean Steadman

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded on 1^st August, 2003, following a guilty plea to:

 

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

 

[Count 1 not proceeded with].

Age:     41.

 

Details of Offence:

Steadman travelled to Jersey from London with his girlfriend.  They both stayed at the Normandie Hotel.  Steadman collected just under 2 ounces of cocaine from a woman outside the hotel.  By prior arrangement Coles met Steadman at the hotel where Steadman supplied Coles with a package containing 26.10 grams of cocaine.  This latter package of cocaine was found in Coles' motor vehicle together with a carrier bag which contained a set of electronic scales, a sieve, a grater and an empty film canister.  Following a search of Steadman's hotel bedroom a package containing a further 27.07 grams of cocaine was found on top of a wardrobe in the room.  (Total wholesale value £3,600 - street value £4,536).  Steadman maintained that he had carried out the supply following threats made to him and his family because of a previous drug debt.  He stated that he had been instructed to supply all of the cocaine to Coles.  Coles maintained that he had only intended to purchase 1 ounce from Steadman which was for his personal use.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Starting point of 9 years' accepted as correct but a greater allowance should be made for mitigating factors.  Guilty plea entered at early stage.  Co-operation with Police.  Steadman's involvement was to collect drugs and hand them over to Coles.  Steadman suffered from knee injury which would require operation.  Steadman now drug free.  References.  Offence committed because of threats to family.  Remorse.  Stress to wife and children.

 

Previous Convictions:

Appalling record including: On 20^th May, 1993, sentence of 7 years' imprisonment for aggravated burglary and 2 years' imprisonment for having a firearm with intent to resist arrest.

On 7^th April, 1998, sentence of 7½ years' imprisonment for importation into the United Kingdom of 1.2 tons of cannabis.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 2:	6 years' imprisonment; (9 years' starting point).
Count 3:	6 years' imprisonment; concurrent.

 

Apart from guilty plea, no mitigation.  Guilty plea merited full one third discount.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment; (8 years' starting point).
Count 3:	5 years' imprisonment; concurrent.

 

Starting point of 9 years' which was accepted by Defence was arguably correct but Court took benevolent view and took 8 years' starting point.  Guilty plea entitled Steadman to discount but little else by way of mitigation.  Count 2, 5 years' imprisonment.  Count 3, 5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  Confiscation order make in the sum of £1,300.

 

Paul Robert Coles

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded on 1^st August, 2003, following a guilty plea entered on 4^th April, 2003 to:

 

1 count of:

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

 

[On 25^th July, 2003 the Defendant was found not guilty on Count 2 of the indictment laid against him on 4^th April, 2003].

Age:     36.

 

Details of Offence:

See Steadman above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Hard working, skilled worker.  Cocaine used to enable Coles to work 16 hour days, not for recreational use.  Pressure on family.  Now free from drugs.  Of good character, no previous relevant convictions.  Co-operation.  On bail since charged with offence.  Had to undergo trial for possession with intent to supply, of which acquitted.  Suitable candidate for non-custodial sentence.

 

Previous Convictions:

No relevant previous convictions.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

3 years' imprisonment

 

Albeit for personal use such a large quantity of cocaine made Coles an hostage to fortune.  The Crown took account of Coles' good character.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:

240 hours Community Service Order, (equating to 2 years' imprisonment).

Because of quantity of drug Court bound to consider custodial sentence.  Cocaine used as stimulant for work and not for recreational use.  Unusually strong mitigation.

 

 

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

Advocate J. Bell for P.D. Steadman.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for P.R. Coles.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        These Defendants are to be sentenced following an arrangement whereby Steadman supplied Coles with 26 grams of cocaine.  Steadman is also to be sentenced for possession with intent to supply of a further 27 grams of cocaine.  The street value of each package was in the region of £2,200.

2.        Coles was originally charged with possession with intent to supply the package of cocaine found in his possession, but was acquitted of that charge.  He is to be sentenced for simple possession of a relatively large quantity of cocaine on the basis that it was for his personal use.

3.        We deal first with Steadman.  Steadman is aged 41 and has a very bad record, indeed an appalling record, culminating in sentences of 9 years' imprisonment imposed in 1993, for aggravated burglary and other offences; and 7½ years' imprisonment in 1998, for being concerned in the importation of a very substantial quantity of cannabis.

4.        For these offences of trafficking in a Class A Drug the Crown Advocate has taken, on the basis of the Rimmer guidelines, a starting point of 9 years' imprisonment.  We think that a strong argument can indeed be made that that is the correct starting point as was indeed conceded by Defence Counsel. 

5.        We are, however, going to take the benevolent view that Steadman's involvement was at a lower level than that of the importer and supplier of these drugs, and we will take a starting point of 8 years' imprisonment.

6.        In mitigation, Steadman pleaded guilty to the charges at a very early stage, and he is entitled to the conventional discount of one-third on that ground.  There is, however, little else to be said by way of mitigation.

7.        On the two counts to which you have pleaded the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 5 years, concurrently, on each count.

8.        I now turn to Coles who is aged 36 and is to be sentenced for simple possession of 26 grams of cocaine.  The quantity is such that the court is bound to consider a prison sentence and indeed the Crown Advocate has moved unsurprisingly for 3 years' imprisonment to be imposed.

9.        On the other hand, we have heard a powerful argument from defence counsel in favour of a community service order which is indeed recommended by the Probation Officer in the Social Enquiry Report.  The basis of that recommendation is that the cocaine was not to be used for recreational purposes in the sense of a drug taken for illicit enjoyment, but was to be used as a stimulant so that he could work excessively long hours in his business as a stonemason.

10.      There is before the Court plenty of evidence from the reports and from the references, of a working day beginning at 5 or 6 a.m. and finishing late at night for 6 or 7 days per week.  In the light of this excessive working, it is perhaps surprising that he has a strong relationship with his wife who has supported him throughout these proceedings and is still supporting him. His wife was ignorant of his drug taking activities.  Coles is a man of previous good character and the Court has received many references as to his pleasing personality and willingness to help others and to assist charitable causes. 

11.      We have received a report from the Drug and Alcohol Service which endorses his claim that he has now eschewed drug taking and he continues to attend voluntarily upon the Drug and Alcohol Service.

12.      Having regard to the unusually strong mitigation which is available to him we have reached the conclusion that the balance tips in favour of reform and that a custodial sentence can be avoided.

13.      The sentence of the Court is that you will perform 240 hours of community service to the satisfaction of the Community Service organiser.  I have to state that the alternative to that, if you fail to complete the community service, is a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment.  We hope this Court will not see you again.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Langley (15^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/175].

Rimmer & Ors -v- A.G. [2000] JLR 373.