Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC089

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21^st May 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Richard Mark Sharples

 

 

2 counts of:

Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 1: cocaine. Count 2: cannabis resin

 

[On 14^th April, 2004, the Crown accepted Not Guilty pleas to counts 2 and 4 of the indictment].

Age:     33.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Following a search warrant at his home on 3^rd December, 2003, officers found a Perspex box containing cannabis weighing a total of 171.08 grams and two bundles of cash totalling £420.  Another bundle of cash totalling £1,700 was found in the same drawer.  A packet of cocaine weighing 26.76 grams was found on top of a freezer in a makeshift office within the Defendant's home; also found was a cut-down straw and a stained craft knife blade.  Defendant was charged with possession with intent to supply cocaine and cannabis as well as simple possession of the same drugs.  He was similarly indicted; not guilty pleas were entered to possession with intent to supply and he was remanded for Inferior Number trial.  He pleaded guilty to simple possession of the same drugs.  Days before the trial, a report was received from the Alcohol and Drug Service indicating that Defendant was a serious cocaine abuser, using 1 to 2 grams a day.  The Defendant said that he had borrowed cash (which was seized) in order to purchase the cocaine, which was still unpaid for.  The Crown did not proceed to trial and sentenced on simple possession of the drugs.

 

Details of Mitigation:

References and letter from Defendant to Court setting out personal mitigation relating to Defendant's family.  Defendant's wife had commenced divorce proceedings.  Although the seized cocaine was of a relatively large quantity, Mr Gafoor's and Mr Hollywood's Reports said this was not atypical of a serious abuser.  Defendant expressed remorse and deep shame.  Impact of his offending meant the loss of his job, breakdown of his marriage and loss of self-esteem.  Imminent divorce and impact on children.  Since the offence, taken positive steps to address his problems and had referred himself to Alcohol and Drug Service after his arrest.  Remained drug free ever since.  Had spent one month in custody, then complied with bail conditions.  Mr Hollywood referred to complicated psychological problems.

 

Previous Convictions:

3 minor previous convictions and a drugs conviction in 1993 for importing one LSD tablet for which he was sentenced to 6 weeks' imprisonment.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	£800 fine or 2 months' imprisonment, in default of payment, concurrent with count 1 sentence.

 

Had it been a trafficking offence the minimum starting point would have been 8 years.  Accepted by the Crown however that the cocaine was for his personal use.  Not a first drugs offender.  Admitted involvement with illegal drugs for 20 years.

Forfeiture Order under Article 29 Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 in respect of £2,120 cash seized during drugs search.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Taking into account unusually strong mitigation and in particular, impact of imprisonment upon Defendant's ability to care of his son, Court imposed 180 hours' Community Service, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, coupled with a 12 month Probation Order, the Probation Officer to explain to the Defendant the detailed requirements.

 

 

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        There is no question of trafficking and it is accepted that these drugs were for his personal use.  Money was also found in two bundles totalling £2,120.  The defence has agreed to that money being seized and following AG-v- Bartley & Ors [2004]JRC037 we order that the funds be applied to the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund, but that decision is not related in any way to the matter before us.

2.        The life of this defendant has been effectively ruined by his drug habit, but Mr Preston has shown us many letters in support.  It is a pity these were not filed earlier, and particularly the offer of a job.  Mr Hollywood says in his report:

"I have dealt with many substance misusers over the past twenty years and I am impressed with Mr Sharples' determination to put his drug problem behind him."

3.        We have of course had careful regard to the case of A.G. v Buesnel [1996]JLR265 and particularly in the light of the amount of drugs seized and, of course, this Court's duty is to attempt to stamp out the increasingly pernicious drugs habit which prevails in this Island. 

4.        But Sharples has already suffered one month's imprisonment for an offence not proceeded with by the Crown.  On top of that he has faced enormously stressful, personal problems which have been outlined to us.

5.        The Crown asks for 12 months' imprisonment, but there was no indication of any starting point or any allowance for mitigation. 

6.        Sharples, if you go to prison there will no doubt be dramatic repercussions on young Benjamin.  That is not the purpose of punishment.  We feel that this case has very unusual mitigation.  It is probably unique in that regard.  We have had some concern for this 10 year old child. 

7.        We have decided after deep consideration not to send you to prison, but you will have to perform 180 hours community service, that is the equivalent of 12 months' imprisonment.  That will be coupled with a 12 month probation order and this will be explained to you by your probation officer.  It will be a detailed requirement to address your particular difficulties and that will be available to you very shortly.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Steadman & Anor [2003]JRC182.

A.G. -v- Bartley & Ors [2004] JRC037.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): paras 164 -176.

A.G. -v- Buesnel [1996]JLR265.

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 Article 29.