Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC098

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th June 2004.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Roberto Miguel Andrade Rodrigues

 

 

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

 

 

Age:     19.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

On 20^th November, 2003, the Defendant was stopped by the Police and found to be in possession of a reefer cigarette and a lump of resin both found to contain cannabis.  Because these were 'personal' amounts the Defendant attended a Parish Hall Enquiry.  The Centenier 'deferred' his decision until 31^st March, 2004, to enable the Defendant to attend the Drug Awareness Course (Counts 1 and 2).  In the meantime as a result of Police intelligence on 26^th February, 2004, a search warrant was obtained in respect of the Defendant's home premises.  On searching the Defendant's flat, Police Officers found, inter alia, 4½ 'nine bars' of cannabis resin.  The Police also found a number of high value items and designer clothing and documentation showing that the Defendant had a bank account in Portugal in credit in the sum of Euros 8,845.27.  The Defendant maintained that he was 'minding' the drugs for his supplier (Count 3). During Police interview the Defendant admitted having on two previous occasions been in possession of 2 'nine bars' of cannabis as a 'minder' for the same person (Counts 4 and 5).  He refused to name his supplier.  Total value of drugs: wholesale between £8,599 and £9,471.  Street value: £12,378.  Enough cannabis to make between 8,644 and 21,649 joints.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Young offender; guilty plea, no previous drug offences.  Did attend Drug Awareness Course before the search of his premises.  Not a dealer.  Wrote his own indictment in respect of Counts 3 and 4.

 

Previous Convictions:

Some but none for drugs.

 

Conclusions:

 

 

Count 1:	1 month's youth detention.
Count 2:	1 month's youth detention.
Count 3:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 4:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 5:	18 months' youth detention, all concurrent.

 

£7,021.99 Confiscation Order.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

The Defendant, as 'minder', played an important role in the drug distribution process.  No remorse.  Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994, considered by the Court but the Court was of the view that the offence was too serious for a non-custodial penalty and the Defendant  had a history of failing to respond to non-custodial penalties.  2½ years was correct starting point.

 

 

Count 1:	1 month's youth detention.
Count 2:	1 month's youth detention.
Count 3:	15 months' youth detention.
Count 4:	15 months' youth detention.
Count 5:	15 months' youth detention, all concurrent.

 

Confiscation Order granted.

D.E. Le Cornu, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Bell for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were found in possession of 1.2 kilos of cannabis resin, and you said you were minding this for your dealer.  You admitted having done the same thing on two previous occasions each time for 2 bars so the total involved, over the 3 occasions, is just over 2 kilos.

2.        We are prepared to deal with you as a minder, but as the Court has said previously, a minder plays an important part in the distribution process and the fact that the dealer was prepared to trust you with this quantity of cannabis suggests that you are involved in that process.

3.        Furthermore you were arrested for your first offence of possession and given a chance by the Centenier who deferred his decision, but you spurned that opportunity by committing these offences and indeed committing the more serious offences involving the intention to supply.

4.        Mr Bell has urged in mitigation that we should proceed in a non-custodial manner.  He has referred to your guilty plea which we accept was of value.  In particular, he says that you wrote your own indictment on two of the counts where you admitted to the previous offences of supplying.

5.        He refers to your age which is only 19, and to the fact that you have no previous drug convictions although it is clear from the reports that you have been using cannabis for some time.

6.        We have read carefully the letter from your uncle which is very supportive.  You have a previous record of convictions, but we note that there are no drug offences and that the last one was two years ago.  Nevertheless, they show that you have failed in the past to respond to probation.

7.        We have also noted the contents of the report from the Drug and Alcohol Service which reveals a worrying lack of remorse and concern on your part. 

8.        We have considered carefully whether we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence and we have borne in mind Article 4 of the 1994 law; but we have concluded that we cannot proceed in this way for two reasons.  We find that you do have a failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and you have been unable or unwilling to respond to them and we also consider on the facts of this case the totality of the offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

9.        We are going to impose a sentence of youth detention but we think that a little more mitigation can be given from the starting point of 2½ years, which we find to be correct, in view of the amount involved and the nature of your involvement.  We particularly bear in mind that you wrote your indictment on two of the charges and your youth.  In all of these circumstances we think the correct sentence is 15 months' youth detention on Counts 3, 4 and 5; 1 month's youth detention on Counts 1 and 2, all of them concurrent, making a total of 15 months' youth detention.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Hare [2004]JRC026..