Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC118

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th July 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Carl Michael Brooks

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 28^th May, 2004, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

 

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 1: MDMA
1 count of:	Obstructing a police officer in execution of duty, contrary to Article 17 (5)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: (Count 3)

 

[On 28^th May 2004, the Crown decided not to proceed with Count 2 of the indictment]

 

Age:     35.

 

 

Details of Offence:

 

Counts 1 and 2: Stopped and searched in St Helier and found to be in possession of 100 pills of Ecstasy.

Count 3:  Attempted to run away from Police Officers who had stopped him for the purpose of a drugs search.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Counts 1 and 2: Guilty plea.  Co-operation with Police although did not name supplier.

Count 3: Guilty plea.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Many previous criminal convictions for various offences including possession of heroin.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment (7 years' starting point).
Count 3:	2 weeks imprisonment, consecutive.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	4 ½ years' imprisonment (7 years starting point).
Count 3:	2 weeks imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

T.J. Le Cocq, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A.J.D. Winchester for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Brooks, you have pleaded guilty to being in possession of 100 ecstasy tablets with intent to supply.  The Crown has suggested a starting point of seven years, which is at the bottom of the applicable bracket.  Your counsel has urged that we should go below that, but that is only done in exceptional circumstances and we see nothing exceptional in this case.  Therefore we take the starting point of seven years.

2.        In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea and we do consider that to be of value.  We note your record, which is poor, with previous convictions for possession of drugs, but we note no previous offences for drug dealing.  We have read carefully the social enquiry report and we note that you are determined to try to conquer your drug dependency and hope that you have the continuing support of your partner and that you will be successful in this.

3.        In all the circumstances, particularly given your guilty plea, we think that more weight should be given to that than was given by the Crown and we think that the overall sentence should be one of four and a half years.  So on Count 1 the sentence is four and a half years, on Count 3 two weeks.  We think that in all the circumstances, although such sentences are often consecutive we can make it concurrent in this case; so that is a total of four and half years' and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): pp.19-26.

AG -v- Casey (6^th February 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/33].

AG -v- McMinn (2^nd March 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/38].

AG -v- McClean (4^th May 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/100].

A.G. -v- Brolly (20^th November, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/230].