Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC153

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

3^rd September 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

John Brown Noble

 

 

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:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 3: MDMA.
1 count of:	Offering to supply a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 4: MDMA.

 

[On 16^th July, 2004, the Crown accepted a Not Guilty plea to Count 2 of the indictment].

 

Age:     41.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

On the evening of the 3^rd February, 2004, the defendant went to the Babylon Bar.  He had in his possession a kinder egg container full of ecstasy tablets.  Whilst in the Bar he supplied one tablet to one of the patrons and offered to supply one tablet each to two other patrons.  On arrest he was found to be in possession of a total of 76 ecstasy tablets.  The Crown accepted that notwithstanding the quantity of tablets found in the defendant's possession at the time of his arrest, it was not possible to prove that the Defendant intended to supply these to others.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant had no previous convictions for drug offences.  The defendant had been on remand in custody since his arrest on the 4^th February, 2004.  The tablets were for the defendant's personal use.  The defendant had a history of psychiatric treatment.  Recently diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder following experiences in Territorial Army.  Had also in the past been the victim of a serious assault.  On the day in question the defendant had received a message from his wife that she wished to divorce him.  Defendant claimed that he intended to take the tablets to commit suicide.  Social Enquiry Report recommended a non-custodial disposal.

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous but no previous drug offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment.
Count 4:	4 months' imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

1 year's Probation Order.

Court accepted that the defendant's period of incarceration awaiting sentence had worked to his benefit.  Court prepared to treat this as an exceptional case and followed recommendations of Social Enquiry Report.

 

 

 

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

Advocate J. Bell for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Your counsel has put forward the points in mitigation and we wish to say this.  It is clearly a case that a period of incarceration in prison since February of this year has worked to good effect and the Court is persuaded that you have taken the chance which has been offered to you.

2.        The Court is therefore prepared given all the circumstances put before it to treat this as an exceptional case and will impose an order for 12 months' probation, as suggested by the Social Enquiry Report, that is under the supervision of Mr Walter Stuart in Glasgow.  You will be well aware of the possible consequences of a breach of the Probation Order.  We hope never to see you back here again.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Passman (20^th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/86A].

A.G. -v- Franco (24^th May, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/120].

A.G. -v- Lomas (3^rd May, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/94].

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): pp. 85-90.

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

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