Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC201

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

19^th November 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

William John Scobie

 

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: cannabis resin.

 

Age:     56.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

The Defendant was in prison for an importation offence, but was suffering from throat cancer which was being treated.  The Defendant was escorted to the General Hospital for an appointment.  He asked to use the toilet at the clinic and was allowed to do so unaccompanied.  When the Defendant arrived at the prison he was strip searched, during which cannabis resin was found on his person.  The amount of cannabis was not a personal amount and the street value of the amount seized was £1,440.00 a price which would be inflated within the confines of prison.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Guilty plea (albeit inevitable).  Acting as courier only.  Had been chosen as he was vulnerable, it was inevitable the drugs would be found on his person.

Suffering from throat cancer, only has 25% survival over the next 5 years.

Dad dying and had recently found out his son had been attacked - exceptional circumstances.

 

Previous Convictions:

24 previous convictions, comprising of 42 offences.  Had 5 previous drug offences (4 for possession and 1 for importation for which he was incarcerated at the time of this sentencing.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to sentence at present being served.

 

Crown would usually be seeking a sentence in excess of 12 months, but taking all mitigation into account Crown felt able to limit its conclusions to 12 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:

12 months' imprisonment, concurrent with sentence at present being served.

 

Court found itself in a difficult position, as drugs in prison was a serious offence and there had to be a deterrent.  However, looking at the mitigation the Court imposed a 12 month sentence to run concurrently as an act of mercy as this was an exceptional case.  Such a case with such tragic circumstances would not be repeated.  Defendant was warned that if he put one step wrong the Court would express its views.

 

 

 

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Grace for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE Commissioner:

1.        From time to time a Court is faced with a very difficult problem and this is undoubtedly one of those occasions.  As was said in the case of R -v- Farooqi (1998) 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 379:

"The use of drugs in prison has been so great a problem that the prison service now devotes much endeavour and resources to their elimination...it is the policy of the courts to make plain that those who pass drugs into prison must expect severe punishment."

The Jersey cases shown to us make that very clear.  We have, also been shown an abundance of medical reports in this truly tragic story.  That is borne out by the conclusion in one of the psychiatric reports of Dr Cox. 

2.        The people in prison who organised this crime were at no risk at all and, as always, they choose the most vulnerable persons to carry out their plans and, if I may say so, this was possibly the most evil of plans.  Scobie must have known that the drugs would be discovered; that was as inevitable as night follows day.  We must discourage this sort of behaviour; to do otherwise sends out quite the wrong message to the other prisoners. 

3.        Scobie, your case will never be repeated.  The efforts that you have made in prison are to your credit but you have let yourself, and those who have given you so much support, down very badly and you know that.  I have to say that the offence warrants a twelve month prison sentence.  As an experienced criminal you must know that.  It is the sentence that we would not, in normal circumstances, have hesitated to impose and we might even, had the circumstances not been different, have increased that sentence.  But nobody appearing before us can have faced such a combination of problems as you face and will undoubtedly continue to face.

4.        We are going, as an act of mercy, to sentence you twelve months' imprisonment, concurrent.  Do appreciate that that is an act of mercy in your case.  If you put one step wrong in the future this Court will express its views and you know what that means.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  

Authorities

AG -v- Wakeham (4^th February 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/21C].

AG -v- Corvel (2^nd March 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/55].

AG -v- Cunningham (23^rd March 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/70]

R -v- Farooqi (1998) 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 379