Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC214

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th December 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Stuart Alexander Knox

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 12^th November, 2004, following a guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:

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

 

Age:     21.

 

Details of Offence:

 

The Defendant visited Liverpool for the weekend.  He met up with his friend and another unknown male and was asked if he would look after a parcel kept in a lock up in Jersey.  The Defendant was suspicious and refused, however he was then threatened that his mother's house would be found and burnt down.  The Defendant took the threats seriously and agreed.  On his return to Jersey he was accompanied by another unnamed male to the lock up and collected a cannabis parcel from the lock up on two separate occasions, keeping the drugs at his flat whilst awaiting further instructions.  A search of the flat was carried out by police officers who found 55.29 kilograms of cannabis resin.  The Defendant was not on the premises when the search was undertaken and on his return to the flat was aware that a search had taken place and went into hiding eventually handing himself in to the police several days later.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Early guilty plea and co-operation during his interview.

Youth.

No previous convictions for drugs.

At the time of the offence the Defendant was having problems in his relationship with his girlfriend and his father was seriously ill.

Threats to his safety and his mother had been made.

Defendant's behaviour in prison, working in the workshop, taking English and maths courses, will be taking a fitness instructor course.

Letter of remorse, and twelve good references.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Two previous convictions comprising of three offences, none of which were drug related offences.

 

Conclusions:

6 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 6 years).

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Although Knox was acting as a minder, the Court distinguished the involvement of Knox and the amount of drugs from the cited authority of O'Brien and the starting point of 12 years was too high, 11 years starting point was appropriate.  Considering all the mitigation available, Court sentenced Defendant to 5 years' imprisonment.

 

 

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

Advocate R. Juste for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were in possession of some 55 kilos of cannabis with a street value of £322,560 in Jersey.  You told the police that you were threatened by a friend of yours in Liverpool and another man into collecting these drugs and looking after them at your home. 

2.        The Court, as has the prosecution, accepts your version of events, but the fact remains that this dealer trusted you sufficiently to ask you to look after this very substantial quantity of drugs.  You were also to receive £500.

3.        We must first consider the starting point.  The Campbell guideline suggests 10 years upwards for over 30 kilos.  We have been referred to the case of O'Brien and Smith -v- A.G. (6^th June, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/112] where a 12 year starting point was taken but we think the involvement of the defendants in that case was greater.  We think the correct starting point, having regard not only to the quantity but also the nature of your rôle in it, is one of 11 years.

4.        We must then consider the mitigation.  We take into account your guilty plea, and we note that this was entered at a very early stage and that you were very straight forward with the police when you were interviewed by them. 

5.        We note that you have only some very minor previous convictions that have nothing to do with drugs - nothing of any seriousness - and that you have never been involved in the drug scene before.  We take full account of your youth, the fact that you are only 21.  We also note in particular your good work record which stands you in good stead as do all the references that we have received as well as your letter of remorse.  We accept that this was out of character.  We have had regard to the Social Enquiry Report and to all the mitigation which appears from the papers before us. 

6.        Taking all these into account we think the correct deduction from the starting point is one of 6 years which leaves a sentence, therefore, of 5 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Cambpell & Ors -v- A.G. [1995]JLR136.

O'Brien & Smith -v- A.G. (6^th June 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/112].

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n - updated to November 2003): pp.77-83; 161-4.