Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC069

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

23^rd May 2005

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Sean Patrick Crowley

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 2 - cocaine).

 

(Count 1 falls away).

 

Age:     20.

 

 

Details of Offence:

Following the receipt of information, a search warrant for Crowley's parents' home was issued and on 9 February 2005 Officers from the States of Jersey Police Drugs Squad attended at the address and executed the warrant.  Crowley returned to the property while the police were there and was searched but nothing of significance was recovered.

Drugs Squad Officers were then deployed to the St Aubin's area.  A green Nissan Primera, belonging to Crowley's father, was located.  Crowley's father was found working nearby and he was informed by officers that his vehicle was to be searched.  Crowley's father gave the officers access to his vehicle.

A black CD wallet was found on the back seat of the vehicle, inside which 17 small "zip-loc" bags containing white power were discovered.  (Test confirmed the while powder to be cocaine). 

Crowley was then arrested on suspicion of being in possession of cocaine with the intention of supplying it.

At interview Crowley admitted the offence.  According to Crowley, he had picked up a friend in St Helier and, at his request, had driven him to St. Aubin.  In St. Aubin this friend left Crowley, for approximately twenty minutes before returning, whilst Crowley remained in the vehicle.  Crowley then drove the friend back to St. Helier when the friend asked Crowley to "look after" something for him.  Crowley agreed and was given a cigarette packet containing the drugs and £100 in cash, and it was intimated that he would be given further money when he handed the package back.

Crowley admits that he knew the packet contained cocaine.

Crowley did not name his "friend", but has described him as an older male acquaintance known through football circles.

On 9^th February, 2005, Crowley was charged with possession of cocaine and possession with intent to supply cocaine.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Crowley's Advocate maintained that a reduction in the starting point moved for by the Crown was appropriate on the basis that this was an exceptional case and a movement of the starting point followed by appropriate reductions would bring this matter to a level where a Community Service Order could be considered as an alternative to a custodial sentence.  It was also contended that Crowley had the benefit not only of youth (he was 19 at the time of the office) but also was of good character, well educated and had just set up his own business.  Crowley's Advocate also maintained that this was a case of a young man who had been manipulated by a trusted older man.  Several references and testimonials were handed to the Court.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

 

Count 2:

2 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  8 years).

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

 

Count 2:

18 months' youth detention.  (Starting point:  6 years).

A nominal Confiscation Order was made, as requested.

The forfeiture and destruction of the drugs was also ordered.

The Court commented that this was a sad case involving a young man who had excellent testimonials.  Whilst they accepted that Crowley had pleaded guilty at an early stage and was not a drug user, he had been tempted by money to get involved, albeit at a peripheral lever, in the drugs trade and a message must go out that no matter how minimal someone's involvement they should expect a custodial sentence for any involvement.  The Court indicated that had Crowley had the courage to identify the person who gave him the drugs then he may have avoided a custodial sentence.

 

 

A. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is a sad case.  The defendant is a young man of good character with a stable family background and the Court has noted a number of excellent testimonials presented to us on his behalf by his counsel.

2.        He has however pleaded guilty to the offence of possession of cocaine with intent to supply.  The amount involved was 15 grams with a street value of approximately £12,000.  The Crown accepts that the defendant is not a drug user but had yielded to the temptation of earning £100 or so for minding these drugs for a few days for an unnamed older man whom he knew through sporting associations.

3.        The defendant has not been prepared to identify this man.  We wish to state that if he had had the courage to identify the older manipulative man involved in the local footballing scene, that would have been a significant mitigating factor which would probably have allowed us to treat this as an exceptional case. 

4.        We have asked ourselves, as we are required to do by the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994, whether in all the circumstances of the case the offence is so serious that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided and we have concluded that this is such a case.  Those who abuse drugs such as cocaine often use others to hold the drugs in order to reduce the risk to themselves.  The message must go out from this Court that anyone falling prey to temptation in this way is likely to receive a custodial sentence irrespective of age.  We conclude, therefore, that a custodial sentence must be imposed. 

5.        As to the starting point we think that it is possible to accept the submissions of defence counsel that a lower figure can be taken than suggested by the Crown.  Having regard to the peripheral involvement of the defendant in drug trafficking and to all the other circumstances of the case, we propose to take a starting point, in this case, of 6 years' youth detention.

6.        We have made allowance for all the very substantial mitigation that is available to you and we are going to sentence you to 18 months youth detention.  We hope that you will take advantage of the time at La Moye to plan for your future, which we hope will have no connection whatsoever with the drug scene.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

No Authorities

A.G. -v- Roberts (11^th October, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/194B].

Morgan -v- A.G. [2001]JLR225.