Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC056

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th April 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Bjarni Leif Hebert

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

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Police drugs squad officers executed a drugs search warrant at Hebert's family home.  Commercial quantities of drugs, together with extensive drugs paraphernalia, were found underneath Herbert's bed.  The following amounts of drugs were seized:

1.      48.6 grams of cocaine (made up of one package of 27.1 g with a purity of 45% and 12 wraps each weighing between 1.74 - 1.77 g with an average of 19%) (Count 1).

2.      119 ecstasy tablets (Count 3)

3       Approximately 120 g of cannabis resin (Count 5); and

4.      3 cannabis plants (Count 7).

The total street value of the drugs was £6,020 and the total wholesale value was £4,569.

In interview Hebert made significant admissions regarding his drug use, the drugs seized and his previous drugs dealing activities.

He admitted that he was a heavy user and started selling drugs to fund his own drug habit.

He claimed that he had been looking after the cocaine for another person in return for a financial reward but admitted assisting with the 'cutting' and 'bagging' of those drugs.  He said that he had been allowed to take 2 grams of the cocaine for his own personal use and that he had sol ten 1 gram wraps himself, passing the proceeds to his supplier (Count 2).

Hebert said that he had been dealing ecstasy tablets for approximately 2 years prior to his arrest.  He estimated that he had sold approximately 500 tablets that year (in 2005 - he was arrested in October 2005) (Count 4).

He admitted that he had been dealing in cannabis for 'a few years'.  He said that during the 6 - 12 month period prior to his arrest he had been selling an average of 2 to 3 and a half 9 ounce bars of cannabis a month (Count 6).

Details of Mitigation:

Youth, first time offender, difficult background, capacity for reform, guilty pleas, wrote his own indictment on Counts 2, 4 and 6, co-operative, and remorseful.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total 4 years' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court said that Hebert appeared to have been a street dealer of significant quantities of cannabis and ecstasy.  The court had no doubt that dealing in Class A drugs on this scale by Hebert meant that a non-custodial sentence could not be justified (having regard to the provisions of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994).  The Court identified the appropriate starting pint on the most serious count (Count 1) as being that of 8 and a half years' youth detention and the total starting point on that count (adopting the Valler principles) of 9 and a half years' youth detention.  The Crown's conclusions were granted and Hebert was sentenced to a total of 4 years' youth detention.

M. St. J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Hebert is aged 18 and is to be sentenced for 3 counts of possession of drugs with intent to supply, 3 counts of supplying drugs and 1 count of producing a drug.  The last relates to the growing of cannabis plants.  When his bedroom was searched the police also found a set of scales, plastic bags and cling film and other drug's paraphernalia.  He has been taking illegal drugs from the age of 15 or so,

2.        The defendant made frank admissions that he had been dealing in cannabis and ecstasy tablets over a considerable period and to that extent he wrote his own indictment.  Hebert was a street dealer in fairly significant quantities of Ecstasy and cannabis.

3.        The first question is whether having regard to Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 the Court is satisfied that no sentence other than youth detention is appropriate.  We have no doubt that dealing in drugs, including Class A drugs, on this scale amounts to a totality of offending which is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

4.        We turn to consider therefore the appropriate starting point.  We remind ourselves that the bands set out in the guideline cases should not prevent us from looking at the extent to which the defendant was involved in drug trafficking, which is the acid test.  Applying the guideline cases we think that the Crown Advocate has taken a starting point which is too high having regard to the level of involvement of the defendant.   We think that the appropriate starting point on the most serious count on the indictment, namely count 1, is 8½ years youth detention to which we will add a further year for the offences involving ecstasy and cannabis and we therefore take a starting point of 9½ youth detention.

5.        In mitigation, as we have said, Hebert wrote his own indictment in certain respects, was co-operative with the police at interview and pleaded guilty to the indictment at an early stage.  He is unusually a first offender.  He is aged 18 and has youth on his side.  He has had a difficult start to life and indeed still continues to carry some of those burdens with him.  Counsel suggested to the Court and we accept that Hebert has the capacity for reform.

6.        You have made serious mistakes but we have been impressed by what you have done since your arrest.  You have recognised how drugs can destroy lives, and you have taken steps at the prison to take advantage of the advice and help which is available to you, and recognise that you can reform yourself in the ways which you have set out in your letter.  The Members of the Court have read your letter carefully and have been impressed by all the things that you have said and we hope that you will do all those things.  You are intelligent enough to succeed and to make something of your life and you are young enough to put all this behind you, if you have the will to do so.

7.        We hope when you come out from La Moye you will have the will to keep to all those promises which you have set out in your letter so persuasively to the Court.  With the support of your family and all the professional people who are helping you at La Moye, we are confident that you can do that.

8.        In the meantime, however we must punish you for the offences which you have committed.  Your advocate has realistically accepted that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate are correct and we are accordingly sentencing you on Count 1, to 4 years' youth detention; on Count 2, to 3½ years' youth detention; on Count 3, to 3 years' youth detention; on Count 4, to 3½ years' youth detention; Count 5 and 6 to 3 years' youth detention and Count 7, to 1 month's youth detention, all those sentences to run concurrently, making a total of 4 years youth detention.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, and I have to tell you that when you have served your sentence you may be liable to be supervised by a probation officer or other appropriate officer when you are released from Le Moye.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.