Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC039

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th February 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

John Steven Allardice

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

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Friday 11 August 2006, Allardice was stopped by two plain clothes Police Officers in Victoria Street.  Allardice was asked whether he had "anything on" him by the officers.  Allardice replied "pills".  When he was asked "how many?" Allardice replied "about a hundred" and took a Kleenex packet from his pocket.  This was found to contain two hundred small white tablets.  The tablets from Allardice's pocket were tested and found to be 100 ecstasy and 100 amphetamine sulphate tablets.  In interview Allardice claimed that he had just bought the 100 ecstasy tablets from a man before the Police arrested him, and that they were for his personal use only.  Allardice claimed that he had intended to buy only the ecstasy, not the amphetamine.  A friend of Allardice's was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs.  She gave a statement saying that she had been supplied between 8 to 12 ecstasies by Allardice on several occasions over the previous months and this tallied with text messages sent between the two.

Allardice gave a basis of plea on Count 1 that he intended to sell between 20 and 30 ecstasy tablets on a commercial basis.  The supply would have been to existing drug users and the proceeds used to fund his own habit.  As to Court 2, Allardice maintained that he intended to return the 100 amphetamine tablets to his dealer because the dealer had given them to him by accident.  As to Count 3, the basis of plea was that he supplied his friend with between 8 and 12 ecstasy tablets in exchange for her cleaning his girlfriend's flat.  

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  No previous convictions.  Many positive letters of recommendation from employers and friends.  Voluntary drug and alcohol testing by Defendant.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total:  4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Court took some time to consider mitigation.

The Court stated that it is usually minded to give a custodial sentence, but this was an exceptional case.  They considered Allardice's difficult background and the attempts he had made since arrest to stop using drugs.

The Court were particularly mindful of the recommendation given by Allardice's employer who said that Allardice had been stupid, but needed help, not punishment.

Total:  240 hours' Community Service Order and Binding over Order for 1 year with a treatment order.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. J. MacRae for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Allardice is 26 years old and he has but one minor offence.  When stopped by police officers in Victoria Street, he admitted having, as he put it, about 100 pills which were contained in a Kleenex packet.  He was arrested.

2.        The Crown and defence have accepted that there were, in fact, 200 tablets and 100 of these were amphetamine.  The rest were the intended ecstasy tablets.  Apparently there had been a mistake by the dealer and Allardice intended to give the 100 amphetamine tablets back to the dealer in due course.

3.        It is on the finding of the R -v- McGuiness [1987] App. Ct. 303 3131 the House of Lords case in England that it is the intended handing back of the drugs to the drug dealer that makes the concept of intent to supply.

4.        We have read with what we can only describe as increasing interest, the detailed letters of recommendation from many people, there were ten of them in all, including Allardice's present employers.

5.        He has also voluntarily submitted to drug tests which have proved, on all occasions, to be negative.  He also consented to weekly counselling while adhering to a very strict bail period. 

6.        According to Mr MacRae, Allardice had paid his rental to date and we assume that he would be able to move back to that accommodation in due course.  He is apparently re-united with his girlfriend.  We have listened with great care to all that was said by both parties and, of course, we have read the Reports.  He is apparently at a low risk of re-offending.

7.        We are going to take a very unusual course, because whilst this Court has to discourage drug dealing at all costs, we feel that this particular matter can be dealt with on an individualised basis.  You are going to serve 240 hours' Community Service on all three counts, with a binding over order for 12 months which will include a drug treatment order that requires mandatory attendance and abstinence from illegal drugs confirmed by both randomised and routine drug testing.

8.        This is not going to be easy but if you fail you must know that 240 hours' Community Service is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

R -v- McGuiness [1987] App. Ct. 303 3131.