Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC235

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

4^th December 2009

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache.,Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Bullen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Wilson Mills

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

1 count of:	Obstructing a Police Officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to Article 19(7)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978  (Count 1).
4 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 8).
1 count of:	Production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 9).

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The accused rented a property in St Martin.  Following a minor road traffic infraction he was routinely stopped by two police officers.  He was noticed to be acting very nervously and was not fully coherent.  An officer noted a spoon on the dashboard of his van with a brown substance on it.  The officer took it.  The accused was informed he was being detained for the purposes of a search.  He reached out of the window of the van and grabbed back the spoon.  He turned away inside the vehicle and grabbed a piece of paper or cloth and appeared frantically to rub the spoon.  A struggle ensued with both officers resulting in one officer deploying CS spray.  The accused was removed from the vehicle but refused to answer questions (Count 1). 

During a cursory search of the accused's person an officer recovered a metal container containing 31 mg of cannabis (Count 3). 

The accused's van was removed to Police Headquarters where it was searched.  Officers recovered a teaspoon, three bank slips and a lighter, all of which had brown staining comprising purified cannabis (sometimes known as cannabis oil) (Count 4). 

Following his arrest an initial search of the accused's home was conducted during the early hours of the morning.  Several items of interest were found and the premises secured.  Later that afternoon a police search team was deployed to search the premises.  During the search officers recovered a total of 46 cannabis plants (Counts 8 and 9).  Expert police evidence estimated the total potential yield of the crop (including both flowering tops and vegetative material) at 3.99 kilos.  Of this the potential yield of the desirable flowering tops was put at between 1.993 kilos and 2.55 kilos (street value of between £19,930 and £25,500).  Also recovered was hydroponic equipment with an estimated total purchase price in the region of £1,500.  In addition officers seized a container from the fridge containing 2.89g of psilocybin (magic mushrooms) (Count 5) and a small metal pan containing dark greenish-brown sticky material weighing 171mg comprising cannabis oil (Count 6). 

During interview the accused initially answered no comment.  He later said the suspected deal list related to money owed in connection with a computer business run from his home.  The accused consistently denied he was a drug dealer and said he smoked cannabis a lot and also ate it.  He confirmed the cannabis and hydroponic equipment recovered from his home was his.  The accused said he used only the buds from the plants and threw the rest away.  He said cannabis had taken over his life.  He could invite no-one to his home and had lost his family and friends.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.

Previous Convictions:

Record containing convictions for driving and dishonesty related offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 9.
Count 3:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	2 years' imprisonment.

Total:  2 years and 3 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and hydroponic equipment sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The accused came before the Court in relation to various drug offences but, in particular, in relation to an offence of growing cannabis.  In AG-v-Louis and others [2008] JRC 032 the Court said "Growing cannabis plants requires a quite deliberate and continuing intention to break the law and it is a serious offence for the reason alone".  In Louis (supra) the plants had a street value in the region of £10,000.

In the instant case it was accepted the accused would have used half the cannabis himself and would have supplied the remainder to others.  This was therefore a drug trafficking case.  Drug trafficking was very serious.  The Court had taken into account the very good references provided and proceeded on the basis of full credit for the guilty pleas and previous good character. 

Were the Court to have imposed a custodial sentence on Counts 8 and 9 the appropriate sentence would have been one of 18 months' imprisonment.  However, the Court considered an alternative possibility existed, namely, a Community Service Order.  The Court had also taken into account the fact the accused had spent 8 months on remand.

Accordingly, the Court would impose 160 hours' community service on Counts 8 and 9.  The Community Service Orders to be imposed in relation to the counts would follow the usual scale - in each case the sentence would be concurrent.

Insofar as Count 1 was concerned, an offence of obstructing the police would normally not only attract a custodial sentence but also a consecutive one. 

However, in light of totality the Court would make the Community Service Order imposed in relation to Count 1 concurrent.

The overall sentence was 160 hours' community service.  The Court wished to make it clear that if there were a breach the accused would be returned to Court and, under normal circumstances, a custodial sentence would follow. 

Count 1:	90 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent to Count 8.
Count 3:	40 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent to Count 8.
Count 4:	40 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent to Count 8.
Count 5:	40 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent to count 8.
Count 6:	40 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent to Count 8.
Count 8:	160 hours' Community Service Order.
Count 9:	160 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent to Count 8.

Total:  160 hours' Community Service Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs and hydroponic equipment ordered.

A. J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are before the Court in relation to various drug offences and in particular, offences relating to the growing of cannabis plants and as has been said by the Court on a previous occasion, and quoting from the case of AG-v-Louis and others [2008] JRC 032:-

"Growing cannabis plants requires a quite deliberate and continuing intention to break the law and it is a serious offence for that reason alone". 

In the Louis case it was clear that the plants, had they grown to maturity, would have produced a significant quantity of strong cannabis with a street value of not less than £10,000. 

2.        In your case the Court has proceeded on the basis that 50% of these cannabis plants would have been for personal use and that the remaining 50%, and I did not understand from your counsel that this was in dispute, would have been available for others and therefore would amount in terms to drug trafficking on your part and, as the Court has reiterated many time previously, drug trafficking is a very serious offence.

3.        We have taken into account the references which you have passed up through your counsel which are very good references and we have also proceeded upon the basis that you deserve full credit for the guilty plea which has been entered. 

4.        We have also treated you as being of good character and taking those matters into account, the Court thinks that the right sentence in respect of Counts 8 and 9 would have been, if it had been a custodial prison sentence, a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment and on the remaining Counts the sentences as moved for by the Crown.  However, the Court considers that an alternative to custody is possible and we intend to impose a Community Service Order in place of a custodial sentence. 

5.        The Court has taken into account the fact that you have served 8 months in custody on remand and for that reason the Court will now order you to perform 160 hours' community service.  That sentence is imposed on Counts 8 and 9.  As to the remaining counts, the Community Service Orders will be imposed in accordance with the community service equivalent to the Crown's conclusions for a custodial sentence, in each case will run concurrently. 

6.        I wish to say something about Count 1 which is that normally the count for obstructing the police in the execution of their duty would not only result in a custodial sentence, but also would be a consecutive sentence to the sentence on the other counts which are completely different.  Nonetheless, the Court is applying the totality principle and is therefore going to look at the matter in the round and the sentence of community service in relation to Count 1 is therefore a concurrent sentence with the other sentences, so the total Community Service Order that is being imposed is 160 hours' community service. 

7.        I would like to make it absolutely clear to you that if there is any breach of the Community Service Order then you are liable to be brought back to the Court and sentenced for all these offences afresh.  The Court does not expect that to happen.  We are impressed by the references and by the recommendation in the background reports but you should be well aware that if there is any lapse in that respect then you will be liable to be brought back to Court and the normal circumstance there would be that the Court would look very closely indeed at imposing the custodial sentences which otherwise would have been imposed today.

8.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the hydroponic equipment.

Authorities

AG-v-Louis and others [2008] JRC 032.

Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Hansen and Karczewski [2007] JRC 055.

AG-v-Bisson [2009] JRC 151.

AG-v-Jeffrey 1996/002.