Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC030

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

12^th February 2010

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats Clapham and Kerley.

The Attorney General

-v-

Kevin Philip Patrick Mooney

Gareth Francis Cunningham

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

Kevin Philip Patrick Mooney

First Indictment

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 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled medicine with intent to supply, contrary to Article 44(1) of the Medicine (Jersey) Law 1995 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Obstructing a police officer (Count 3).

Age:  35.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Tuesday 26^th August, 2009, police attended at Money's flat.  The bed was still warm, his false teeth, shoes and watch were next to it.  Noises were heard from flat 116 and police suspected Mooney was inside.  At this point Cunningham arrived with another man who was heard to shout "Kev, Kev" at Mooney's window.  Cunningham said that he had gone to the building as he was concerned about him. 

Inside Mooney's wardrobe were several compressed lumps of herbal cannabis.  The total weight was 957.09g, and analysis showed a Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of 7%, indicating it was "skunk" cannabis, more powerful than typical herbal cannabis, and worth between £7,020 and £9,400.

A key to room 116 was obtained, although the door was barricaded.  As an officer pushed his way past the obstruction he heard the toilet flushing and saw Mooney in the bathroom.  There were tablets remaining in the toilet bowl, and inside a small pedal bin a further 23 pills were found.  All the pills contained BZP.  Analysis concluded that there would have been around 340 tablets, making a total of 363.  BZP resembles and is often sold as Ecstasy, the wholesale value is around £2,904 and the retail value at £3,630. 

When Mooney was interviewed he answered no comment to most questions but stated that the cannabis was not his, and that no-one else had access to his room.  He said his memory of the events of that morning was vague, due to his drinking three shots of vodka and some WKDS while still in bed. 

Fingerprint analysis of the plastic bags containing the cannabis found 28 came from Cunningham.  No prints matched Mooney.  In interview, Cunningham denied knowing anything about the drugs, but when told that his fingerprints had been found on each of the bags holding the cannabis he said that he had been helping Mooney look for them.  Cunningham was in possession of the cannabis for long enough for his fingerprints to be transferred to all three layers of plastic, including the interior of the inner bag. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, remorse, support of girlfriend. 

Previous Convictions:

Only recently been released from prison following conviction for drug trafficking.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 2 years' imprisonment.  18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 1 year's imprisonment.  8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total:  2 years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £102.99.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 2 years' imprisonment.  12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 1 year's imprisonment.  8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order in the sum of £102.99 made.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

Gareth Francis Cunningham

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Mooney above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, making progress at treatment centre.

Previous Convictions:

Dreadful record stretching back 13 years including several for drugs offences.

Conclusions:

Second Indictment

Count 1:

12 month Probation Order with the condition to follow directions of that department and Silkworth Lodge.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Second Indictment

Conclusions granted.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for Mooney.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Cunningham.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Kevin Mooney is to be sentenced for possession of cannabis and a medicinal product called BZP with intent to supply and for obstructing the police in the execution of their duty by barring police entrance to his flat and trying to dispose of the drugs in the meantime.  The cannabis was of the skunk herbal variety with a street value of over £7,000; the BZP had a value of £3,000.  Mooney was to receive a fee of £500 for looking after the drugs but he agreed that he would sell them if he could.  Cunningham had possession of the cannabis for a short period of time. 

2.        Mooney has a bad record and had been released from a long prison sentence for only 2 months when these offences were committed.  They were committed for commercial gain in that he was to receive the fee of £500.  Skunk herbal cannabis is a powerful form of the drug and we agree with the Crown Advocate that the appropriate starting point for this quantity is 2 years' imprisonment. 

3.        Having said that we are going to reduce the conclusions slightly for two reasons.  First we agree with Defence counsel that a guilty plea in the context of this case was valuable and that Mooney is entitled to his full one-third deduction.  Secondly, we think that the sooner Mooney can go to Silkworth Lodge so as to address his alcoholism the better.

4.        Mooney, a lot of people in the probation service and other public services are there to help you.  We hope that you will take advantage of the help that you have been offered and will be offered at Silkworth Lodge because if you do not, the future seems rather melancholy.  We hope that the reduction in the conclusions will encourage you when you get to Silkworth Lodge to do what you need to do to put your life into proper shape. 

5.        We are going to sentence you to on Count 1; 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 8 months' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 3; 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 18 months' imprisonment. 

6.        Cunningham we have read your letter; we hope that you are going to take advantage of everything that is being offered to you at Silkworth Lodge.  You too have a melancholy past and we hope very much that the future will be brighter for you if you keep on the straight and narrow.

7.        We are going to impose a 12 month Probation Service Order subject to the usual conditions that you live and work as directed by the probation officer and be of good behaviour during that time and that you reside at Silkworth Lodge for so long as it is recommended by the probation officer.  

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

Authorities

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.