Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - production - possession - supply - Class A and B.

[2012]JRC004

Royal Court

(Samedi)

5 January 2012

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and Marett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

-v-

Benjamin Read

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

1 count of:	Production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of utensils for the purpose of committing an offence, contrary to Article 10 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 5).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 6).

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Friday 20^th May, 2011, police officers, acting under a drugs warrant, forced entry to the home address of Read at La Rue a Don, Grouville. 

Inside the flat the police found a sophisticated cannabis production facility consisting of two grow-tents, special lighting and air filtration systems, humidity monitors and organic plant feed set up in the bedroom.  The bathroom contained a bag of organic compost and a "potting up" station.  Eight mature cannabis plants were found in the larger of the two grow-tents.  The smaller grow-tent contained twenty two seedlings and eight cannabis cuttings that were being propagated. 

There was no bed in the flat, some kitchen appliances appeared to be missing and the lounge was full of vehicle parts.  In general the flat had the appearance of being seldom occupied and predominantly used for growing cannabis and storage. 

Read was arrested and immediately admitted growing the cannabis for his own use and that of his girlfriend who lived in the same apartment block.  He predominantly stayed with his girlfriend at her address. 

The police later arrested her and a search of her home found 59.96 grams of herbal cannabis, 6.762 grams of cannabis resin and three tablets of MDMA (ecstasy). 

In interview Read admitted having deliberately set out to produce cannabis; he conducted research on the internet and in books before purchasing the necessary equipment and seeds and he then constructed the production facility.  Read admitted that the drugs found in his girlfriend's flat belonged to him and that he had supplied the cannabis to her for their joint use.  Read stated that the three tablets of MDMA had been given to him by a friend. 

Read stated that his motive in producing and supplying cannabis was to assist with chronic pain suffered by himself and his girlfriend due to various ailments. 

At the time of committing the offences Read was unemployed and receiving benefits that included paying for the rental of the flat where the drugs were produced.  Read was also receiving long term incapacity benefit of 35% due to various medical conditions.  (Letters detailing Read's medical conditions were provided to the Court). 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; full third credit granted; co-operation with the police; no relevant convictions and therefore treated as being of previous good character. 

The defendant stated that he used cannabis to alleviate chronic pain.  The Crown's contention was that no allowance should be given to the defendant for this, were the Court to do so then it would be effectively condoning the actions of Read in producing, using and supplying illegal drugs to others in order to self medicate. 

The Crown viewed the fact that Read stayed predominantly with his girlfriend whilst using benefit monies to pay the monthly rental on his flat where he produced the cannabis, as an aggravating factor. 

Previous Convictions:

Historic convictions for taking and driving away a motor vehicle; no driving licence and no insurance.  No history of drug offending. 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs and equipment sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court viewed offences of production off illegal drugs as having the same gravitas as trafficking and importation.  The Court viewed this case as being sophisticated and clinically operated. 

The Court took a starting point of 2½ years' imprisonment and gave allowance for the guilty plea, the offence of supplying cannabis was viewed as social supply; the defendant had co-operated with the police and was of previous good character. 

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  15 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs and equipment ordered. 

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

Advocate D. A. Corbel for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The Court has found this to be a sad case.  You are a man of 30 years old of substantially good character and you are here before us for sentence on a number of drug offences which are serious drug offences.  Production of cannabis is a trafficking offence and treated like an importation.  It is a serious crime and what we have here is an operation that was carefully planned and clinically operated. 

2.        I should tell you that the Court has found the Crown's concession that this was a social supply to be surprising.  It is not obvious that production on this scale would be only available for supply to your partner as quasi-medical treatment.  But the Crown has accepted that and we are sentencing you on that basis. 

3.        We have taken into account that you have pleaded guilty; that the Crown has accepted that this is a social supply which I emphasise is being treated in the sense that it is a supply to your partner for quasi-medical reasons; that you have cooperated with police; that you are of substantially good character, and we have read carefully the references which you have put before the Court.  But at the end of the day we feel that a custodial sentence is inevitable.  The authorities charge us to look at a starting point of up to 2-6 years' imprisonment depending on the amount of the production which might have been possible; we have taken a starting point of 2½ years' imprisonment and we have given credit for the various items of mitigation which I have mentioned.  In the circumstances we think that the right sentence on the production charge is 15 months' imprisonment. 

4.        I would like to add something in relation to the utensils charge which your counsel has criticised on the basis that the utensils charge is inevitable where there is a charge of production or cultivation.  In the Court's view that is not necessarily the case; if one looks at the record in the future it will show that the scale of cultivation was rather more sophisticated than simply growing one or two cannabis plants in the vegetable patch outside.  This was a planned, clinical operation.  All the sentences on the other counts of the Indictment are going to run concurrently and we therefore are going to follow what the Crown suggests, other than the reduction on Count 1. 

5.        On Count 1; 15 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 3; 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 5; 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 6; 1 month's imprisonment and they will all run concurrently, making a total of 15 months' imprisonment. 

6.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and all the utensils and equipment. 

Authorities

AG-v-Jeffrey 1996/2.

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-MacKenzie [2011] JRC 173A.

AG-v-Hansen [2007] JRC 055.

AG-v-Bisson [2009] JRC 151.

AG-v-Williamson [2011] JRC 232.

AG-v-Mills [2009] JRC 235.