Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - possession - Class B.

[2012]JRC150A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

17 August 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Alec Green

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

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The police executed a warrant at the defendant's home and, in a basement storage cupboard containing old fishing tackle, found an old pair of wellington boots inside of which there was a plastic bag containing 174 grams of cannabis resin.  On the plastic bag the word "crap" was written in manuscript.  There were also some scales and deal lists present. 

The defendant was arrested and admitted that the cannabis belonged to him.  He said that he had intended to sell it, but that it was of such poor quality that he had been unable to do so.  He said that it dated from several years beforehand.  Furthermore he admitted that the amount seized represented the remainder of a total of 5 kilograms of cannabis resin that he had sold over a period of approximately two years between 2006 and 2009.  He admitted that the deal lists were his, and stated that he had made around £300 profit per kilo during that time.  He said that he started dealing the cannabis when he fell into debt, but that the person who had asked him to sell the drug had disappeared at the time that the quality of the drug became an issue in 2009, and that he himself had stopped dealing at the same time. 

The value of the cannabis resin seized from the boot (Count 2) was approximately £1,000.  The value of the 5 kilograms of cannabis that the defendant admitted selling historically (Count 1) was in the region of £25,000.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; no previous drug convictions; full admissions and cooperation - including the writing of his own Indictment on Count 1.  There was also a delay in the initial charging of the matter.  There was no evidence that the defendant had been involved in the sale of drugs since 2009. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions

Starting point 4 years' imprisonment.

Total: 18 months' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court took into account of all the mitigation and felt able to order a community based sentence. 

Total: 240 hours' Community Service Order. 

Confiscation Order made in the nominal sum of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        On a search of the defendant's parents' home the police found just over 6 ounces of old, dried up cannabis in a boot inside a bag marked "crap" in a basement store cupboard.  The defendant admitted being in possession of it for some time and had originally intended to supply much of it.  However when it became apparent that it was of very poor quality that intention ceased and the Prosecution accept that that is the case.  The police also found potential drug paraphernalia in the same location.  It would seem that the cannabis today would have little commercial value. 

2.        The defendant went on, however, to volunteer that over a period of 2 years, between 2006 and 2009, he had been involved in the supply of approximately 5 kilos of cannabis of which that found in the boot was the remainder.  The person who had been supplying him cannabis for his personal use pressurised him into this activity due to debt that had accumulated.  He supplied friends with small amounts for their personal use. 

3.        The dealer then disappeared following drug dealing problems with associates.  The defendant still owed the dealer some £7,000 and, being unsure of what to do with the cannabis, he decided to conceal it in this way and over time forgot that it was there.  He informed the police that over this 2 year period of dealing he should, in theory, have made a profit of £300 per kilo, namely £1,500. 

4.        The defendant's mobile phone was seized and after analysis there was nothing to indicate he was involved in drug dealing.  His bank account has also been examined and that shows no suspicious activity or questionable transactions.  A drug test showed that the defendant is abstinent from drug taking. 

5.        The defendant has no previous convictions and is assessed at a low risk of reoffending.  The search of his parents' store took place on the 4^th October, 2011, and admissions made that day.  He was not charged however until late March of this year and even then the matter has progressed slowly. 

6.        The defendant left school with GCSE's and following a training programme with Highlands gained employment at a local builder's merchant where he has remained for eighteen years rising to the position of head storeman.  His partner is seven months pregnant with their first child and has mental health problems. 

7.        As this is an offence under Article 5(c) of being knowingly concerned in the supply of drugs, the guidelines set down in Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 do not apply, as made clear in the case of AG-v-Antunes & Ors [2003] JLR 144.  The Crown however see it as appropriate and we agree to have regard to those guidelines which indicate a starting point of between 2-6 years for amounts of Class B drugs between 1-10 kilos.  Having regard to the Court's strict policy in relation to drug offences the Crown seeks a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment in total, there being no exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from that policy. 

8.        We have listened carefully to the plea for mitigation put forward by Ms Fogarty and all of the information before us.  We accept the policy of the Court in relation to drug trafficking, described in this case as "modest commercial supply", but in short we disagree with the Crown that there are no exceptional circumstances here.  In our view there are exceptional circumstances in addition to the defendant's good character and plea of guilty, namely the long delay, for which there can be no justification,in the bringing of these proceedings; the exceptional honesty of the defendant in volunteering his early involvement and in effect, writing his own Indictment and his unusual personal circumstances. 

9.        Accordingly we are going to allow the defendant to pay his debt to society through community service rather than in custody.  Community service is not a soft option and it will place a real burden upon the defendant but from the point of view of our community, it is preferable for the defendant to serve his sentence in that way. 

10.      In relation to Count 1; you will serve 240 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment, and in relation to Count 2; you will serve 50 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.  You will therefore serve a total of 240 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment. 

11.      We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Antunes & Ors [2003] JLR 144.