Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - possession - being concerned in the supply - Class B.

[2013]JRC036A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

15 February 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Matthew Albert Phillips

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

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

A male was seen acting suspiciously outside an address in Seale Street.  He was kept under observation.  Phillips and three other males arrived a short while later and all five males entered the premises.  Ten minutes later the first male left the premises and was stopped and searched by police officers.  He was found to be in possession of personal quantities of herbal cannabis and cannabis resin.  The police then entered Phillips' address and the four males at the premises were detained.  Phillips was asked whether there was any drugs on the premises and indicated that there was a wooden box under the sofa containing contents of cannabis.  The box was located and was found to contain a total of 9.475g of cannabis resin and 854mg of herbal cannabis.  The cannabis resin had a street value of between £90 and £135 and the herbal cannabis had a street value of between £15 and £20.

A detailed search of the flat and the communal area was undertaken and in a cupboard in the communal courtyard containing the electricity meters a carrier bag was located containing 425.25g of herbal cannabis and 399.76g of cannabis resin.  Both types of cannabis were considered to be a specialist commodity not usually seen in the Jersey drug market.  Herbal cannabis had a value of between £6,375 and £8,500 and the cannabis resin had a street value of between £3,990 and £5,985.  The total street value of the seizure was between £10,365 and £14,485.

In interview Phillips admitted that he was "minding" the commercial quantities of cannabis for somebody who he would not identify.  He provided this individual with the carrier bag in which the cannabis was found.  He also helped himself to approximately 7g of cannabis which he had supplied to other persons (Count 1).

He had also taken some for his own personal use (Count 2).  He had expected the cannabis to be only at his flat for a relatively short period of time and in addition to helping himself to some cannabis, he also expected to receive a financial payment. 

The Crown submitted that Count 4 was the most serious offence and whilst offences under Article 5(c) were not generally susceptible to the application of the sentencing guidelines, it was the Crown's case that the guidelines were of assistance.  Phillips obviously knew the supplier, was trusted by him to look after a commercial quantity of cannabis, to help himself and also to expect a financial payment.  The Crown took as a "starting point" for Count 4 a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas and some pleas entered on a second appearance before the Magistrate's Court.  Co-operative in interview and made admissions particularly in relation to Count 1.  No credit for youth and not of good character but no previous drug offences.  Not previously received a custodial sentence. 

The Defence

Limited role emphasised and only looking after cannabis for a short period of time.  He was surprised at the quantities.  He wrote Indictment in relation to Count 1.  Guilty pleas were valuable.  He made admissions.  No previous drug convictions.  Still a relatively young man.  He spent time on remand.  Upon release has stopped using cannabis, has employment and supportive family.  Non-custodial recommendations as contained in background reports stated to be the best option for rehabilitation. 

Previous Convictions:

Six convictions for eight offences including breaking and entry, being carried in a motor vehicle/TADA and breaches of previous Probation and Community Service Orders. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 2 years' imprisonment.

Total: 12 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order in the sums of £790 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant aged 24 was to be sentenced for serious offences of the possession and supply of and being concerned with the supply of cannabis.  The amount involved in Count 4 was 825g.  Clearly Phillips knew the supplier.  He had provided him with a carrier bag and a safe house for the drugs.  He had been provided with some drugs for free and also had an expectation of a financial reward as well.  Phillips took a risk and the fact that he might have been surprised at the quantity of cannabis involved was not to his benefit.  The Court also disagreed with Defence counsel that he had played a limited role.  Minders provide a valuable role which enable drug dealers to supply drugs reducing chances of enforcement officers catching drug dealers.  Phillips should recognise the seriousness of his offending.  The role played by Phillips was very similar to a drug trafficking offence and the Court saw no reason why it should not apply the Campbell guidelines.  This was however subject to the fact that the total quantity was less than the minimum Campbell guideline.  The Court therefore needed to consider whether the Campbell starting point should apply.  It was a very close judgement call as to whether Phillips received a custodial sentence or not. 

The Court was not going to impose a custodial sentence on this occasion but its usual approach would have been to have done so.  The Court had taken into account his difficult youth, 5 years since his last conviction, 2 months spent in custody, no previous drugs and the fact that the drugs test had all been clean.  The Court also had regard to the matters contained within the reports.  He was going to be given a chance.  Phillips was given a clear warning as to the consequences were he to breach the orders to be imposed or to re-offend.  He was being given a chance and he should take it. 

The Court also ordered the defendant to complete an 18 month Probation Order and a 12 month Treatment Order.  Any breaches to the Treatment Order would be referred back to the Court. 

Total: 180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, together with an 18 month Probation Order and a 12 month Treatment Order.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £790 made.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are aged 24 and are before this Court for some serious offences.  You are to be sentenced for supplying a controlled drug, for possession of a controlled drug, and the more serious offence of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug to another.  In each case the drug was cannabis.  The amount of the drugs in question was 825 grams in relation to Count 4.  You clearly knew the supplier, although it is unclear how far up the chain of supply that person was.  You provided a drawstring bag in which the drugs were to be kept and you provided a safe house where they were to be kept.  You had some drugs for free and there was an expectation that you would be financially rewarded. 

2.        Your counsel describes this as being a limited role.  It is said that you did not know what the quantity of drugs was going to be but that is absolutely not to your benefit at all.  You take the risk, if you agree to perform the role that you did, and the Court does not regard this as a limited role.  Minders, cloakroom attendants, call them what you will, perform a valuable role in the drug-trafficking trade.  They enable the dealers to operate with a lower degree of risk and by their relatively low dealing exposure, the minders reduce the chances of law enforcement agencies seizing the drugs and catching the dealers and therefore there is an increased risk of the drugs going out into the public domain. 

3.        You should recognise the seriousness of these offences and, for our part, we treat this as being very similar to what would be described in Campbell and Ors-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 as a drug trafficking offence.  In principle there is no reason why, on the facts that we are dealing with here, the Campbell guidelines should not apply, subject to this, of course, that the total involved is less than the Campbell quantity and is therefore putting us in the territory where the Court needs to consider carefully whether it is appropriate to impose a custodial sentence. 

4.        It has been a very close judgement call for the Court but in this case we are not going to impose a custodial sentence.  I emphasise to you that the usual approach where somebody is being sentenced for being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs of this quantity, would be for a custodial sentence to be imposed.  But we have taken into account, in particular, that despite some difficulties in your youth, you have had some 5 years since the date of the last conviction; we have taken into account the 2 months that you have spent in custody; we have certainly taken into account that you have no previous drugs convictions, and we have taken into account the negative tests since you were granted bail and the very positive remarks in the social enquiry report and in the drug and alcohol report. 

5.        In the circumstances we are going to give you a chance today and we are going to impose an amount of Community Service with a Probation and Treatment Order.  I should say straight away that in relation to the Treatment Order, we would expect any breach of that Order to be brought back before the Court.  That is as much for your benefit as anything else because you must realise how seriously you need to take the offences you have committed and the sanctions which are now being imposed. 

6.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 90 hours' Community Service - the alternative would have been 3 months' imprisonment; on Count 2 you are sentenced to 40 hours' Community Service - the alternative would have been 1 week's imprisonment; and on Count 4 you are sentenced to 180 hours' Community Service, and the alternative would have been 12 months' imprisonment.  The Community Service Orders are to be concurrent and not consecutive, so that makes a total of 180 hours' Community Service.  I warn you that if you do not perform the Community Service you are liable to be brought back to this Court and liable then to have a custodial sentence imposed in lieu.  In addition to Community Service you are placed on Probation for a period of 18 months and there will be a 12 month Treatment Order and you must therefore follow the directions of the probation officer during that period. 

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

Authorities

Campbell and Ors-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Bartley and Ors [2004] JRC 037.

AG-v-Whelan and Byrne [2005] JRC 045.